Brian's Review - Scott Pilgrim vs. the World

This movie will instantly level up your life.

Released: 2010
Genre(s): Action, Comedy, Fantasy

Graphic novel adaptations tend to be gritty, fierce, and giant showcases of Hollywood special effects-driven masculinity. And that's fine - we, as a society, totally dig seeing people getting all punchy, kicky, and shooty on each other onscreen. But normally the best parts of graphic novels are the character interactions - the tiny, quirky, incredibly-human exchanges people have with each other - and oftentimes these are completely neglected during the transition to film. So, when a movie like "Scott Pilgrim vs. the World" is created in a world almost solely comprised of guts and glory, it's bound to turn a lot of heads. My head included.

Those familiar with the Scott Pilgrim series of graphic novels by Bryan Lee O'Malley were doubtful that this flick would be able to convey the same type of dreamy, carefree, semi-melancholy flavor fans know and love the original books for, but as someone who's read these literary treats, I have to say that the writers and director got the recipe pretty much perfect. Blending indie romantic comedy-style sensibilities with O'Malley's signature video game/martial arts movie-inspired mayhem, plus tossing in a dash of young adult angst for good measure, makes for one hell of a trip.

"Scott Pilgrim vs. the World" crashes around the screen like a go-kart equipped with a Hemi, ricocheting back and forth between the young adult love story and balls-to-the-wall action so rapidly that the two merge into a surprisingly compatible combination. It's simultaneously witty, side-splittingly funny, engaging, uplifting, exciting, groan-inducingly corny, romantic, bizarre, and thought-provoking. All of its insane effects aside, there's something in this film that unquestioningly resonates with all of us who've been through it, are going through it, or are preparing to go through it: the message of "Wow, young adult life really is super-confusing and difficult. What do I do?" It's done slightly tongue-in-cheek, but is nevertheless genuine enough to not feel completely cheeseball. I always find myself a little bit more pensive (and a lot more amused) after watching Scott undergo his epic journey of love, fame, and pop-culture references.

For readers of the graphic novels who are still skeptical, trust me when I say that this flick is packed to the gills with fan service, whether it be direct quotes and situations from the books, or subtle nods to O'Malley's wickedly-clever social commentaries. It's not the type of movie that will appeal to everyone - if you hate indie comedies, martial arts romps, video games, or comic book culture, you're probably going to find something you hate in "Scott Pilgrim vs. the World." But for those who want a taste of something different - something with an unbelievable amount of heart and surprising amount of relatability - that boldly makes unconventional attempts to stay fresh and funny, this is definitely worth trying out.

Rating (out of 5): 4.5

Brian's Review - The Amazing Spider-Man

Not quite amazing, but very damn good.

Released: 2012
Genre(s): Action, Adventure, Fantasy

Who was it that asked for a reboot of Sam Raimi's "Spider-Man" film trilogy, especially when it just ended a few years ago? Nobody. Not a person with an interest in movies should have given a damn about "The Amazing Spider-Man," when Raimi's blockbuster entries had just so recently sputtered into mediocrity in the eyes of both critics and fans alike. Fortunately, some people did give a damn, most notably of all director Marc Webb, who clearly has a passion for both the Spider-Man franchise and for his craft as a filmmaker. Webb's work on "(500) Days of Summer" piqued my interest in this flick, and I have to say that Webb's high-flying revamp of Spider-Man transformed me from jaded comic movie fan into a full-blown supporter of the new iteration. Despite studios beating us over the heads with superhero origin stories recently, "The Amazing Spider-Man" feels fresher than most. Maybe it's the believable performance of leading man Andrew Garfield as he fumbles around with his new powers, evolving over the course of the film instead of suddenly and immediately becoming an invincible master of his talents; there is indeed something very human about watching him learn from his mistakes. Or maybe it's how this movie pays homage to the comic and cartoon series' (specifically the one from the '90s) comedic wit, giving us a more familiar, smart-alecky titular character than past attempts have given us. Maybe it's just the genuine portrayal of a teenager falling in love for the first time, with Garfield and romantic interest Emma Stone adding a healthy dose of awkward, bashful relationship-based angst to the mix. Instead of bashing us in the face repeatedly with some contrived ideal regarding the importance of "responsibility" and "doing good," this film lets its protagonist discover his own brand of justice; the result is something that's more sincerely heartfelt than most other superhero adventures. It's still a little cheesy, but hey, it's a freaking comic book movie - kitsch is as much of a part of this universe as evil villains wearing giant fishbowls on their heads and malicious, shape-shifting alien parasites. The biggest glaring issue "The Amazing Spider-Man" falls to is the inconsistency of its special effects: despite getting glammed-up by the Hollywood treatment, the film's CGI waxes and wanes from sleek and stylish action sequences to Windows 98-generated goofiness. It's a small crack in this movie's rather impressive visual exoskeleton, but one that is majorly detrimental to some of the fight scenes and larger set pieces. Still, it doesn't take away too much from what this film is all about: incredibly digestible entertainment value. This is the Spider-Man adventure Stan Lee certainly wants us to see, and the one we as audiences have been waiting for. "The Amazing Spider-Man" serves up exactly what every summer moviegoer seeks: a film that combines the best parts of the franchise's campy melodrama, honest ideals, and web-slinging fun. And when all is said and done, the effort proves to be not just satisfying, but absolutely heroic.

Rating (out of 5): 4

Brian's Review - Midnight in Paris

You'll want to spend much longer than midnight here.

Released: 2011
Genre(s): Comedy, Romance, Fantasy

What is it about the past that draws us back into the art, music, and literature of days gone by, causing us to devalue the present? Were those events of yesteryear really grander, bolder, and more beautiful than today's societies, or have the history books morphed them into more elaborate moments of appealing majesty? These are the questions that Woody Allen's "Midnight in Paris" asks and consequently allows us to answer, albeit with a little biased help. Beyond questioning the dangers of melancholy, reminiscent obsession, the beauty of this film is that it ironically and intentionally does pay homage to literature's great writers through its whimsically nostalgic style and sensibilities. The characters are placed into one of two wonderful camps: comically-oblivious and close-minded, or enthusiastically-buoyant with sentimental awe; Owen Wilson in particular does a great job of embodying the amiable protagonist of this whimsical adventure of self-discovery, tackling his role with all the earnest gusto of a naive schoolboy. The cinematography is brilliant and Paris in both the daytime and the moonlight is as alluring and enchanting as the premise of this movie. Most importantly, it never takes itself too seriously, riding a wave of droll charm all the way from its onset to its finale. There are moments where "Midnight in Paris" drags its feet a little, aimlessly meandering through its plethora of romantic ideals, but in the end we're given a beautifully-crafted film that's just as smart as it is sincere.

Rating (out of 5): 4

Brian's Review - The Lost Boys

Captain Hook never would've messed with these Lost Boys.

Released: 1987
Genre(s): Comedy, Horror, Fantasy

The '80s: oversized leather jackets, big sunglasses, and even bigger hair. Oh, and vampires, according to 1987's "The Lost Boys," a wild horror-comedy that does an incredibly effective job of being just as thrilling as it is outrageously funny, even two and a half decades after its inception. The cast is comprised of a veritable who's who of the era's teen stars, expertly conveying this film's goofball undertones by portraying panicked, high-strung adolescents. The tongue-in-cheek humor here is made all the more apparent by some enjoyably gruesome action, as the young protagonists battle a vicious vampire gang with weapons so appropriate for a group of comic book-reading, overly-imaginative teens that they practically shoot out silliness. The movie does a great job of not taking itself too seriously, but simultaneously slips in some delightfully disturbing and twisted mythology, and the atmosphere is never too far off from chilling. The normal corniness of the '80s is prevalent throughout this dark and delicious telling of small town vampire lore served Americana, but the execution and pacing of "The Lost Boys" keeps things interesting, while the laughs are all intentional, rather than an unfortunate byproduct of the generation's cheesier sensibilities. While I'd be lying if I claimed that the film has much (if any) substance, I can advocate for the fact that it's not a necessity for a movie like this: "The Lost Boys" is made for those who like cheap cinematic buffets, serving up horror, comedy, and just plain fun in satisfying portions; it never tries to be more than it needs to be. If you're getting sick of angsty, brooding, sparkling vampires, and prefer your creatures of the night to be loud, raucous, and rocking a pair of Ray-Bans, throw on this old-school laugh-and-thrill fest and enjoy a piece of the '80s that wasn't (quite as) awkward.

Rating (out of 5): 4

Brian's Review - Green Lantern

The light from this lantern is disappointingly dim.

Released: 2011
Genre(s): Action, Adventure, Fantasy

It's officially been a Hollywood fad for some time now: superhero movies are cash cows and they saturate the market more heavily than butter in a Paula Deen recipe. I can't deny their appeal and have to admit that as far as fun, action blockbusters go, I'm consistently excited when I see a new entry being advertised. While not my favorite DC superhero by any stretch of the (very nerdy) imagination, Green Lantern is still an icon of vast importance in the comic book world, so my hopes for this film were high (or as high as they can get for a superhero movie). Plus, Christopher Nolan did manage to exceed all my expectations with his reboot of the Batman film franchise, winning some major points for DC's corner. Perhaps I set myself up for disappointment, but "Green Lantern" ended up being especially mediocre for a movie with such a rich mythology to base itself upon. Although "Green Lantern" attempts to mimic the technique that other recent superhero origin films have utilized to update themselves into pertinence, it does so rather unsuccessfully, lacking any true originality or creativity; the writing feels sloppy, rushed, and drab. Characters who traditionally play pivotal roles in DC lore are briskly introduced without any explanation or true background, and are then quickly killed off or diminished in an equally unceremonious fashion, serving essentially only as filler pieces. The dialogue comes across as dry, shallow, and witless, with even the snarky charm of Ryan Reynolds barely having any impact on a cast of characters incapable of spewing out anything but prefabricated cardboard. Geoffrey Rush even lends his vocal talents to the movie, doing the best he can with a patchwork script seemingly written by a team of middle school geeks, but his efforts barely make a difference, due to a very minuscule role. There are some enjoyable action sequences here, and some pretty decent effects, although the entire experience drips with such an overbearing amount of cheese that many of the fight scenes are dissatisfying and underwhelming. With an unfortunately anticlimactic and just plain unexciting plot, shallow dialogue, and an unintentionally corny atmosphere pervading throughout, the only things holding this film together are some entertaining digital effects, pulse-pounding set pieces, and a deep mythos to fall back on; without these aspects, this would be another highly-avoidable movie, but with them it's at least tolerable enough to watch from start to finish. If you're a comic book fan, you might be down to strap on some green, glowing tights and fly into outer space alongside "Green Lantern," but everyone else will probably want to wait for a different hero to take up the mantle of justice.

Rating (out of 5): 2.5

Brian's Review - Immortals

Immortally awful.

Released: 2011
Genre(s): Action, Adventure, Fantasy

If there's one movie that epitomizes the continually growing rift between thoughtful storytelling and overdone special effects in Hollywood, it's "Immortals" - this is a film that does nothing but unrelentingly shove CGI effects down the audience's throat in the desperate hope that no one will notice the movie's insane plethora of horrendous shortcomings. While I have nothing against special effects in general (in fact, I'm an avid fan of the effects-heavy "300," which shares some of the same producers as "Immortals"), using them simply as a means to distract viewers from a paper-thin plot, complete lack of character development, and undeniably mundane dialogue is nothing more than a cheap and crude movie-making tactic. Despite the fact that the story here supposedly uses Greek mythology as a loose source material, the script for this film feels like an elementary school creative writing project. Ironically, despite being childishly simplistic, the plot somehow manages to careen about clumsily, becoming confusingly stupid and nonsensical in its execution. The characters that are thrown into this disaster of a scenario are essentially cardboard cutouts: nobody has any real motive, nonchalantly and almost brainlessly going along for this underwhelming ride. "Immortals" attempts to sell the idea of an ultra-violent, gritty action-adventure in the spirit of "300," but fails both as an action film - with most scenes coming off as laughably-cheesy and cartoony - and as an adventure movie, being so boring that any episode of "Blue's Clues" feels far more epic and grand in scale. Director Tarsem Singh is renowned for his prowess at creating wildly-popular music videos and commercials - however, this skill apparently has translated a little too perfectly to the genesis of "Immortals," as I was only able to find about four minutes (or the length of a pop song) of enjoyable content throughout its entire duration. Top it all off with some of the dumbest fantasy costumes I've ever seen in movie history (unfortunately reminiscent of Lady Gaga's wardrobe), and you've got an obvious contender for 2011's worst film. Special effects without substance does not a movie make. Avoid this film like a cup of expired Greek yogurt.

Rating (out of 5): 1.5

Brian's Review - The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor

Tomb of "The Mummy" series.

Released: 2008
Genre(s): Action, Adventure, Fantasy

The first two entries in "The Mummy" series are some of the most fun and exciting action-adventures ever crafted. Brendan Fraser romps through "The Mummy" and "The Mummy Returns" with an unreserved gusto and unbridled goofiness, enhancing the witty writing and explosive action sequences. Seven years after the the second film charmed and excited audiences, "The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor" randomly lurched into theaters in a half-assed attempt to squeeze a few more dollars out of a long-dead franchise. Despite the exciting addition of martial arts phenom Jet Li, the action in this third iteration feels cheapened by an excessive amount of special effects; and while the first two movies enjoyed their fair share of great effects work, the addition of computer-generated stunts and sequences in "The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor" doesn't augment the live-action scenes, but rather almost completely drowns them out. This is unfortunate, because the movie is more or less just one giant action scene, so audiences should be prepared to see plenty of CGI mumm-...well, everything. Ironically, the only reason this film wins any points at all is due to how great said special effects look. Beyond that, there's really not much else here: charming dialogue, engrossing plot elements, and any semblance of character development have all been shoved aside, with the vague hope that "The Mummy" name has enough pertinence to cause people to overlook such gigantic issues. Unfortunately, even Brendan Fraser seems to have lost interest in this series, with his normally endearing quips being replaced by a deadpan vacancy that makes even his undead foes seem very much alive. I'd only recommend this one if you're a die-hard fan of these movies, who absolutely must finish the series. Even then, if you ever have to admit to watching this, you might want to tell people you were at gunpoint.

Rating (out of 5): 1.5

Brian's Review - The Mummy Returns

Why do people keep waking up this guy?

Released: 2001
Genre(s): Action, Adventure, Fantasy

"The Mummy Returns" plunges audiences right back into the same type of wild, over-the-top, action-adventure romp established in the first movie of the series. The action here is a little more brutal than in the original, with hand-to-hand battle sequences showcasing some very fun fight choreography. While the story feels familiar in many respects, it still manages to unfold in a manner that keeps things fresh and entertaining. Unfortunately, emphasizing this action-heavy formula reduces the amount of time the film spends on genuinely developing the colorful cast of characters. True, the movie mimics its prequel in style as a tongue-in-cheek, one-liner-fueled quip fest - including a charming and playful chemistry between Brendan Fraser and Rachel Weisz - but the main focus of "The Mummy Returns" is action, serving as a showcase for special effects and fierce thrills. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but those who felt the (somewhat corny) humor in the first movie really made it shine might be a bit disappointed. Regardless, the second movie in this action-adventure series clearly proves that it's worthy to stand tall next to its predecessor.

Rating (out of 5): 3

Brian's Review - The Mummy (1999)

This movie was resurrected with fun in mind.

Released: 1999
Genre(s): Action, Adventure, Fantasy

"The Mummy" is a remake very loosely based off of the 1932 film of the same name - sure, it's got an evil mummy trying to resurrect his dead lover and...well, that's about it. This movie plays out more like an Indiana Jones-style adventure movie than a classic horror, relying on sharp quips, brazen characters, and plenty of over-the-top action. While not deep, profound, or thought-provoking in the least, "The Mummy" manages to careen wildly from set piece to set piece in a manner that keeps things incredibly intense and, more importantly, fun. Brendan Fraser keeps things witty and primarily tongue-in-cheek - even when things get a little dark and twisted, there's still a comical, almost charming undertone holding the whole thing together. It might not be anything to write home about, but "The Mummy" manages to prevail as the exact type of movie it advertises itself as: a fierce, action-adventure romp through Egypt that knows how to serve up as many thrills as it does laughs.

Rating (out of 5): 3