Review of Reviews

AMAZING, MARVELOUS, STUPENDOUS, COLOSSUS, TREMENDOUS, GIGANTIC, ASTOUNDING, UNBELIEVABLE, SPECTACULAR, PHENOMENAL..... and it's good, too.

Dir. Edgar Wright's third installation to the Cornetto Trilogy, The Worlds End is undoubtedly one of the funniest comedies to ever hit theaters. The characters are enjoyable (again), the setting is great (again), the effects are cheap but stylish (again) and the jokes are too many to count (again). I'm actually at a loss of words, I wish had more than a paragraph to write it. If you have not seen this film. . . NAY if you have not seen any of the Cornetto films: drop what you're doing and watch them.

I have read two reviews, a positive one from the New Yorker and the other from the Newark Star Ledger. I must put my bias away and look at both of these reviews equally. Lets see how the enjoyed or hated "THE WORLDS END"

I'll begin with the negative review from the 'Newark Star Ledger'. The review isn't that lengthy, in fact I really couldn't find any negative reviews that were. The critic here isn't trying to make this review a poetic look into how we perceive movies or comedies, he keeps it a slow pace and makes it easy to follow. This critic seems to be not a fan of the comedic stylings of co-writer/lead Simon Pegg, who has been the protagonist in the other Cornetto films. The critic finds Peggs performance as annoying and childish as his last performance. Which is strange seeing as how Peggs last performance was as an action hero cop. The reviewer liked to focus on how nothing was a surprise and that it was very dull and predictable and tries to compare it to other disaster movies that came out around the same time such as This is the End. However he does still appreciate the work put in by Edgar Wright and acknowledges his geek/fanboy background. Overall the review is harmless and not very deep. It just seems to be that this critic wasn't as huge of geek for this movie.

Now for the positive review from the 'New Yorker'. This review is longer which is no surprise for a positive review. He immediately opens up by letting us realize he's a clear fan of the first 2 Edgar Wright films and he enjoys this one just as much. This critic tends to use a lot more more references for his review which gives it a much more child-like/bubbly feel. Although while this review seems more childlike exciting, he still uses metaphors that you don't hear everyday. The critic takes time to point why this story about adults going through a mid-life crisis is funnier than when someone like Adam Sandler does it in Grown Ups 2. Like all movies, the Critic does take the time to bring up some downhill moments or flaws that every movie has but like the movie says, "Thats what makes it normal." All in all this is a compelling review that brings out the fun of the movie

"If you have watched and rewatched “Shaun of the Dead” and “Hot Fuzz,” poring over them as if they were medieval manuscripts, you will know what to expect—or, at least, to hope for—from 'The World’s End'". That was a quote from the 'New Yorker' review. You can't truly appreciate this quote unless you've seen these movies. The reason I enjoyed it so much because It is 100% accurate. I will watch these movies over and over again because there so much entertainment value in it that it's extremely hard not to enjoy. I'm glad that critic is able to relate to the audience which makes it a lot more easier to connect to the review. Wright understands the pleasure of a good fantasy film. A few of his touches — like the open-mouthed horror with which the robots greet humans — are nice lifts from other films. 'This was from the 'Newark Star Ledger'. I'm glad that even when fans are not satisfied by the film they still admit that Wright is creative mind that makes worlds just filled with whimsy and wonder.

Now If I had never seen this movie I would definitely go with the review from the 'New Yorker'. The negative review doesn't go into much detail. Also review doesn't go into "whiny" territory but it just seems to me like a kid who wasn't happy with his McDonald's meal. As well, it's very short, so the point comes across almost radically and it's hard to grab onto what he's trying to get across. The NYT review gets more into if and makes references to the film which feels more engaging. I realize that a positive review would naturally make those references but I have seen negative reviews do it as well in the hopes of teasing the film. I felt the negative review didn't have to be more intellectual sounding but it should've elaborated more. Furthermore the negative review didn't even seem to think it was an awful film, he just thought it was a meh film. The NYT review seemed like a kid the day after Christmas talking about his favorite toy he got and it's just so much fun to see that little kid enjoy his new toy. 

Now I'm very new at writing movie reviews and i might be very bad at it. No one has told me yet about how good I am at transferring my thoughts to word. Hopefully this class will assist me in getting better at it. Now when I do write reviews I usually focus on my favorite part of the movie which is usually the characters but it can be other things.  I love analyzing character emotions motives, actions and sometimes look (depending on what kind of movie it is).I will try my best to cover all grounds: story, setting, cinematography and all that jazz. Now one could argue that unless you mention all those factors, it could be considered an unfair review. Now I would have to disagree with that because I believe you should critique whatever impacted you the most: like if the characters were written great or, heck, if they were written terribly. Whatever makes this movie memorable to is what you discuss and share with audience because it is, after all, your  opinion

MYST#1: Star Trek: Into Darkness

Beam yourself up into 132 minutes of action, adventure, mystery and a crap-ton of lens flares in this sequel to the highly praised reboot of the 1960s Television Series.

Now I never watched the original TV series or any of its movies and now after seeing both these flicks I'm still not interested. Luckily, thanks to J.J. Abrams, you don't need to have any knowledge of the original series to get invested with either films.

The Team is back: Kirk (Chris Pine), Spock (Zachary Quinto), Uhura (Zoe Saldanna), Bones (Karl Urban), Scotty (Simon Pegg), plus new characters such as Carol Marcus (Alice Eve) and John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch). Sadly with all these characters some have to be pushed aside like, Sulu (John Cho) and Chekov (Anton Yelchin).  I'll give brief descriptions of the main characters because I do believe these characters really make the movie.

Chris Pine does a good job of playing Captain Kirk again. We can see him pay homage to original actor, William Shatner, by hamming it up but mildly and also putting enough of himself in the role to make it his own.

Zachary Quinto should get an award for his portrayal of Spock. He plays an alien who doesn't emote yet somehow his presence gives off respect, loyalty, trustworthiness and lovingness. Speaking of which, the romance. between Spock and Saldanna's character is cute, believable and not shoved down our throats or contrived.

Sadly the only character who didn't leave a huge impact was Zoe Saldanna's role. Her acting and portrayal was fine but it felt like she only did one thing, which was speak cling-on (or however you spell it)

Benedict Cumberbatch plays *SPOILERS*.  John Harrison is just a fictitious role conjured up to hide his true identity. Although only "Trekkies" (as the fans call themselves) will known Cumberbatch's character and people not familiar with franchise might recognize the name but won't be a %100 sure. I can at least say his acting is sharp, strict and to the point. He demands so much fear and respect and Im not sure he allows his face to twitch while holding that frown constantly through the entire movie.

Now remember when I said some characters were pushed aside? Well some were brought up more like Simon Pegg's portrayal of the enginer Scotty who, In my opinion, almost stole the show with his performance. He puts so much time and energy into this character you think, "Oh that must be how the actor normally is in reality." I could go on about him but I want to get to my favorite character...

Now remember when I said some characters were pushed aside, again? While not the most, Karl Urbans performance as Dr. "Bones" McCoy was reduced due to the large number of characters which I thought was rather disappointing. In fact I believed he deserved more screen time in first film as well. Karl plays Bones as a man of experience and morality. A man of aggression but still believes in the peaceful route. A young grump.  I've always seen Spock and Bones as the two angels on Kirks shoulders each telling him how to handle the situation. Off-topic but after seeing Urbans performance I immediately thought Hollywood should've looked at him to be the new Batman instead of Ben Affleck.

Into Darkness is mostly CG, but there are also a good amount of hand-built sets to go along with it. Also the CG is done quit well. I can tell they're not in space, but it's not attention-stealing bad. The make-up director should also be congratulated, showing us a whole variety of creative creatures who do look real.

Just as TV's original Trek boldly went where '60s civics classes had gone before, Star Trek: Into Darkness, tackles issues with a contemporary ring. There's a suicide bombing, drones and some chatter about genetic engineering.

Director Abrams is working with a script that touches about every touchstone from the original series so you'll understand why I can't give too much away. If you're looking for a good popcorn movie too watch, pick up the first film from 2009 and if you liked it, then go ahead and view Into Darkness. I guarantee you won't be disappointed,

Film Intro Survey

1. The first movie that made a strong impression on me was Iron Man. I really got into looking up movie facts and releases dates and leaked footage after I saw Iron Man.

2. My favorite movie Genres are Comedy, action/adventure, mystery/thriller.

3. My least favorite movie Genres are Romance, Found-Footage and Musical (Musical Movies)

4. 5 of my favorite movies (in no order): Guardians of the Galaxy, Nightcrawler, Hot Fuzz, Django Unchained and Snow Piercer

5. 3 characteristics that I believe make a good movie: Interesting Characters, Strong Dialogue, Keeps you Guessing.

6. Some of my least favorite movies: Mamma Mia, Jupiter Ascending, Transformers 2-4 and anything made by Adam Sandler

7. Characteristics that make a bad movie are Convoluted and Unnecessary Plot Twists, Uninterested Actors and Crew Members, poor writing and Cardboard characters.

8. My favorite directors are J.J. Abrams, Joss Whedon and Edgar Wright.

9.  Some of my Favorite Actors and Actresses: Chris Pratt, Robert Downey Jr., Simon Pegg, Christoph Waltz, Zoe Saldanna, Neil Patrick Harris, Charlize Theron.

10. 3 films students in film class need to see are: Captain Phillips, Airplane (A comedic Classic), Nightcrawler (Just a really really really good movie)

11. 3 Movies anyone should see: The Room (It's so bad it's entertaining), New Hope, Animal House

12. The best movie I've seen in the past two years is Nightcrawler

13. The next five films on my queue are: Zodiac, Kingsman: Secret Service, Interstellar, Birdman, The Godfather.