Benz Eye View: Ready Player One

Ready Player One

Pros: 

1.) Since the majority of the film takes place in a video game world, it is to be expected that there will be heavy amount of CG, and it looks great.  Not only does the CG blend well with the live actors, but it makes the Oasis an interesting world to see.  It also makes an interesting differentiation between the real world and the Oasis (which I will get to in a moment).  Past movies have CG that can range from realistic to belonging to a video game (or just bad if done poorly).  In this film’s case, it blends in perfectly.

2.) It has been a long time since I have mentioned this, but the cinematography is a breath of fresh air.  Many of the past movies I have seen has adequate or bad cinematography, but this film knows how to use it well (especially since this is directed by Steven Spielberg).  This film uses it wisely.  In the Oasis, it is used to not only to establish a setting, but also shot in any way possible from tracking to dolly shots.  In the real world, the cinematography is used sparingly from having one shot for one scene to a shot showing a sense of scale.  Spielberg knows how to use cinematography well, and he still got it.

3.) The theme about gaming and reality is interesting here.  While there are times that I wished that the film explored this theme much better, it is interesting that the film spends more time in the Oasis than the real world, and for good reason.  There is a reason why the Oasis is popular, and many people prefer to be there than the real world.  It is kind of deep if you think about it.

 

Cons: 

1.) There are two major side characters: Sho and Daito, who have a slightly big role for this film, but it did not seem to be that clear in the first half of the film.  Initially, they seem to be background characters, but they end up assisting in the main leads after some time, and it feels out of nowhere.  They do not seem to be fleshed out well enough to be major characters since they almost seemed to be written as side characters…

2.) …Which leads to another problem, there is not enough emotional weight to this film.  With exception of at least three characters, the film does a slightly poor job in making you have an emotional connection with so many of these characters, but they either do not have enough time or the characters themselves are slightly-poorly written.  As a result, the main plot of finding the Easter egg takes precedent over the emotional plots of other characters.

3.) There are certain things that were mentioned or implied in the film, but they are either not shown or not explained enough.  One example is that there is a rebellion against IOI due to their shady corporate dealings.  However, we barely get to see this rebellion, and it ends up feeling like this is one small rebellion.  I get the feeling that the book had more to say about certain backgrounds of other characters or the world of Ready Player One.  Either way, while the film did cover the essential background of this world, other certain backgrounds I wish they could have explained more.

 

Overall: 

I have never heard of the book that this film is based off of, but the film intrigued me not only be the many pop culture references, but it is going to be directed by the great Steven Spielberg.  I loved to see this film, but also quite hesitant, because I fear this film will only be liked due to the number of pop culture references and Easter eggs (which if you have noticed, I have not used those references as part of the pros).  However, I am glad to say that this film is a blast to watch not just for gamers, but for everyone.  Great direction from Spielberg, great-looking Oasis, refreshing cinematography (at least for me), and a pro-founding theme that is deeper than it looks.  This is a film that I would love to watch over and over like playing my favorite video games over and over.

8/10

On a side note, while it is cool to see many of these references and Easter eggs, I find it interesting that many of them are something related to Warner Bros.  Meaning, the references I see more of are usually either from the Injustice games or Mortal Kombat.  It makes sense considering that this is distributed by Warner Bros.

Benz Eye View: Pacific Rim: Uprising

Pacific Rim: Uprising

Pros: 

1.) If you want Jaeger-Kaiju battles, you will get it in this movie.  These battles are intense and fun to watch.  There are some battles that are slightly interesting due to one certain element or another.  The way how these battles were shot show how well they establish how huge these combatants are, and how much impact each blow shakes the arenas.  If you love those fights, you will get them here…

2.) …Which in case you are wondering, the CG is also great as well.  In a movie involving giant monsters and robots fighting, unless you have practical-effects masters and costume designers, CG should be top priority.  It also helps that the designs for the Kaiju and Jaegers look great.  Clearly getting some inspiration from mech anime and Kaiju movies (i.e. Gundam and Godzilla), these designs show some creativity.  All-in-all, great CG with great designs.

3.) If there are characters who I am glad to see return in this movie, it is the two scientists, Newton Geiszler and Hermann Gottlieb.  These two stole the previous movie, and the same can be said here.  The chemistry between these two and how they react to certain situations (one is cheeky and the other is serious) make them stand out over the other characters.  I like them so much, I hope they appear in the next one.

 

Cons: 

1.) The character growth (particularly to the main leads) is weak.  For one main lead, Jake Pentecost did not want to be part of training in the next generation of Jaeger pilots, because he does not want to be like his father from the last movie.  His growth into accepting his position is weak at best.  The other main lead, Amara Namani…actually, I do not recall what she really wants.  If there is any, I either missed it or it is just as weak as Jake’s growth.  There are things that occur in the movie like Amara having a rival in the Jaeger academy, but their turn from rivals to friendship is also weak.  I would care more for these characters if they have better motivations and growth.

2.) The first half of the movie has pacing issues.  For one thing, the movie overloads you with many information of what happened in between movies (more on that in a moment).  The movie passes by these moments so quickly, it may take you a while to process all of these information to your head.  It seems like they want to skip the boring parts quickly and go straight to the fun parts.  It is fine if you want to get to the best parts, but you have to at least make the boring parts decent and manageable for the audience to understand what is happening…

3.) …Going back to the events in-between movies, the movie does a poor job explaining what has happened.  At best, their explanation is the bare minimum of what happened during the ten-year span.  I had several questions that came to my head, but the biggest one is this: what happened to Raleigh Becket from the last movie?

You know, the main protagonist from the last movie?

He was probably needed with all that is happening in this movie.  He is mentioned once and is never heard of again.  Mako Mori is in this movie, so why not Raleigh?  Questions like these is probably going to end up ruining some of the joy in this movie.

 

Overall: 

The first Pacific Rim was an enjoyable movie that delivered what was advertised: giant robots vs. giant monsters.  I had some doubts when they announced a sequel to this movie, but I was willing to check it out.  I can safely say that while this is a step down from the original, it is still a decent movie.  There are plenty of things I find wrong with it, but it still delivers what the last movie did: giant robots vs. giant monsters.  If you love these types of movies just like the previous Pacific Rim, you will enjoy this movie.  However, I argue that there are better ones (i.e. any Gundam anime or Godzilla movies ever), but this will do if you are in the mood for some giant monster v. giant robot action.

6/10

Benz Eye View: Tomb Raider

Tomb Raider

Pros: 

1.) Unlike the previous iterations, Lara Croft is painted as a more realistic and down-to-earth character just like the rebooted video game counterpart.  She is not an invincible character like Angeline Jolie’s version, Alicia Vikander’s version is athletic, yet vulnerable when thrown into a new environment.  She earns her way to the top when dealing with bad guys and puzzles (except for a couple of moments that I question).  I like this version of Lara Croft overall, and I hope to see more of her in the future.

2.) There is a character that Lara meets that she has great chemistry with, but I will not spoil who it is (although, if you have seen the trailer or watched part-way into the movie, you can easily guess who it is).  There are plenty of emotional moments with these two that work so well, you can buy that these two are…well, no spoilers here.  When something happens to that character, you can buy the emotion (thanks to Alicia Vikander) that Lara Croft is going through at that moment.  These two are the best characters in the movie, and they have the best chemistry.

3.) The treasure, or more specifically, tomb of this movie is the grave of Queen Himiko.  The history about this person is interesting since they paint her as a monster.  However, something happens near the end of the movie that is pretty clever (although, it reminds me too much of Uncharted: Drake’s Fortune game).  No spoilers on what happened (though since I mentioned Uncharted: Drake’s Fortune, those who know it is probably spoiled, so…sorry), but it is an interesting look on the Queen at that point.

 

Cons: 

1.) The main antagonist is lame.  Mathias Vogel is looking for the grave of Queen Himiko for a shadow organization called Trinity, and there is nothing else interesting about that guy.  The movie tries to make him more compelling by saying that he has two daughters at home, and he is forced to do all of this, but that is very rarely brought up, and the movie moves on without adding anything to him.  As for Trinity, the only thing that is mentioned about them is that they are everywhere.  It does not help that they slightly sequel-bait by setting them as the next antagonist, which is slightly earned, but a little annoying.

2.) A plot point for the movie is that the tomb of Queen Himiko is either cursed or something else wrong with it, but it is pretty weak.  I did not care in the slightest if this tomb is cursed or not, mainly because the person who kept saying that is written to be slightly crazy.  Plus, other than a few hints here and there, the indication that the tomb is cursed is weak at best.

3.) Something about the movie’s writing slightly bothers me, because it feels like it is meant to be longer, but it seems like some scenes or writing is cut off.  This might be a guess, but I get the feeling that the script for this movie is the same script for the rebooted Tomb Raider game, but reduced to a nearly two-hour movie.  Some of the stakes are not as bad as they are supposed to be, certain characters have very little characterization, and Trinity is an organization I barely cared for until the ending (and it barely earned it).  Maybe I will play the game just to be sure, but I felt this movie is meant to be bigger than what it shows.

 

Overall: 

Based on the popular video game series (in this case, the rebooted series), Tomb Raider did have its share of movies before this iteration.  Those movies (based off the original games) starring Angelina Jolie were enjoyably stupid, but this iteration (along with its rebooted games) is more serious and grounded on earth.  I have not played the rebooted games (nor the originals), but other than feeling that this movie might be a condensed version of the games, I thought the movie was enjoyable.  It is certainly better than the original movies (especially Lara Croft: Tomb Raider –  The Cradle of Life), but it all comes down if I recommend this movie.  I will say this: this movie looks like if Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade and Uncharted: Drake’s Fortune had a baby that turned into this.  If this convinces you that you will like this movie (or if you are big fan of the rebooted games), you will enjoy this movie.  If not, then I suggest you just watch the Indiana Jones films or play the Uncharted games (or the Tomb Raider games).

7/10

Benz Eye View: Gringo

Gringo

Pros: 

1.) The only character that I found somewhat interesting is Mitch Rusk.  He is a former mercenary who became a Christian, and only helps his brother, Richard to find Harold so he can get the money as a reward to help the children in Haiti.  That is a slightly interesting character that is unfortunately not explored much in this movie…

 

 

Cons: 

1.) …Which makes it more unfortunate that the rest of the characters are so boring.  Nothing about them stands out.  It does not matter that the actors are making good performances (even if David Oyelowo as Harold Soyinka has to act like a baby at times), the characters are still written as typical/cliched people that are easily forgotten as soon as the next scene without them comes to play.

2.) While the main plot is not really hard to follow, there are too many plot lines and subplots.  There are characters that have little to no importance to the main plot, and there are a few plot lines that I can easily remove and it will have no impact at all other than shortening the movie.  I get what they were doing: have all of these subplots converge to the main plot to make an interesting climax, but it does not work.

3.) Not convinced that the movie is not good?  Look at this trailer.

Do you think this looks funny?  Then, congratulations.  You just saw most, if not all the funny scenes in the movie.  What really does not help is that the tone of the movie is surprisingly serious.  When a comedic moment comes in, it does not feel funny, and even if it is meant to be, it is awkwardly funny.  Not good when a comedy is not funny, especially when it has a serious tone.

 

Overall: 

I really do not have that much to say.  The trailer makes this movie look funny, but the movie itself lacks any comedy or good plot.  The actors give their all, but it is not enough to save this forgettable movie.  Watch something else, because what this movie is selling very few will buy.

3/10

Benz Eye View: Death Wish (2018 film)

Death Wish (2018 film)

Pros: 

1.) Bruce Willis’s character, Dr. Paul Kersey is incredibly smart.  I am not talking about his doctorate, I am talking about his ability to learn from others and his mistakes as he experiences his vigilante justice.  I appreciate smart characters that are written well to prove that they are intelligent instead of characters that were written to be smart only for those characters end up making dumb decisions due to the writers’ incompetence.

2.) Whether you like this or not (considering a certain shooting not too long ago), I like the social commentary for this film.  After Paul realizes that the police are not doing their jobs properly, he decides to take matters on his own hands and find the criminals himself.  Whether his actions are justified or not is up to you, but I like how it looks at the pros and cons of the situation fairly (sort of…I will get to that in the cons).

3.) While this is a pretty simple story and plot, I found the writing to be fantastic.  I found very few errors in the writing, and I enjoy every minute of the film as it progresses…

 

Cons: 

1.) …Though I might as well list some of the errors I have noticed and thought about after seeing the film.  The lowest point for the protagonist is weak, the antagonists are barely a challenge, a few moments I felt that Paul should have been caught, and a couple of plot holes.  This may sound like many mistakes in writing, but it barely hurts the story and plot unless if you are that nitpicky.

2.) As much as I like the social commentary, there are areas where I felt is pretty weak.  One example is that Paul’s actions inspired one guy to take out criminals, but that guy ends up getting killed in the process.  The problem is that it is so brief that the scene can be removed entirely, and it would not affect the film.  The only film that handled this better is The Dark Knight.  If Death Wish learned a bit more from that film, then the commentary would probably be stronger.

3.) There are some over-the-top moments that do not fit in with the serious tone.  By over-the-top moments, I meant some of the deaths.  While many characters dying fit realistically with the film, other characters deaths are so over-the-top, they might as well be good Fatality ideas for NetherRealm Studios in their next upcoming Mortal Kombat game.  They are fun to watch, but they do not really fit with the tone.

 

Overall: 

Based on the 1974 film and the 1972 novel of the same name, Death Wish is a film series that I have never seen, so I will review this film remake on its own merits instead of what the past series had done.  This film received so much attention, and many critics bashed it for a couple of reasons.  The first reason is that it does not add anything to the Death Wish film series.  As I stated before, I have not seen those films, so I cannot really comment on that.  Another reason is that this film came out at a bad time with the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting that took place a couple of weeks ago.  I understand their position, but I will still review this film despite the shooting.  This is a film review, not a political opinion piece.

On its own, I thoroughly enjoyed this film.  I do not know if it is actually better or worse than the original, but there is plenty to like about this film.  It is entertaining, thought-provoking, and well-done.  Despite coming out at a bad time, I do recommend this film to anyone (for those who cannot watch this, I understand).  If you want a good ole vigilante action film, this is for you.

8/10