Warcraft Review

Warcraft Movie Review (4/2/2/2+2) **½ or ***

This movie is not for everyone. As a fantasy film it stakes out a particular territory so comparing it to what has come before will result in a mixed response. If you can accept the higher fantasy elements then there’s a lot of enjoyment to be had, but if your tastes fall closer to a more grounded LotR or GoT then this can become a very painful experience.

  • Technical 4

From a technical standpoint there’s a lot of outstanding work put into this behind the scenes. It is a very faithful adaptation of the source material and the changes that do exist make sense for an adaptation. Fans of the series should be pleased with seeing the realization of this world. However, as beautiful as the establishing shots of Azeroth are, they do a poor job of expressing epic scale with the overuse of small enclosed sets.

  • Story 2

The film is very successful at adapting the harder aspects of the Warcraft franchise, but fails in some basic storytelling elements. These sins can be forgiven depending on your expectations from the outset. It’s possible to see a great movie within this one but it slightly overshoots its world building ambitions diluting the main narrative.

  • Characters 2

Much of the dialogue is uninspired and delivered in a straight forward fashion without either the serious gravitas or campy fun to make it compelling. The exception to this would be Travis Fimmel as Lothar who seemed to be the only physical actor doing something interesting with the material. The movie does manages to succeed in humanizing the fully CG Orcs but in so doing make them the more compelling side of the conflict.

  • Impact 2 + 2

It is successful enough in that world building to lay the foundation for a franchise, but sequels will need a bit more care in their crafting to have staying power. The inevitable sequels will need to stand alone and avoid attempting a direct sequel in order to make it accessible to an audience that may skip this installment.

Technical: 4, Story: 2, Characters: 2, Impact: 2 (w/ +2 for fans)

Final rating: 2.5 (3 for fans of the franchise)

The Dead Lands Review

The Dead Lands Review (3/4/2/3) ***

  • Technical: 3

The Dead Lands rides a narrow line somewhere between Indie and Hollywood quality.  Oddly enough it’s the overly polished aspects that were the biggest distraction for me in an otherwise very realistically portrayed setting. The effects were good as in they didn’t seem like effects, the gore and prosthetic work was solid as were the costuming and sets.

  • Performances: 4

The primary cast was able to convey everything despite the entire movie being spoken in an unfamiliar language. Personalities came through quickly and clearly. Some of the secondary cast seemed out of place, but there was little fault in their actual performances which still came across as compelling and believable.

  • Story: 2

The story is actually pretty straight forward and the pacing good other than a segment around the end of the second act. Initially it seemed a bit confusing although its significance is made clear by the end of the segment. The writing and dialogue seemed good, although that’s mostly based on the performances since I do not speak Maori.

  • Impact: 3

The Dead Lands does a very good job of telling a story set in a different time and place. It’s very well made despite some minor flaws that shouldn’t detract too much from the overall package. It’s also a very hard film to categorize; it comes across as either a high budget historical dramatization or a low budget action film. Either way the film is still compelling and fills an otherwise empty niche.

 

Man of Steel Review

Man of Steel Review (4/3/2/2) **¾

  • Technical: 4

A lot of money was spent making this film look good and it does. The overall aesthetics worked and way superhuman action was portrayed made visual sense. Everything about the film looked correct, although the heavy use of CG for the 3rd act started to wear out its welcome. The flashback structure worked in remixing the otherwise familiar back story.

  • Performances: 3

Man of Steel assembles a very skilled cast and they do well with what they’re given. Amy Adams is particularly good as Lois Lane in the first half but gets reduced to a cliched damsel for the final act.

Cavil is believable as the new Kal-El, but spends too much of the film brooding to be sympathetic.Too much effort is spent portraying the burden of being Superman. The character comes across as morose and generally uninterested in his powers. His casual usage is a missed opportunity as it doesn’t properly convey their significance.

  • Story: 2

This is probably the most controversial aspect of the film as the story makes some very notable changes to familiar Superman lore and characterizations. The worst offender in this regard was Pa Kent. Costner performs it well, but he is written as the antithesis to how the character is traditionally used.

Too many plot points felt overly contrived for the sake of convenience and the Kryptonian codex subplot felt out of place. There’s a lot of good things going on in this film but it doesn’t quite come together into a satisfying whole. The dark tone of the film doesn’t relent until the final scenes which might have been the most enjoyable.

  • Impact: 2

What you think of this movie will depend a lot on your understanding of the Superman character. Man of Steel attempts to be a dramatic character study and generally succeeds at that. However it is very different from what you may expect from a Superman title. This film could stand on its own without attachment to the Superman mythos, but unfortunately those connections drag down the overall experience.

  • Additional Thoughts (Spoiler Territory)

Man of Steel flirts with greatness but misses lots of opportunities that I feel need to be pointed out. Firstly, if they were going to use flashbacks to show his youth more time should have been spent showing the growth of his powers, his struggles to control them, and the excitement of using them. The temptation must be real and with great power comes great blah blah blah.

Secondly, if they wanted Clark to be hidden until Zod’s arrival Zod should have arrived on Earth claiming to be an authority and portraying Kal-El as a hidden fugitive. This would give Clark an additional burden to prove himself to humanity.

Now about that final battle… 40 minutes of disaster porn, and that final kill. Ultimately that kill was a cop out and a bad cliche, I won’t debate if it was in character or not but it didn’t have any emotional ties to the rest of the film. Great endings are hard and this one just lacked imagination.

Purely in my opinion the true ending should have been after turning back the Kryptonian threat. After they had been stopped Superman should have been rescuing the people of Metropolis from falling buildings, fires, floods, and the aftermath destruction. Split second rescues create dramatic tension. This would have been the perfect opportunity to flesh out characters like Lois and the Daily Planet crew throughout the rest of the film.

Superman rescuing people would have fit thematically and could have provided an uplifting and positive conclusion instead of his brief moment of angst. Can he rescue them all? Would he have to choose the good of the many over the few? Can he push the limits of his powers to do the impossible. It would at least have showed that the destruction mattered and that he cared a bit. These might be minor complaints but its the details that elevate a generic action movie to something of a Dark Knight caliber.

Finally, this last part is just speculative but if they had a plans to bring in Wonder Woman given their current relationship in the comics then what if he couldn’t save Lois a la ASM2? Give that one some thought.

Guardian’s of the Galaxy Review

Guardians of the Galaxy Review (4/4/3/4) ***¾

  • Technical: 4

The power and polish of Marvel/Disney is on full display. Space opera can come across as cheap or cheesy when done wrong, but there was obviously a lot of attention to detail on display. The universe they created draws appropriately from its comic book origins but manages to elevate it into a fully realized setting. The Nova corp ships were a particular standout for me. Few movies integrate their soundtracks this well.

  • Performances: 4

The real strength of this movie is the interaction and snarky between characters because of how naturally it flows. Even the minor characters have distinct personalities and opportunities to shine throughout the movie. The CG characters are particularly compelling and give unexpectedly emotional performances.

  • Story: 3

The humor is played straight against the absurdity of the situation, some of the humor depends on your level of 80s nostalgia but it never feels dumbed down which is refreshing. The plot is relatively simple but works well in the context of an over the top space opera. The story is well constructed and plays off the oddity of its underlying premise.

  • Impact: 4

If you like space adventures or comic book movies you will probably like this film. If you are also a child of the 80s or older you will probably love it. Guardians revives the feel of an old style of summer blockbuster combining action, humor, and eye candy. It’s just a fun ride throughout despite some minor flaws.