The World's End (2013)

4/5

The World's End is a delightful finale to a delightful pseudo-trilogy about friendship, aliens, and the end of the world. The movie starts with Simon Pegg reuniting with his high school buddies (Nick Frost, Martin Freeman, Paddy Considine, Eddie Marsan) on a quest to relive his adolescent dream of drinking a pint of beer at each of the 12 pubs in his bucolic hometown. A few pubs in, they discover that the town has been taken over by aliens masquerading as good-natured townsfolk.

The movie is just as outrageous as Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz, with exciting fight scenes, well-written dialogue, and rapid-fire British jokes. But two-thirds of the way through you realize that the filmmakers deceived you: it will not end as predictably or simplistically as you might have thought or hoped. It will stretch the limits of your expectations and your imagination in a way that will put a smile on your face and a twinkle in your eye. The World's End is a smart movie, sharp-witted with lots of insight and inside jokes that will keep you glued to your seat, but there is nothing formula about it. If you prefer the winding path of uncertainty to the well-trodden one of genre filmmaking, then The World's End goes highly recommended by me.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1213663/

Star Trek: Into Darkness (2013)

4/5

Star Trek: Into Darkness is a phenomenally thrilling summer blockbuster and not much more. This time, the intrepid crew of the USS Enterprise finds themselves thrust unwittingly into the midst of a budding intergalactic war that could end with Earth's destruction. The villain is a genetically-engineered super-human (Cumberbatch) who has nothing but vengeance on his mind. Taking place a short time after the first one, the characters have not grown or matured at all since we last saw them. They are as familiar and simplistic as they were previously, with flat personalities and predictable motivations.

But the movie is better than its predecessor thanks to a more engaging story and more exciting action. The plot is nothing to write home about, but it propels the characters forward with nigh unstoppable velocity. The cinematography is fraught with the same ubiquitous lens flares that plagued the previous film. The real surprise--for me, at least--is Cumberbatch. He is charming but devious, cunning but friendly, repulsive but inviting. He makes the movie stand out, and I can't wait to see him in more stuff (Sherlock is next on my long list of TV shows to watch).

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1408101/

The Adventures of Tintin (2011)

4/5

Steven Spielberg's The Adventures of Tintin is a rousing adventure film in the same vein as Indiana Jones, but even more playful and fun. It follows the titular character Tintin (Bell) and his dog Snowy as they investigate clues on a transcontinental journey involving pirates and shipwrecks and hidden treasure. The plotline itself is not particularly groundbreaking or inventive, but it serves the movie well and pushes the story forward at a rapid pace. What really makes this movie such a treasure to watch is its charming characters. Their innocent naivete combined with their clever puzzle-solving and thirst for answers give them unending sympathy no matter what mistakes they make. I can see why the comics were so popular.

The motion capture is a little bit of a double-edged sword. It places the film's characters directly in the uncanny valley, which may put off a lot of viewers. However, it enables Spielberg to take the chase and action scenes to stunning new heights, to truly thrill and excite. It delights and rewards those able to suspend their disbelief. And delighted I was. Just thinking about this movie puts a smile on my face. It was a pleasure to watch and I highly recommend it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0983193/

Paul (2011)

3/5

Paul is the sci-fi version of Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz. Like the other two, it was written by its leads Simon Pegg and Nick Frost, and is filled to the brim with references to all the best films of the genre that came before it. But unlike the other two, it felt like they were trying too hard to recapture their past success and just ended up beating a dead horse. The spoof/parody/homage formula they created was intriguing in Shaun of the Dead, perfected in Hot Fuzz, and has now become washed up in Paul. (Or maybe I'm just not as big a sci-fi fan as I am an action fan.)

There are jokes aplenty in this movie and I laughed more than my fair share for a comedy, but for some reason the film just didn't engage me. The character of Paul had too much Seth Rogen in him, the road trip adventure felt bland and unexciting, and for whatever reason I never found myself caring about what was happening. The movie is fine as far as entertainment goes, but I expect better from them. If it seems like I'm harsh on the movie, it's because I know those two can do better. And I hope they do on their next project.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1092026/

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol (2011)

3/5

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol is standard summer blockbuster fare that, like Sherlock Holmes, came out 5 months too late. The plot follows IMF Agent Ethan Hunt (Cruise) on a mission to stop a madman (Nyqvist) from starting a nuclear war. It's a movie trope we're all too familiar with, and the only thing this particular movie brings to the table is lots and lots of exciting action (and little else). It's not so much that there are plot holes, it's more that the filmmakers just didn't care about the plot. Nor did they care about the acting, as Paula Patton is clearly just a pretty face and nothing more.

Ah, but the action. The stunts on the Burj Khalifa are truly breathtaking and the chase through the sandstorm is inventive and thrilling. The climax in the motorized parking garage is truly edge-of-your-seat entertainment. But unfortunately that's about it. If you're the type of person who enjoys this kind of action and doesn't mind the nonsensical, unbelievable plot, then you will clearly enjoy it. If you were excited by the enormous number of positive reviews and thought this movie might be somehow different from every other action movie you've seen before, start rethinking. This is nothing more than a simple action movie, but at least it's a decent one at that.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1229238/

Star Trek (2009)

3/5

Star Trek is a very entertaining and enjoyable movie. And it was exactly what I expected, without any surprises to elevate it past the status of summer blockbuster. It's right where GI Joe, Terminator, and Transformers are gonna be when they come out. It's action-packed enough to excite the masses looking for a quick thrill ride, it's funny enough to defuse tension and keep people laughing, and it's got enough quotes from the original to appease superficial fans of the series. Now, I'm not a huge fan myself (I rated the original movie 2/5), but I can see how hardcore followers might be upset by the liberties the writers took with the series. But whatever. It's a glossy, slick reinvention of Star Trek that has the potential to bring some new fans and their wallets into theater seats. Now, to vent:

JJ Abrams uses too many lens flares. They're in pretty much every shot, even--bafflingly--dark environments. Lens flares are the worst. Also, he seems to love three-dimensional fonts, going so far as to re-use the sucky one from his less-than-stellar series Fringe. Three-dimensional fonts are the worst. Worst worst worst. Worst.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0796366/

Hot Fuzz (2007)

4.9/5

Hot Fuzz is the first movie I saw in theaters after Grindhouse where I felt like I got my money's worth, and then some. (It was also the first movie I saw in theaters after Grindhouse, not counting Cannes.) From start to finish, there was never a dull or boring moment. The dialogue was witty and peppered with multiple references to I don't even know how many movies, many of them classics (2 that I caught and remember from Chinatown, 1 from The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, and at least 3 from The Departed). Every single time I recognized one of them, I smiled so wide I almost couldn't focus on the rest of the dialogue (partly because they race through it, as is typical of British humor). The story didn't rely on these homages, though; it had a life and soul of its own (and plot, as much as any action movie can have a plot of its own these days). The music and action was extremely well done; I didn't realize such a funny movie could also be so tense. The cinematography and editing were also excellent, even ignoring the homages and considering the camerawork and cutting on their own merits. The acting was also quite good. And the best part about this movie is the replay value. I can watch this many more times (and very much want to right now) and catch a ton of different things each time. It's layered not unlike an onion, and that is a sure reason I will come back to it time and time again.

As always with any British movie, sometimes their accents made it difficult to hear them and therefore get some of the jokes and plot points. Being a comedy-spoof-action movie, it doesn't have much staying power or meaning. When it does try to go for that dramatic message, however, the entire movie slows down a bit too much and it isn't very convincing. I do admire that they're trying though, but I don't know how well it fits. The character list is massive and mostly forgettable, with some characters clearly being superfluous--I don't know why that many people were in this movie at all. It is at times shockingly and extravagantly gory, like Shaun of the Dead, but it was less expected in this movie. Overall though, these are pretty small and fictitious negatives about the movie, so I strongly recommend you go out and see this as soon as you are able.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0425112/

Shaun of the Dead (2004)

4/5

I found Shaun of the Dead to be a very entertaining movie. I laughed more than I thought I would and I was on the edge of my seat more than I thought I would be. (To be honest, I had no idea what to expect.) It is a British movie, and as such has British humor, which I like. I think the reason that this movie was so successful is because it's so inventive. It is like almost no other movie I have seen. Yes, it tries to incorporate more genres than it can handle, but I don't think the point was to be a romantic comedy and a zombie horror movie and a spoof, but to mix those into a wholly new genre. It's able to create a world that is believable in the same way that fantasy worlds can be believable. The characters just fit in the worlds so well.

It is a surprisingly well-produced film, with excellent cinematography and editing. The music was also quite good. I think a lot of the humor fell a bit flat though--there's nothing worse in a comedy than a joke nobody laughs at. The story was surprisingly engrossing, the characters very fleshed out, and the tension palpable. There were emotional parts that hit harder than in a drama because I wasn't expecting them. Overall, though, it's hard to recommend. I think it requires a specific audience to enjoy. If you only like romantic comedies or you only like zombie horror movies or you only like spoofs, you might not like this movie. But if you're open to trying out creative new movies, then you might want to check this one out.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0365748/