Edge of Tomorrow (2014): An Entertaining Time Manipulating Mess

This article won't be our typical movie review. Why Edge of Tomorrow is an entertaining movie you can read in a lot of reviews all over the Internet so let's concentrate on the question why the film is a mess. This will hardly happen without any spoilers though so be prepared to encounter them.

Edge of Tomorrow is a science fiction film about an alien race trying to conquer the Earth. The aliens are called Mimics, which actually does not matter for our purposes. The alien race (or organism) consists of three different species: first, countless "disposable" ordinary soldiers, which are easily allowed to die; second, much more rare and valuable "Alpha" Mimics used as scouts to improve the alien race's cumulative knowledge; and third, a unique Omega Mimic, which is the brain of the hive and stores the accumulated knowledge. Whenever an Alpha is killed, the Mimics possess the ability to reset time and use the gathered knowledge to improve their performance in the next time iteration. During his first actual battle, TV star Major William Cage (Tom Cruise) is killed by an Alpha Mimic but since he is covered in Alpha's blood in the very moment of his death, he inherits the ability to reset time and accumulate knowledge. Subsequently he tries to use this ability to destroy the Omega and in the process, he is helped by Sergeant Rita Vrataski (Emily Blunt) who used to have the same time resetting power in the past.

As mentioned above the movie and the story are actually entertaining but also the same interesting time-loop concept is where the problems with the movie begin. There is not a single good-enough explanation how the whole time resetting thing works. If we take, for example, the "Cage" case introducing this concept to the movie, it's not clear who resets time - whether it's Cage or the aliens being it either the killed Alpha or the Omega. If the aliens are the reason for those resets, they should accumulate knowledge as well as Cage and improve themselves. If Cage is the one triggering the resets then it still makes sense to assume the Omega preserves knowledge as well otherwise it would be quite strange to think the Omega would know anything about Cage at all in order to send visions to him. So, we can safely assume that the alien race retains its ability to accumulate knowledge and improves in parallel with Cage during the time resets related to Cage. And now the questions begin.

First, is it plausible enough to think Cage will improve "better" than the aliens in order to accept the filmmakers' idea he will be able to defeat the aliens this way? Isn't it more likely that the aliens will be superior in this process since they've been doing it for a long time? It does not make sense to expect from a beginner to beat the professionals in their game. If we somehow accept it, the next question pops up. After Cage dies and wakes the previous morning, why wouldn't the aliens just kill another Alpha and reset the time to an even earlier point thus preventing Cage from access to their essential time-resetting power? Both of these questions leaved unanswered should probably lead us to the conclusion that the alien race is actually quite stupid.

But here comes the last question in this vein. If we somehow accept the above "stupidity", wouldn't the aliens be at least so smart to have always an Alpha ready to be sacrificed at the slightest possible danger for the Omega. Why would they risk the life of the Omega at all if they have the ability to reset time by killing an Alpha? Cage says to his crew just before the attack against the Omega near the end of the movie that it is very important to avoid killing an Alpha exactly for the same reason. And simultaneously we are forced to believed the aliens would not do such a killing themselves in order to save their hive mind. I'm sorry but independently of how much I'm trying to suspend my disbelief I would not buy that last one.

There are also other discrepancies in the movie like, for example, how it happens that nobody recognizes the famous face of Major William Cage from the TV. Since these issues are not related to the time manipulating concept we can omit them for the purpose of this article. And to bring it to an end, Edge of Tomorrow is enjoyable and the movie has its merits but if you try to think about the concept the film and its plot are based on, you'll end up in a great confusion.

Brave (2012): Not Up to Former Pixar's Classics

After their heavy domination in the realm of animation, Pixar finally lost the lead last year. The 2012 Academy Award for Best Animated Feature went to Rango and if Pixar rely on Brave to win another Oscar or at least to restore their image, I don't think they will succeed. Brave is neither very good nor brave. It's a decent movie but it leaves more a taste of mediocrity when you know it's made by Pixar.

Brave is about young Princess Merida whose least desirable wish is to be a princess. She's good in archery and horse riding. She does not like to wear tight good-looking dresses. And she does not want to marry somebody her mother or a competition chooses. Merida's rebelliousness is about to start a war in her father's kingdom. So when she incidentally meets a witch she does not hesitate to ask for sorcery in order to change her life and her mother. But the magic does not work the way Merida expects so now she has to act fast and break the spell or its unpleasant effect will remain permanent.

The story is nothing original. A child opposes her parents' will and some complications appear, eventually helping them to resolve the issues. The theme is recycled many times and the main feature of Brave is it's animated. But the story itself is not told in a very interesting way. The plot is kept alive by some illogical actions (who needs to bring a bear in a castle while simultaneously trying to hide it just to take a tapestry from a wall). There are references to ancient events that are pretty much redundant. And Merida has a father who is probably supposed to be a funny character but he's actually acting just plain stupid and is completely uninterested in his family doings. Well, it's not that his daughter is acting smarter most of the time but Ok, she's still a child and it is an animated movie after all.

The visuals are well crafted yet this is naturally expected when Pixar are involved. Some of the landscapes in Brave look almost like real ones. Of course, water scenes are not among these and people are not even supposed to look authentic. The mandatory songs for an animated feature are not omitted. And they as well as everything else sound Scottish, which could be good or bad, or even distracting depending on your preference.

Unfortunately, Pixar are not "brave" this time and they do not take any risks with Brave. This furthers the movie's mediocrity. Brave has a standard story and everything happens the way you would expect from a Disney film. Indeed, it shouldn't be an obstacle for everybody and especially kids will probably find the movie and its characters entertaining. As for recapturing older audience, I think Pixar have to work harder. It seems they are running out of fresh ideas but if they want to be hugely successful again producing just gorgeous animations won't be enough. We need more than a simplistic story and a witty dialogue to begin praising their movies anew.

The Amazing Spider-Man (2012): An Unexpectedly Good Reboot

Movies about comic book heroes proved to be very popular in the last decade. Franchises were even rebooted in order to be exploited again and again. After the recent enormous success of The Avengers now comes the time of The Amazing Spider-Man. It will be unrealistic to expect that this movie is going to repeat The Avengers' success, neither that it will perform as well as it is anticipated from the upcoming The Dark Knight Rises. But the latest Spidey film is a good one and actually it is way better than 2007's Spider-Man 3 so the newest comic book reboot on the big screen deserves a few words.

In The Amazing Spider-Man, Peter Parker (this time played by Andrew Garfield) is expectedly bitten by a spider and subsequently turns into a superhuman who becomes famous as Spider-Man. Up to then, Parker is a shy guy who is not among the coolest boys in his school and secretly loves Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone). Gwen is assistant to Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans) who appears to have worked with Peter Parker's dad in the past on projects trying to enhance human abilities and resistance. After a hasty experiment Dr. Connors mutates into a powerful reptile-like creature known as The Lizard. Now Parker has the task to save himself, his love and the city from the menacing doctor.

What is good about this movie is that it has abandoned some of the annoying treatments in the previous versions of the Spider-Man franchise. For example (eventual spoilers ahead), now, we are not constantly tormented why Peter has to hide his superhero self from the girl he loves (Mary Jane in the past) cause it is not long before he elegantly uncovers his secret side in front of Gwen. He makes a promise later that he will stay away from her in the future but again his human side reveals he probably won't obey the pledge. I find this kind of behavior preferable compared to the excessive dramatization of the former three Spider-Man movies with Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst. This time the story is touching without being overly melodramatic.

Another good difference is that Gwen has a bigger part in the events that happen than being just a love interest like Mary Jane. The special effects are also good and the script is decent for a movie based on comics. I've read various complaints against the script and/or the director but I think the direction is satisfactory too. Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone and Rhys Ifans fit very well the roles they play. Sally Field and Martin Sheen skilfully perform the supporting characters of Peter's aunt and uncle. The same is valid for Denis Leary as Gwen's dad Captain Stacy.

There are some weak spots (e.g., Dr. Connors "evil" motivation is a bit underdeveloped, his relationship with Peter Parker's father is somehow not fully disclosed) but as a whole the story is interesting enough to keep your attention and there are not distracting or boring parts. What I find to be distracting and unnecessary though is the use of 3D in the movie but apparently the 3D technology is something we have to bear more and more often in the films that are coming.

Whether a reboot of the series has been needed is disputable but at least the new film has brought some changes (especially concerning the main female character) that are welcome. So if you are in the right mood for comic book movies the new Spidey is a good choice. I'll even take the liberty to say that without being exceptional in anything, The Amazing Spider-Man is at least a better film than the box-office smash The Avengers.

Prometheus (2012): A Film Lost in Its Own Obscurity

Ridley Scott's Prometheus have many prerequisites to become a big success. It has a great director. It sports a capable cast. The movie has a cult relative in the face of Alien. It impresses with spectacular well-crafted visuals. The story has a good premise. The narrative is full of surprises and twists. The film has an own (alienated) atmosphere. There is a huge ground for lots of curious discoveries to be expected. Yet, the movie fails to take advantage of all these privileges. What could have turned into another classic movie is doomed by a weak script, plenty of ambiguity and unnecessary (sometimes ridiculous) events and characters.

Prometheus is set in the not so distant future (something not believable on its own having in mind the modest progress of the humanity in regard to space travels in the last decades). A group of scientists discovers clues related to the creation of the mankind, which lead them to a distant planet. They expect to find answers to the important questions about the origins of the humanity. Instead, they find traces of former destruction and an imminent threat for their own existence. The future of the Earth and the human race may also be in danger.

Prometheus is visually stunning. The special effects are very well done and there is not much to be desired in this aspect. As often happens though, 3D is not really needed to make the film better looking. The movie is limited in its location span but this is not an actual problem cause there is still enough space to be explored and discoveries to be made. What limits the film's soaring is that each new secret unveiled to the audience creates a bigger mess instead of answering questions.

Prometheus is not boring and it offers enough unexpected moments but when each event adds to the mystery rather than solving it, the appeal of the movie suffers (at least in the eyes of the broad audience). And I am not talking only about not answering the question of the mankind's origin. Pretty much every other single subplot is lost in obscurity. And what is more bizarre, the lack of distinctness is heavier in the actions of non-human characters. Yes, one can accept all of it by either inventing own versions of the missing pieces of the puzzle or by imagining that everything will be explained in a sequel. But this is not how a self-contained feature film should be done. Even the utterly unnecessary prequels to the original Star Wars trilogy were relatively self-contained and completed on their own.

The acting in Prometheus is generally Ok but there are some strange casting decisions, e.g., Guy Pearce is in an episodic role of a very old man (without any obvious reason for choosing a not-so-old actor). Michael Fassbender as David gives the most memorable performance in a movie that is not supposed to leave enough room for demonstrating great acting. Noomi Rapace and Charlize Theron are fine in their parts (as far as the script allows them). The rest of the cast with the exception of Logan Marshall-Green and Idris Elba who have a bit more of a screen presence is almost forgettable.

The movie raises some associations with Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey, mainly in regard with leaving most of the questions about the humanity unanswered and the way an artificial intelligence character behaves. Similar to Kubrick's movie Prometheus also offers some great visual effects. Of course, for the fans of the Alien franchise has been thought of as well and there is material for them too.

Prometheus has an interesting story in spite of its numerous flaw. It is not boring and holds your attention most of the time. There is enough to justify seeing it. The problem is the film promises more than it actually delivers and the excessive vagueness spoils its completeness. Prometheus feels more like an episode in a series rather than a separate solid movie.

The Avengers (2012): Not So Good but (Un)surprisingly Successful

The Avengers has been the "biggest" thing in the cinema lately. It made a billion dollars in no time and it continued to be a box office success after that. It broke several box office records. It is in the top 50 movies in IMDb's Top 250 chart (based on user ratings). It dwarfed every other (3D) film released in the weeks after its initial appearance. And it is still very popular. All these suggest The Avengers should be a great motion picture. But is it actually so good in reality?

If you've seen some of the previous Marvel's creations (like Thor or Captain America: The First Avenger) you've probably already had an idea about the story you could expect from The Avengers. The expelled from Asgard Loki threatens the existence of the Earth and the only force that could stop him and his army is a team assembled from super humans and called "The Avengers". The team includes Iron Man, Captain America, The Incredible Hulk, Thor, Black Widow and Hawkeye: a dream for every comic fan.

The existence of several comics born superheroes is the main advantage of this film. It attracts the fanbase of each of the characters thus greatly increasing the potential audience compared with the single character movies. As we've mentioned before here, Americans are devoted lovers of comic book films but in this particular case the rest of the world help significantly for the enormous box office figures of The Avengers as well by adding a revenue of $800 millions (and probably more later). The question that arises in this regard is if Marvel had joined a few more heroes to the team whether they could top Avatar or at least Titanic in terms of profit.

Most of the principal actors in the movie perform their usual roles in their usual way (especially Robert Downey Jr.) and the most non-repetitive performance comes from Mark Ruffalo who is the new Hulk. Jeremy Renner plays a new character, Hawkeye, which together with Scarlett Johansson's Black Widow is among the not so supernatural part of the crew. Johansson is the almost mandatory feminine addition to the group although I think Cobie Smulders (in the role of Agent Maria Hill) is more attractive in this particular movie.

The story of The Avengers is rather weak. There's nothing interesting in the plot, which is only a device to employ our well-known superheroes. Some of the former films about Iron Man or Hulk were in fact more fascinating. Loki is not a very convincing villain and does not help to improve the movie. And there are enough inexplicable filmmaking decisions as for example, the Hulk's inconsistent ability to be in control of himself.

The use of 3D is also absolutely unnecessary. The movie is post-converted to 3D and does not really benefit from the 3D technology. The only advantage is for the film's producers in the form of higher ticket prices. Speaking of 3D films even the recent Men in Black III and Prometheus that have been far less successful in cinemas actually offer more curious stories and overall appeal despite also not benefiting from 3D and having their own flaws.

This is not to say The Avengers is awful because it is a decent movie. But it's far from the quality one could expect having in mind all the hype surrounding it along with the record-breaking news and huge box office success. And I'm not talking here about the virtues of some universally praised classic films. The Avengers is far even from the quality of not so well established contemporary movies like Avatar and Titanic.

Top Ten Highest Grossing Movies: The Current Trends

In laymen terms, the highest grossing movies are those that have done impeccable business since the time they've been first released on the big screen for the broad audience. Their success is measured by the length of the time period they've been successfully viewed in the cinemas and more importantly by the amount of revenue generated by the films. While mostly a movie's performance is evaluated by how it does business in the theaters, there are certain other streams as well that contribute heavily to the revenue. Some of these other channels include entertainment through home video, rights to broadcasting on television and various merchandising.

We are going to look at ten of the highest grossing movies of all time in the Hollywood cinema while trying to find a recipe for inclusion in the top ten list. You should also note the fact, that all of these movies have grossed over a billion dollars and still earning. For reasons of inappropriate data collection of old films and inflation, only the most recent movies have been taken into consideration. If the revenue of Gone with the Wind is calculated with contemporary prices, it could easily take the top position with a safe earning of more than $3 billion. It has been the most successful film for up to 25 years after its initial release.

While evaluating the top scoring movies of the past fifteen years, the first position is secured by none other than Avatar, an epic science fiction American film; the movie directed, produced and written by James Cameron has done an enormous business of $2.7 billion. Surprisingly enough, following Avatar is again an epic movie created by James Cameron: Titanic. Records show that the film has done the astonishing $1.8 billion.

Moving on to the next spot, the movie taking the third position with $1.33 billion is the franchise film Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows: Part II. The next three movies following suit are Transformers: Dark of the Moon, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King and Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest – all doing business of approximately $1.1 billion and all of them being franchises too.

Animated movies have also managed to pull in a lot of fanatic viewers to the cinema for a long time now. With a dedication to quality and originality of the story, the animated films have done just as well on the box office as movies of serious nature and with live characters. So the seventh highest grossing film is none other than Toy Story 3, which has done $1.06 billion at the box office. The last three movies having a place in the top ten of the world’s highest grossing movies yet are Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, Alice in Wonderland and The Dark Knight, each with a revenue slightly higher than a billion dollars.

By a survey of the records, it becomes evident that the franchise films are the ones, which have performed the best in worldwide cinemas. With the exception of Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland, it seems a film should be either a franchise's episode or a James Cameron movie in order to be on the top ten list. Generally speaking, franchise films are the movies that have been made into series. So to emphasize the power of franchises even further, some of the popular series that have not been mentioned in the countdown above are Star Wars, Spiderman and Superman. And there are numerous animated franchise series too that have reached great heights of fame, like Ice Age, Shrek and the recently re-released in 3D The Lion King.

The latter leads us to another notable trend. Despite all of the criticism (including ours) 3D movies receive, more than the half of the films among the top ten highest grossing movies are actually 3D films. Of course, this could be attributed to the higher prices for viewing movies in 3D but it is a trend worth mentioning and it explains why even blockbusters like Titanic and The Lion King have been recently re-released in 3D.

You are welcome to read our USA vs. Non-USA comparison of highest grossing movies of all time or just continue browsing our Review Maze.

The Adventures of Tintin (2011): A New Challenge for Spielberg

Steven Spielberg's commitment to Tintin probably raised an eyebrow or two. Apparently, he was acquainted with the original comic books by Hergé and became a fan sometime in the early 1980s after some critic compared Raiders of the Lost Ark to Tintin. And he held the rights for a movie adaptation for almost thirty years. The Adventures of Tintin is Spielberg's first animated movie. Interestingly, it is not done be his former company Dreamworks, instead it is made by Weta Digital. The project is in a lot of ways collaboration with Peter Jackson who is also a fan of the original series. On this movie Jackson is credited as a producer, but he will direct the sequel. A third movie co-directed by both Spielberg and Jackson is a possibility.

After seeing the finished product the comparisons with the Indiana Jones movies are easy to justify. The Adventures of Tintin is an old school adventure and, when it works, it is spectacular and channels the spirit of Indy Jones. But Tintin does not quite have the soul of it all the time. One can probably blame the technicalities of CGI for that. The characters are simple, often stereotypical and one-dimensional (much like in an Indy film), and that's a good thing in this case. The movie keeps a fast pace, blending adventure and action but has a tendency to prolong the action parts a little too much. And somewhat absurdly, the end felt both too fast and overstretched at the same time.

All imagery is rendered with realistic materials but, unlike Robert Zemeckis's efforts in this field, uncanny valley is avoided through character stylization which more or less follows the original designs of Herge. Colors and lighting are beautiful. Longtime Spielberg's director of photography Janusz Kaminski served as a lighting consultant on the project, very much like Roger Deakins did on How to Train Your Dragon and Rango, and the film-like quality of the lighting is readily apparent. The actual movement animations leave place for improvement, though. And character stylization in The Adventures of Tintin is too much on the Dreamworks side here and there (which is not a good thing for those who wonder).

The camerawork is vigorous. Apparently Spielberg did a lot of it himself. It seems like he got a new toy - the virtual camera - got swept by its freedom and could not stop playing with it. Sometimes this leads to breathtaking shots but the result is not always positive. The camera is often unrestrained and distracting. This, coupled with the occasional show-off on the rendering side, almost breaks the immersion at times.

The above may sound rather critical, but The Adventures of Tintin is actually a pretty good movie. It is probably the best animated film this year so far, together with Rango. It is good entertainment and has that cozy oldschool Spielberg feeling to it (well, most of the time, at least). Kids will undoubtedly love it. And on top of that, it features some crisp, competent and unobtrusive stereo 3D, as expected from a rendered movie.

Captain America: The First Avenger (2011) - Teaser or More?

Captain America: The First Avenger is the last of the individual avenger movies before Joss Whedon's The Avengers next year. We've already seen Iron Man and Thor get their place under the spotlight. This time we have the all-American hero there. So is this a legitimate movie or just milking the Marvel universe?

Joe Johnston was chosen to direct due to his experience with period movies, having previously made The Rocketeer and October Sky. He brought on board his long time collaborator, cinematographer Shelly Johnson. The movie sports a somewhat distinctive look, based on stylized sets and simple and direct color schemes: heroes' scenes in warm tones, villains' scenes in blue and green. This stylization provides a certain comic book element to the period feeling.

Captain America: The First Avenger plays it safe and doesn't take any risks. This results in some decent entertainment, if not exactly thrilling. The story is generic and somewhat choppy, especially in the motivation department, but nevertheless provides an OK background for the introduction of the captain. Chris Evans is actually nice in the lead role. He already has half a dozen roles in comic book adaptations, which apparently did not stop him from accepting this one. The supporting cast is heavyweight, with Tommy Lee Jones, Hugo Weaving and Stanley Tucci. Hugo Weaving, in the role of the main antagonist Red Skull (only called by his real name, Johann Schmidt, in the movie), takes a particularly comics' inspired approach with his character, utilizing overdone accents and over the top attitude. In fact, all fake German accents are on the heavy side, which you may find entertaining, hilarious or silly, depending on your inclination. As the movie keeps it tight and doesn't take free dives into exposition, some of the supporting roles do feel rushed. This is especially true for the captain's crew: it almost looks like they are building them up for something that is never shown on screen.

Highlights include the digitally shrunk body of captain Rogers before his scientific "treatment" (no body doubles there); a certain demonstration by Stark Industries in the Modern Marvels Pavilion; the "creation of the American hero" montage that shows how the image of Captain America was conceived; and a chase scene through the streets of New York (which, incidentally, was shot in the UK). Last, but not least, there is a treat for the fans after the credits in the form of The Avengers teaser scene.

Similarly to Thor, the movie was post-converted to 3D. The result is smooth and pleasing. Apparently post-conversion to 3D has gone a long way since epic failures in this respect like Clash of the Titans.

In summary, Captain America: The First Avenger is a decent entry into the summer blockbuster ranks. Marvel fans obviously don't need any recommendations but everyone else can also see it in preparation for next year's The Avengers.

To discover other movie reviews go deeper in our Review Maze.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 (2011)

After a decade of success the Harry Potter series has come to a conclusion. It all began as a children's story under Chris Columbus's direction in 2001. The first movie, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone was a box office success but was largely overshadowed by the first chapter of The Lord of the Rings trilogy amongst the older audience. The third movie, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, directed by Alfonso Cuaron, is still probably the best in the series. It was a drastic change in look and feel: darker and tighter, setting the tone for more mature future development. The next installment, under Mike Newell's direction, acknowledged both this fact and the supposed growing older of the fanbase by moving the series into PG-13 ground.

When David Yates, a relatively unknown TV director, was selected to continue the saga many were puzzled and doubtful. But (un)surprisingly, Yates went on directing all four final episodes. While the material he was working with was not always interesting he managed to bring in some fresh air. Yates succeeded in fleshing out Harry's inner turmoil, which was largely uninteresting up to then. At times his episodes got an almost indie drama touch to them, especially when putting the three main characters against the urban London backdrops. This weird (for a multi-million budget blockbuster) indie inclination culminated in the character drama aspirations of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1. Boring happenings storywise aside, this movie could easily be mistaken for a character driven drama, masterfully filmed by Eduardo Serra.

The closing installment in the series, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2, is all about the final confrontation of Harry and Voldemort, the event that the whole series was building towards. It is competently executed fast paced non-stop action with tight script and editing, and in stark contrast with the slow previous episode. Everything is at its best here: the acting of the leads is passable (as opposed to "unbearable" before), the visuals are convincing, the musical score of Alexandre Desplat is the best in the series (and yes, this means better than John Williams's scores for the first three episodes). Unnecessary exposition and overexplanations are shoved aside and the only infodump sequence is beautifully made. The cinematography is great. Eduardo Serra had to fill in the shoes of Bruno Dellbonel (who got an Oscar nomination for filming the sixth episode) and he did exactly that, and then some more: framing is perfect, the camera movement and angles are vigorous, but competent, and the lighting is gorgeous; it conjures some suitably dark atmosphere without the images themselves being unpleasantly dark and making stuff hard to see. And unlike the so-so leads, the seasoned British actors in the supporting roles are all delightfully good.

It is not all flowers and songs, though. Despite a couple of thrilling sequences, battle scenes are not very epic (compared to a certain fantasy trilogy) and may feel small. This is not a fault per se, but is worth noting. There are a few cringeworthy attempts at pathos delivered through pathetic speeches, pun intended. The epilogue closes the cycle and returns the mood back to the first movies which is not entirely convincing. A more contemplative final might have been a better choice cinematically, but apparently fans of the books need to be serviced too.

This final episode is also the first and only of the series with a 3D release. The movie is post-converted to 3D which is usually a bad sign (cashing in on the 3D wave and whatnot). But in this case it is well done and makes the whole 3D experience less taxing. Still, watching this in 3D is not a must so feel free to see it in good old 2D.

In conclusion, this is a very easy movie to recommend (or not): if you haven't seen the previous episodes, there is no reason to go see this one as it is really the last chapter in a series; if you've seen them, you obviously don't need our recommendation to watch this one. The series has certainly been an uneven ride but it is nonetheless an unprecedented undertaking in cinema (and a pop culture phenomenon), and that makes it worth knowing.

For other movie reviews explore our Review Maze.

Transformers: Dark of the Moon - Bigger, Louder, Messier

The new Transformers movie, a.k.a. Transformers 3, a.k.a. Transformers: Dark of the Moon, is everything you would expect from it: loud, colorful, stupid and pathetic. All that presented in glorious 3D. It is a big and relatively long movie with a lot of everything. And by being so exorbitant it transcends its stupidity and turns it into a statement.

The movie's massiveness leaks in every scene. It starts with a totally unnecessary and messy sequence showing the inception and execution of the Apollo flight to the Moon. This sequence mixes documentary shots with staged scenes and serves as an extremely boring introduction. All the more boring considering how it is all told in the trailers already. It really is about time summer blockbusters leave Kennedy docu shots to rest. They were only semi-interesting the first one hundred times. Transformers: Dark of the Moon also has Buzz Aldrin (the second guy on the Moon) playing himself. Ain't that grand?

This intro sequence is quite symptomatic cause randomness is all over the movie. One part due to the laughable script. Scenes and characters consistently lack motivation. Stuff happens for the sake of it. Scene after scene, the Autobots come to save the day (and our heroes) after the forementioned heroes have struggled for 20 minutes of screen time while the Autobots have seemingly been relaxing around in the meantime. Boy, these Autobots certainly have a thing for dramatic entrance. Speaking of the dramatic, Transformers: Dark of the Moon sports an excess of lame pathos.

There is a horde of wacky supporting characters. Apparently Bay liked John Turturro so much from the first two Transformers movies that he now has him and a whole bunch of other weirdos, played by Frances McDormand, John Malkovich, Alan Tudyk and Ken Jeong. Having such actors playing these random wacko roles is so self-indulgent in its pointlessness that it is impressive. It is almost like if Bay was looking for some kind of artistic credibility by casting them. Oh well, we surely don't mind and here go our congrats for their fat paychecks.

Continuing the excessiveness is the large cast of new transformers (mostly Decepticons). There are more of them and they all lack the slightest bit of personality. This is an inherited problem from the first two movies, but worth mentioning anyway. From the Autobots only Optimus and Bumblebee have any distinctive personality. There are, of course, a bunch of smaller transformers which are probably inspired by the more recent George Lucas' works. At least, they can successfully rival his creations in their annoyance.

One thing you can't accuse Bay of is the lack of style. His style may be too obvious, or insultingly straight to the point of being cringe-worthy, but it is still there. It is interesting how his trademark slow motion shots and fast action cuts mix with the 3D environment. Fast cuts and 3D don't mix well in general (the eye needs time to accommodate spatial changes). Bay has slowed down a bit in this department. Action is still fast cut, but not to the point of the previous movies. The filmmakers have also utilized both on-set 3D image capture and post-processed 3D (for the slow motion scenes, of which there are plenty).

Now for the good stuff: hand-to-hand mech combat can't go old (too bad there is not much of it); the new girl is not a worse actress than Megan Fox (which doesn't say much, indeed); depending on your attitude, you may find the wackos mentioned above mildly amusing.

In conclusion, Transformers 3 is a glorious mess. It is a huge and noisy flick that you may find occasionally interesting if you are willing to not grumble over the boring, annoying and insultingly stupid parts (which is most of the movie anyway). It will also keep you informed of the way Hollywood is going to. So, yeah, that's something.

For more reviews of movies explore our Review Maze.

Priest (2011): An Action Sci-Fi Movie You Can Safely Skip

Priest is the second feature of director Scott Charles Stewart and his second collaboration with Paul Bettany after Legion. Priest is a movie that mixes post-apocalyptic sci-fi, western and the vampire genres and it is based on some Korean graphic novel series of the same name.

The premise of Priest is quite straightforward and cliched and is told in an animated intro (apparently the filmmakers were running on a tight budget). There was a war going on between humans and vampires raging for ages. Humans won the war after their super warrior-monks (a.k.a priests) defeated the vampires. At the time of the movie, vampires live in reservations, humans are closed in cities (think Judge Dredd) and governed by the Church. The order of the priests is disbanded and only a few of them have survived. Vampires in this universe are non-human hive creatures, the only feature distinguishing them from any generic stock monsters being the slaves they occasionally keep to feed on their blood.

The cast of Priest features some heavyweight names. We have Paul Bettany (as the priest), Maggie Q, Karl Urban and a small role for Christopher Plummer. A role of the kind that makes you wonder why they would need an actor of that caliber to play it. Oh well, maybe he lost a bet or owed someone a favor. Or he got some large bills to pay. Anyway, Paul Bettany is pretty much the only redeeming feature of this movie as the lean protagonist. Of course, it is not really an achievement of the film and, more specifically, the script. It is just that Paul Bettany is cool as an action hero. And that was the case with Legion too, so no surprise here.

Considering the director's visual effects background one can expect lots of CGI in Priest and this is indeed the case. Creatures and environment designs are not very inspired, though. There is an overall impression of derivativeness. The movie sports a bleached and contrasty look. Not unlike The Book of Eli in that regard. And, incidentally, Priest was shot by the same cinematographer, long time Robert Zemeckis' director of photography Don Burgess.

To give Priest some credit, the short length of the movie leads to some fast paced story development. But this is brought down by predictable narrative, zero character development, some embarassingly cheap drama (admittedly, a little less compared to Legion) and cliched action sequences. Dull and forgettable. The humorless dialogue doesn't help, either. The 3D is another disappointment. Priest is one of these movies shot in 2D and post-converted to 3D and this shows.

To sum it up: you should probably skip Priest, unless you are a fan of the genre(s). And if you decide to see it, go for the 2D version (if available in your area).

Go through the Review Maze to discover more movie reviews.

Thor (2011): Not Just a Teaser but an Entertaining Movie

Thor was supposed to be just a teaser before the release of Marvel's main attraction this year Captain America: The First Avenger and something to help pass the time until Joss Whedon's The Avengers hits the screens in 2012. It turns out Thor is more than that.

Obviously, the main purpose of the movie is to introduce the character of Thor, one of the avengers. And it does quite a good job of that. While the story itself is predictable and cliched, the film is well paced, well acted and well directed by the competent hand of Kenneth Branagh. His Shakespearean expertise comes in handy during the scenes involving the relationships between Odin and his sons Thor and Loki. And while Anthony Hopkins is expected to perform at top level, the real stars of the show here are Chris Hemsworth and Tom Hiddleston, playing Thor and Loki.

Chris Hemsworth is surprisingly good as the flamboyant Thor: charming, confident and audacious. Not exactly Robert Downey Jr.'s Tony Stark level, but somewhere near it nevertheless. He is helped by a restrained script which is not overplaying Thor's ignorance of Earthly matters and customs to the point of silliness, focusing instead on good-natured humour and quickly putting Thor in sync with the place - in a true godlike manner.

Tom Hiddleston as Loki is lean and mean, his calm composure providing a good counterpoint for Hemsworth. Natalie Portman doesn't really have much to do in Thor other than smiling silly and falling for Thor in ten seconds. On the other hand, Stellan Skarsgard is always good to see. Fans of Marvel's series will also be delighted to see a couple of cameos: by another avenger and by Stan Lee, the comic's creator. Not to mention the amount of fan-service spread throughout the movie. And in the unlikely case you haven't heard this yet, there is a scene after Thor's ending credits, so don't rush to the cinema exits.

A high point of the movie is the design of Asgard. It is huge and megalomaniac, but clean and in some ways reminiscent of the game God of War environments. The night scenes set in Asgard are beautiful to behold and deserve a special mention. Bifrost, the bridge between the worlds is also spectacular, albeit conceptually somewhat different than the comic's original and the mythological original of the comic's original (chew that).

On the bottom side, 3D is pointless for this movie. Skip 3D if possible, save a few bucks and watch Thor in 2D. And there is also the mildly annoying issue of the politically correct presentation of the Aesir: neither the comics, nor Norse mythology have black and Asian Aesir in them.

So, to conclude: Thor is an entertaining movie doing more than a fine job filling the gap before Captain America and his shield arrive in July.

Explore our maze of reviews to find out more movie reviews.

Academy Award Nominations 2011: Best Animated Feature Oscar Nominees Criticism, Part II

Follow the link to read the first part of our article Academy Award Nominations 2011: Best Animated Feature Oscar Nominees Criticism, Part I.

In recent years the category for Best Animated Feature has been dominated by Pixar productions. Which is perfectly understandable. Pixar have been at the forefront in the field of 3D animation, both technically and storytelling-wise. And their rivals were constantly lagging behind. Pixar's superiority was just a fact of life. The norm. One of those things that's silly to question. And Toy Story 3 is no exception here. The mature themes and their handling were even acknowledged with an Academy Award nomination for Best Picture. Second in a row for Pixar after Up. And also pretty much cementing Toy Story 3's win in the Best Animated Feature category, but this is another story.

How to Train Your Dragon is undoubtedly the best Dreamworks animation so far. Undoubtedly, it's also a worthy Oscar nominee. As all other Dreamworks productions it is a little bit uneven technically, mostly in the way it handles its realistic environments versus the stylized characters. But one can't help but notice the positive influence of visual consultant Roger Deakins in the way the movie is "shot": the fluid but restrained camera and the live-action-like lighting. In view of the forementioned Pixar excellence this little twist is commendable as an effort for differentiation. The end result is beautiful to behold, with night scenes and interiors being especially gorgeous.

What is the problem then, one might ask?

See, it is pretty obvious: that's the glaring absence of Tangled amongst the Oscar nominees. Tangled might be the most refreshing thing to happen to 3D animation since its advent. With the way it mimics the movements of the classic Disney animated figures. And with the way it boldly shuns away photorealistic rendering (which is Pixar's domain, anyway) in favor of hand-drawn simulation and then enhancing that with established modern techniques like global illumination (overemphasized for a richer look) and subsurface scattering. Tangled is really the missing link between photo-realistic 3D done the Pixar way and Disney from the old days. Surely, it deserves to be amongst 2011 Academy Award nominations for Best Animated Feature. Well, one could probably do with less singing, but, hey, it's Disney...

Now all this should be quite obvious to the Nomination Committee, or at least to a part of it. While Pixar and Dreamworks go evolutionary, Disney have gone radical. One possible reason for the omission of Tangled among the Oscar nominees in this category may be the fact Pixar and Disney are one company now. And with only three slots available the politically correct decision is probably to promote studio diversity in the Academy Award nominations. With the box-office success of Toy Story 3 and its apparent appeal (as pointed to by the Best Picture nod) favoring it over Tangled is understandable. Another possible explanation is philosophical and concerns the very foundations of the Best Animated Feature category and how the submissions for Oscar nominees are judged: Toy Story 3 and How to Train Your Dragon could just happen to be better films. But then again, this is not the Best Picture category, this is the category for Animated Features.

So maybe just bad luck for Tangled then. In a better year with five Oscar nominees the movie would most certainly get an Academy Award nomination. Yet, this is not a consolation or whatnot. The point is, the Academy has once again taken a wrong step. Unsurprisingly.

Read our opinion about 2011 Oscar winners. You might also find interesting to read about people who got multiple Oscar nominations but never received the Academy Award. If you like animated films, you may check our Top 5 3D Blu-ray movies article, where naturally you'll find some animations listed. Or just browse the Review Maze for more reviews.

3D Blu-ray Movies: Top 5 Essentials List

In the end of 2010 and the beginning of 2011 Blu-ray 3D is getting up to speed. 3D HDTV's manufacturers are fighting for exclusive releases in order to convert more customers their way. Studios obviously have nothing against the piles of money thrown at them. Sony teamed with Disney and got exclusivity deals for Alice in Wonderland and Bolt. Samsung partnered with Dreamworks and got the Shrek series, How to Train Your Dragon and Monsters vs. Aliens, with Megamind on the way. But Panasonic did top them by securing exclusivity for Avatar 3D Blu-ray.

Obviously fans are the big losers in this contest. If you want to get a particular movie and it happens to be exclusive for a manufacturer competing with the brand of your 3D equipment, then you are pretty much forced to wait for the exclusivity period to end and the movie to get free distribution.

Anyway, here is a list of the Top 5 essential 3D Blu-ray movies so far.

Avatar

Avatar is what started the 3D craze in the movie industry. Not that 3D wasn't here before that. Zemeckis, for one, was pushing it for years. But James Cameron showed everyone that there is some huge profit to be made on that field. A year later, Avatar is still the benchmark in 3D and the definitive Blu-ray 3D show-off film. The one to get if you want to impress. Striking visuals, deep colors, consistent video quality, possibly the most meticulously perfect transfer of a 3D movie on BD for the time being.

This is surely a must have for all 3D adopters. The catch is in Panasonic's exclusivity deal. Avatar 3D Blu-ray is only sold in a Panasonic bundle. If you happen to own a Panasonic 3D display by all means you should get that bundle. It includes a pair of 3D active shutter glasses and Avatar Blu-ray 3D disc. And if you already own a couple of glasses, a pair more should be a good addition, especially if you want to treat your guests with some 3D experience. If you have a 3D HDTV from another brand you are probably better off waiting for the exclusivity to end, wherever that may be. Unless, of course, you are a die hard fan and willing to spend some extra cash. If that is the case, for your information: Avatar 3D Blu-ray disc itself will work with any Blu-ray 3D set.

A Christmas Carol

The last film (for now) of long time 3D proponent Robert Zemeckis might as well be the most clever in terms of 3D utilization of all the movies on the list. This is a movie doing 3D the way it should be done and not just to blend with the trend. For that matter, one may say A Christmas Carol predates the trend considering it was released before Avatar. This is an easy and wholehearted recommendation: a very good transfer and possibly the smartest 3D imagery created for now.

Also included in the 4-disc pack is the 2D version (unlike most 3D Blu-ray movies, this one cannot be played in 2D), a DVD version and another DVD with extras.

Coraline

Based on Neil Gaiman's children's book, Coraline is not really a children's movie. It is also something of an oddity here as it is a stop motion animation, an approach uncommon in this age of CGI. And, somewhat surprisingly (or, then again, maybe not, considering stop motion is actually more-'real' than any photorealistic rendered imagery), this style translates to 3D in a breath-taking manner. A delightful movie, a gorgeous and imaginative 3D world and a beautiful transfer to Blu-ray 3D. Lets thank the gods of bluray for setting this former Panasonic exclusive free for everyone to enjoy.

Despicable Me

An obvious tendency to list animated films is forming here and this is easy to explain. Rendering a perfect 3D image is much easier than capturing one in live action. 3D animated films are at the top when quality is judged.

Despicable Me is the children pleaser in the list and probably the only one of the 3D Blu-ray movies here falling in this category. Adults may find it goofy but kids appear to think it is hysterical. Great colors, detailed image, minimal ghosting and other artifacts. Do your kids a favor and get them to see this.

Resident Evil: Afterlife

The latest installment in the Resident Evil series is not really what one would call a good film. It has some redeeming features though. It is shot in 3D unlike some other movies (*cough*, Clash of the Titans *cough*), which are being post-converted just to make them able to join the gold rush. It also does offer some decent over the top action and a good amount of fan service. Although the movie is shot with the latest incarnation of the tech used in Avatar, it doesn't really reach, let alone surpass, Avatar's heights. The 3D is mostly straightforward and betting on visceral effects: stuff coming out of the screen and the like. The image is detailed and crisp, and colors are good.

Honorable mentions

And three honorable mentions (yes, animations again) that have not found a proper place in our Top 5 list of 3D Blu-ray movies:

Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs

How to Train Your Dragon

Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole

If instead of a hardware player, you prefer to use your PC for BD playback you'll need 3D Blu-ray player software.

Search for other movie reviews in the Review Maze.

Tron Legacy (2010): Go See the Latest Tron Movie

In a nutshell, TRON: Legacy has a laughable script. Go see the spectacle!

TRON is a legend. Although some people considered it boring upon its initial release and it did not make miracles at the box-office, the TRON movie created concepts some of which were later explored in movies like The Matrix, Dark City or The 13th Floor. It spawned and prophesied viewpoints and space presentations later replicated in real-time 3D engines. And pioneering CGI into movie production is a remarkable feat. But the original TRON movie provides for visuals so outdated, they are almost painful to watch nowadays. That is the downside of trying something new out but TRON compensated for it with an inspired vision and imaginative design.

Enters TRON: Legacy - a rumored 300 million dollar sequel. Naturally, a comparison entails:

• Tron was innovative. Legacy is dull.
• Tron was playful. Legacy is serious.
• Tron was wonderfully internally consistent. Legacy is disjointed in its pseudo-sophistication and superficial philosophy.
• Tron emphasized adventure. Legacy goes to pathos.
• Tron thrived on geekiness, (then) rising videogame and computer slang. Legacy is restrained and even kind of awkward about its heritage.

In addition, TRON: Legacy has a cringeworthy script, an eyebrow raising macguffin in the form of the isomorph(s), and subpar acting...

At last, here come the reasons why you should go see it at a movie theater:

• The elegant and minimalistic designs presented in TRON, subject themselves to 3D in a remarkable fashion.
• Legacy follows the aforementioned TRON designs quite faithfully.
• This is probably the first movie since Avatar with 3D visuals done right.
• Obi-Dude Lebowski. "You are messing with my Zen thing, man!"
• Music is fantastic. Let's thank the god of film soundtracks for the lack of the ever-popular Zimmer-like crap.
• Michael Sheen's character. Cyberpunkish worlds never do without an extravagantly crazy character. It is one cliche that should be perpetuated. Amen.

So, if you haven't seen this movie yet, do not miss it cause although it's not the most intelligent piece of cinema out there, TRON: Legacy is a feast for your senses.

Discover more movie reviews in our Review Maze.