Genre: Action
Director: Jonathan Liebesman Writers: Dan Mazeau, David Johnson, Greg Berlanti Cast: Sam Worthington, Liam Neeson, Ralph Fiennes, Rosamund Pike, Edgar Ramirez, Bill Nighy, Danny Huston Running Length: 100 minutes Synopsis: A decade after his heroic defeat of the monstrous Kraken, Perseus (Sam Worthington) – the demigod son of Zeus (Liam Neeson) – is attempting to live a quieter life as a village fisherman and the sole parent to his 10-year old son, Helius. Meanwhile, a struggle for supremacy rages between the gods and the Titans. Dangerously weakened by humanity's lack of devotion, the gods are losing control of the imprisoned Titans and their ferocious leader, Kronos, father of the long-ruling brothers Zeus, Hades (Ralph Fiennes) and Poseidon. Perseus cannot ignore his true calling when Hades, along with Zeus' godly son, Ares (Edgar Ramírez), switch loyalty and make a deal with Kronos to capture Zeus. The Titans' strength grows stronger as Zeus' remaining godly powers are siphoned… Review: Few films in recent memory have benefitted from lowered expectations like Wrath of the Titans has – after all, its predecessor was a pretty terrible mess, from the clunky dialogue to the awful tacked on “3D” (the most 3D aspect being the Mandarin subtitles), and it really wouldn’t take much to improve upon that travesty of a remake. This time round, the story comes with much less baggage, and despite another post production 3D conversion, looks far better than the first film. That’s not to say that Wrath of the Titans is a masterpiece, but at least it’s much less painful to sit through, with a number of decent action set pieces, and the injection of much-need levity into the proceedings. It also helps to view this film on as large a screen as possible (IMAX 3D being the most ideal), as it amplifies the cinematic experience and makes the film’s flaws more tolerable. And there’s no shortage of things to pick on in Wrath of the Titans, if one is inclined to do so. The dialogue is painfully clunky, with characters often delivering dialogue solely for exposition’s sake, and the script borders on incoherence very often. The production team does seem to be aware of that, and occasionally poke fun at themselves (at one point, one character tells another to “avoid the big speech”), which makes it a little more tolerable. There’s also a lot of soap opera going on for an action movie, and these exclusively male, uncomfortably melodramatic scenes really weigh down the narrative. Still, the film largely looks good, and the action sequences are quite impressively choreographed, with the most memorable not being the climactic showdown, but rather a “smaller” scene involving a number of Cyclops and the lead characters. Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes bring higher quality acting and gravitas to the table, while an almost unrecognizable Bill Nighy steals the show with his high energy portrayal of Hephaestus. Action junkies should still leave the cinema feeling sated, but here’s hoping that if there’s a third film in the franchise, that it would be a higher quality production all round. Rating: * * ½ (out of four stars)Tag Archives: 2.5 stars
Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance
Genre: Action
Directors: Mark Neveldine & Brian Taylor Writers: Scott M. Gimple, Seth Hoffman, David S. Goyer Cast: Nicolas Cage, Ciaran Hinds, Johnny Whitworth, Fergus Riordan, Idris Elba Running Length: 95 minutes Synopsis: Johnny Blaze (Nicolas Cage) – still struggling with his curse as the devil's bounty hunter – is hiding out in a remote part of Eastern Europe when he is recruited by a secret sect of the church to save a young boy (Fergus Riordan) from the devil (Ciaran Hinds). At first, Johnny is reluctant to embrace the power of the Ghost Rider, but it is the only way to protect the boy – and possibly rid himself of his curse forever. Review: It’s probably a sequel that not many people had expected – after all, the original Ghost Rider movie in 2007 wasn’t exactly a trailblazer, even though it did score a pretty healthy box office taking. This time round, the cheesy humour that was so prevalent in the first film is toned down (although there is an absolutely brilliant joke about Twinkies), and the directorial duo behind the Crank franchise seems a little out of their depth when putting together larger-scale action set pieces that aren’t as organic as those found in Crank. The acting in Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance is simply rather uninspired, and even Nicolas Cage doesn’t tap that frequently into his “mad side”, a departure from the first Ghost Rider movie. However, Cage has always been an intense actor, and even though the audience will only get it in small doses it’s still an indication of what Cage is capable of. Unfortunately, the rest of the cast do not do as well, and many seem to be sleepwalking through the whole film. Many audience members choose to watch a superhero movie to be visually dazzled by the CG and the action sequences, and in both aspects Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance falls a little short. Some of the CG is impressive but quality is rather uneven, and the addition of 3D feels mostly superfluous. The action sequences are also a little subpar, and doesn’t really impress excepting a handful of scenes. The climactic showdown turns out to be just a little anticlimactic, although it is preceded by a nicely choreographed car chase. The superhero movie genre has been transformed since films like Batman Begins came onto the scene, and whilst Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance would have been a perfectly serviceable genre film in the past, it quite simply will not be good enough when compared to the other superhero films that are set to be released this year. Rating: * * ½ (out of four stars)New Year’s Eve * * 1/2
Genre: Comedy / Drama
Director: Garry Marshall
Writer: Katherine Fugate
Cast: Michelle Pfeiffer, Zac Efron, Robert De Niro, Halle Berry, Jessica Biel, Seth Meyers, Katherine Heigl, Jon Bon Jovi, Ashton Kutcher, Lea Michele, Sarah Jessica Parker, Abigail Breslin, Josh Duhamel, Hilary Swank, Ludacris, Hector Elizondo,
Running Length: 118 minutes
Synopsis: The lives of several couples and singles in New York intertwine over the course of New Year’s Eve.
Review: Garry Marshall is back at the helm of yet another film in the ensemble cast genre after last year’s Valentine’s Day, and ups the ante this time by including even more celebrities (with some repeat appearances) and tackling a holiday far more ubiquitous than Valentine’s Day. However, the same problems that plagued Valentine’s Day resurfaces in New Year’s Eve – there are just too many things going on for one movie to address, and the result is a film that lacks focus and meat.
Although much of the film takes place around Times Square, the story involving Hilary Swank and the Times Square countdown isn’t as central as the story featuring Zac Efron and Michelle Pfeiffer. The checking off of Pfeiffer’s wishlist is an intriguing premise, but unfortunately the film simply doesn’t spend enough time to develop it further and to give it a satisfactory conclusion. The same can be said of every single storyline that develops (or more accurately, fails to develop) in the movie, and it’s tempting to imagine how much better New Year’s Eve could have been if at least half of the plots were cleaved off, and the remainder given a fairer share of the screen time.
Since most of the star wattage is simply used to power interest for the movie, a lot of the actors have roles that amount to nothing more than glorified cameos, and no one is really needed to showcase much thespian ability. The script does give pause for a few Oscar alumni to emote, but many of the scenes just feel too contrived to be able to wring much genuine emotion out from the audience. And though I am usually pretty tolerant of product placement in movies, New Year’s Eve does take it to a level so extreme that it borders on absurdity (yes, I’m looking at you, Nivea).
As fluffy entertainment, New Year’s Eve is certainly qualified for the role. For anyone who enjoys spotting celebrity cameos the film definitely ticks all the boxes. However, the film is not as interesting as it thinks it is, and the mawkish sentimentality that pervades much of the movie actually hurts the film and take it down a notch further. It’s not a bad movie, for sure, and certainly better than Valentine’s Day, but still it barely manages to score a passing grade.
P.S. To make it the most bang for your buck, make sure to sit through the first half of the end credit sequence to catch some genuinely funny outtakes.
Rating: ** ½ (out of four stars)
Immortals * * 1/2
Genre: Fantasy
Director: Tarsem Singh Writers: Charles Parlapanides & Vlas Parlapanides Cast: Henry Cavill, Mickey Rourke, Stephen Dorff, Freida Pinto, Luke Evans, John Hurt Running Length: 110 minutes Synopsis: Eons after the Gods won their mythic struggle against the Titans, a new evil threatens the land. Mad with power, King Hyperion (Mickey Rourke) has declared war against humanity. Amassing a bloodthirsty army of soldiers disfigured by his own hand, Hyperion has scorched Greece in search of the legendary Epirus Bow, a weapon of unimaginable power forged in the heavens by Ares. Only he who possesses this bow can unleash the Titans, who have been imprisoned deep within the walls of Mount Tartaros since the dawn of time and thirst for revenge. In the king’s hands, the bow would rain destruction upon mankind and annihilate the Gods. But ancient law dictates the Gods must not intervene in man’s conflict. They remain powerless to stop Hyperion, until a peasant named Theseus (Henry Cavill) comes forth as their only hope. Secretly chosen by Zeus, Theseus must save his people from Hyperion and his hordes. Rallying a band of fellow outsiders – including visionary priestess Phaedra (Freida Pinto) and cunning slave Stavros (Stephen Dorff) – one hero will lead the uprising, or watch his homeland fall into ruin and his Gods vanish into legend. Review: It is undeniable that Immortals is a visually gorgeous film – this really comes as no surprise since the director is Tarsem Singh, who has helmed two breathtakingly beautiful movies prior to Immortals (The Cell and The Fall). If you’re looking for a film with eye candy, Immortals has that in spades – every visual aspect is immaculate, from the magnificent digitally-created locales (Greece seems to be composed entirely of cities carved out of mountains and villages residing on precipitous cliffs) to the Oscar-worthy costumes designed by Eiko Ishioka, and the sumptuous colours employed to great effect in many scenes, this is probably one of the most aesthetically pleasing films I have seen in years. Even the action sequences are choreographed with a hyper-realistic sensibility. Rarely has blood and brains splattering looked so interesting and beautiful, although it can really be too much to take in at times, especially when viewing the film in 3D. However, it must be said that the implementation of 3D in Immortals is pretty accomplished, and subtly enhances the look and feel of the movie. Yet, Immortals’ beauty is really only skin deep. The storyline is weak and uninspired, taking liberties with Greek mythology and at times not really making much sense at all. Various scenes seem to be building up to something greater, but never really go anywhere. There’s virtually no character development, and some of the Greek gods are given such inexplicably short screen times that it almost seems blasphemous. Thankfully the cast is good looking and distracts somewhat from their one-dimensionality – the men are all muscle and machismo, whereas the women (Freida Pinto in particular) are curvaceous and gorgeous. When compared with recent films in a similar vein, Immortals does not surpass what has been achieved by 300, but is far better than Clash of the Titans. However, it scores a perfect ten in terms of looks, and if one’s expectations are adjusted accordingly, could be worth the time in the cinema. Rating: **1/2 (out of four stars)In Time * * 1/2
Genre: Action Thriller
Director: Andrew Niccol Writer: Andrew Niccol Cast: Justin Timberlake, Amanda Seyfried, Cilian Murphy, Olivia Wilde, Vincent Kartheiser Running Length: 110 minutes Synopsis: In Time is set in a world where time has replaced money as the universal currency. The wealthy have accumulated thousands of years, allowing them to live forever, while the poor beg, borrow, and steal enough minutes to make it through the day. In this world, Will Salas (Justin Timberlake) is one of the unlucky ones, waking up every morning with 23 hours left on his ticking clock, and the knowledge that if he doesn't earn enough time, he won't live to see tomorrow. But Will's fortune takes an unexpected turn when a wealthy stranger turns up dead, and Will finds himself 100 years richer. Now the prime suspect for the man's murder, Will is on the run, with the help of a beautiful young woman (Amanda Seyfried), who is the only one who believes he is innocent. Review: It’s a fascinating concept – what if time is the only currency we trade in? Andrew Niccol takes this idea to an extreme in In Time, and whilst this is a slick, entertaining action thriller that’s extremely apt for this era we’re in (pardon the pun but the timing could not be better, given the growing disparity between the haves and the have-nots), it does eventually slightly wear down the viewer because it’s a very singular concept that doesn’t offer much wiggle room. Once the idea has been presented, there’s only that much that can be done before it starts to feel repetitive. The fact that the movie runs almost 2 hours long, with an extremely heavy handed use of time-related metaphors (and more time puns than you can shake a stick at), only serves to exacerbate this issue. However, there are a lot of things going on for the movie that help to elevate the film above mediocrity. Justin Timberlake and Amanda Seyfried make a good looking couple, and the duo share an easy chemistry though they never really light up the screen. They are more like a pair of fun-loving, sharp-dressing BFFs, but this isn’t really a downside since the pairing still works in principle. The rest of the cast are also quite effective, and it’s clear that Niccol spent some effort in casting actors that are somewhat ageless in appearance. Where In Time truly shines is in its impeccable production values. Not only is the cinematography breathtaking, thanks to seasoned cinematographer Roger Deakins, the art direction is near flawless, starting with multiple Oscar-winning Colleen Atwoods’ gorgeous costumes to the amazing set and prop designs. It’s clear that much thought has been put into even the littlest details, and In Time is a superlative effort when it comes to aesthetics. Look past some little niggles in the plot (it’s never explained why humans stop aging at 25, and why everyone’s lifespan is limited to just an extra year, for example), and In Time manages to function very well as an eye candy film, extending beyond the actors and into the look and feel of the film itself. For an action film released in the “off season”, one could certainly do worse than what has been accomplished here. Rating: ** ½ (out of four stars)Killer Elite * * 1/2
Genre: Action Thriller
Director: Gary McKendry
Writers: Gary McKendry & Matt Schering, based on the novel The Feather Men by Ranulph Fiennes
Cast: Jason Statham, Clive Owen, Robert De Niro
Running Length: 118 minutes
Synopsis: Inspired by true events, Killer Elite follows the exploits of Danny (Jason Statham), one of the world's most skilled special-ops agents. Lured out of self-imposed exile, Danny reassembles his crack team of operatives to execute a near-impossible mission of retribution – to rescue his former mentor and partner Hunter (Robert De Niro). Together they must penetrate the highly feared and respected military unit, the British Special Air Service (SAS), to take down a rogue cell of soldier assassins and their leader Spike (Clive Owen) before their actions create a global crisis.
Review: On the surface, Killer Elite seems to feature a perfect cast – tough guys Jason Statham and Clive Owen facing off each other, and with Robert De Niro to boot – but the picture is not that rosy in reality. This is a classic case of “too much of a good thing”: Killer Elite simply throws too much at the audience, with a very complex plot structure that many viewers would simply give up trying to follow eventually. Thankfully, the action in the film is very well executed, so the film somewhat balances out into an action thriller that stakes its place in the middle of the pack.
One of the biggest problems with Killer Elite is that the plot threads come thick and heavy, and much of it really makes no sense at all even if you are paying close attention. In fact, much of the movie feels disjointed and the flow from one segment to the next is usually quite jarring. This could be because the book The Feather Men, the inspiration behind the film, has been accused of factual inaccuracies and even outright untruths, and so adapting the source into a film turns into a clumsy dance around the facts. One of the worst-developed subplots is the romantic angle between Statham and his beau (Yvonne Strahovski – who is probably getting more screen time than needed because of her fame on the small screen as the femme fatale in Chuck) which is never convincing and feels particularly tacked onto the proceedings.
Although the promo for the film tries to suggest that Killer Elite features the three actors evenly, the truth is that it’s simply a Jason Statham movie, with Clive Owen and Robert De Niro as guest stars. In fact, De Niro is pretty much out of the picture throughout the whole film except the first and last reels. There’s actually nothing wrong with Killer Elite being all about Jason Statham, because like most of his movies, Killer Elite is chock full of hard-hitting action, high-adrenaline car chases and more shootouts than you can shake a stick at. It’s highly visceral and highly entertaining, provided you are in the right mindset. One does wish that with stars of such caliber like Owens and De Niro on board, something more could have been done with them than just being impressive window dressing.
Rating: ** ½ (out of four stars)
What’s Your Number? * * 1/2
Genre: Romantic Comedy
Director: Mark Mylod Writers: Gabrielle Allan & Jennifer Crittenden Cast: Anna Faris, Chris Evans Running Length: 107 minutes Synopsis: Anna Faris is Ally Darling, an offbeat young woman who decides, after hitting the un-magical number of 20 lovers, to re-visit all her ex-boyfriends in the hopes of finding the man of her dreams. She’s assisted in her quest by her womanizing neighbor Colin (Chris Evans). Review: If you’ve seen the recently-released Bridesmaids, What’s Your Number? may seem a little too familiar, because the two films actually cover pretty similar ground. And of course, like most romantic comedies out there, What’s Your Number? is no different from the run of the mill, bringing nothing new to the table. Not that it’s expected to – after all, fans of romantic comedies are already aware of the eventual outcomes of almost every film that’s in the genre, and what matters is the journey, not the destination, which usually translates to the on-screen chemistry between the two leads. This is where, unfortunately, What’s Your Number falls short – although Anna Faris and Chris Evans make a good looking couple, they do not share a strong chemistry and their pairing feels forced even at the end of the film. Their banter is great, but there’s just too little of it in the film to convince audiences of their viability as a couple. The film does slightly better on the comedy aspect, with a handful of standout moments that will at the very least leave a smile on your face. I have been a casual fan of Anna Faris since her breakout performance in Scary Movie, and she is a dependable actress that can deliver the comedic goods. However, the scenarios do get a little contrived at times, and the core concept of revisiting one’s ex-boyfriends to find The One just doesn’t feel that believable. What’s Your Number succeeds on two counts – Faris’ easy likeability and Evans’ frequently bare (and very buff) body. Faris has made it her specialty to play what essentially is a dumb blonde, ready to embarrass her characters in ways that many leading ladies would balk at doing, and this “human-ness” and authenticity is what makes Faris, and by extension her characters, highly likeable and easy to root for. Chris Evans, on the other hand, is aware that one of his most prized assets is his body, and in this R-rated comedy ensures that no audience member would miss seeing his Captain America physique by parading in various stages of undress for much of the film. And for anyone who is watching the movie to make goo goo eyes at Evans, the payoff is more than sufficient. Whilst What’s Your Number? is nowhere near the top-tier romantic comedies, it doesn’t rank too lowly either, existing somewhere in the middle – pleasant enough to not make it feel like a waste of time, but not memorable in any significant way. Rating: ** ½ (out of four stars)Cars 2 * * 1/2
Genre: Animation
Directors: John Lasseter and Brad LewisWriter: Ben Queen
Voice Cast: Owen Wilson, Larry the Cable Guy, Michael Caine, Emily Mortimer, Eddie Izzard, John Turturro, Bonnie Hunt
Running Length: 105 minutes
Synopsis: Star racecar Lightning McQueen (voice of Owen Wilson) and the incomparable tow truck Mater (voice of Larry the Cable Guy) take their friendship to exciting new places in Cars 2 when they head overseas to compete in the first-ever World Grand Prix to determine the world’s fastest car. But the road to the championship is filled with plenty of potholes, detours and surprises when Mater gets caught up in an intriguing adventure of his own: international espionage. Torn between assisting Lightning McQueen in the high-profile race and towing the line in a top-secret spy mission, Mater’s action-packed journey leads him on an explosive chase through the streets of Japan and Europe, trailed by his friends and watched by the whole world. Adding to the fast-paced fun is a colorful new all-car cast that includes secret agents, menacing villains and international racing competitors.
Review: It had to happen eventually – Pixar has finally released a film that doesn’t meet up to the usual expectations that a Pixar film sets. It’s still a very decent animated film, but is very apparently the studio’s weakest offering to date. Perhaps it’s because Cars was already a tough sell (anthropomorphic cars are not easy to identify with), but Cars 2 comes up short especially in the areas which are usually Pixar’s strengths.
Cars 2 is the first Pixar film where I felt held very little interest for the adult viewers, and whilst young viewers will undoubtedly have a ball of a time, the storyline is never really emotionally engaging on any level. This comes as a surprise because the relationship stuff is usually the core of a Pixar film, but this seems to have been eschewed for obligatory, tacked-on mentions about not giving up on friends. There is also very little about Cars 2 that feels fresh, and unlike Toy Story, Cars 2 brings nothing new to the table at all, despite the spy movie angle and opening up the Cars universe to beyond Radiator Springs.
Whatever criticisms that can be leveled at the other aspects of the film, one thing that hasn’t changed is the visual quality of a Pixar film. This is a seriously good looking movie, and apart from the well-rendered cars themselves, there’s great attention to detail in the surroundings they are in. The 3D, however, is so minimal that one wonders why 3D was even touted to begin with. It’s definitely not gimmicky, but doesn’t add much to the viewing experience overall.
Perhaps it’s telling that even the animated short film that precedes Cars 2 feels perfunctory, unlike the usual gems that the studio produces. It features almost the full Toy Story cast, but other than a couple of laughs, feels more like an outtake reel of Toy Story 3. Hopefully this is merely an aberration in Pixar’s illustrious history, and not a sign of things to come.
Rating: ** ½ (out of four stars)
Final Destination 5 * * 1/2
Genre: Horror
Director: Steven Quayle
Writers: Eric Heisserer, Jeffrey Reddick
Cast: Nicholas D'Agosto, Emma Bell, Arlen Escarpeta, Tony Todd
Running Length: 92 minutes
Synopsis: In Final Destination 5, Death is just as omnipresent as ever, and is unleashed after one man’s premonition saves a group of coworkers from a terrifying suspension bridge collapse. But this group of unsuspecting souls was never supposed to survive, and, in a terrifying race against time, the ill-fated group frantically tries to discover a way to escape Death’s sinister agenda.
Review: By this fifth installment, the intentions of the Final Destination franchise are clear – find interesting and macabre ways to kill off all the primary actors one by one, which leaves the door open for another sequel with a brand new cast of fresh faces. Clearly this is a formula that works, because the franchise as a whole has already earned over US$600 million, making it one of the most profitable horror franchises of our time.
It truly is moot to discuss strength of the plot and the thespian skills of the actors in Final Destination 5 (although to be fair, they actually do a semi-decent job), because the film will almost be entirely judged on the death scenes. In this aspect, Final Destination 5 does not disappoint at all. Blatantly misdirecting the audience and pulling out unexpected twists as always, for the target audience these “money shots” will be what they had ponied up good money for. Personally, these sequences largely find the “sweet spot” between being shocking and being macabrely funny, but the intense situations and unabashed gore may prove too unsettling for some (which beggars the question of why they would be watching this movie to begin with).
There’s also the added bonus of some truly funny scenes, one of the most memorable starring a no-nonsense massage therapist cum acupuncturist. This is a welcome return to form as the Final Destination installments that play it straight are the ones which in my opinion fare more poorly. After all, one simply cannot take such a film too seriously, otherwise it defeats the purpose entirely.
Although there is a much vaunted new mechanic to the modus operandi of Death in this sequel, the film essentially fails to capitalize on this, and if not for the denouement, would probably have been forgotten by the second reel. However, there is quite a neat reveal near the end of the film that provides an interesting connection to its predecessors, but probably won’t be apparent to audiences who have not sat through the previous films.
The second film in the franchise to be shot in 3D, the third dimension is used in the most obvious manner possible, but really doesn’t add that much to the equation. It’s more like a theme park attraction, and this description can be expanded to include the spirit of the whole film. Final Destination 5 is designed to be a quick, entertaining ride through a veritable House of Horrors, to be forgotten almost immediately upon exit – which isn’t exactly a bad thing as long as one is mentally prepared.
Rating: ** ½ (out of four stars)
Captain America: The First Avenger * * 1/2
Genre: Action
Director: Joe JohnstonWriters: Christopher Markus and Stephen McFreely, based on the comic series by Joe Simon and Jack Kirby
Cast: Chris Evans, Hayley Atwell, Sebastian Stan, Dominic Cooper, Hugo Weaving, Tommy Lee Jones, Stanley Tucci, Samuel L. Jackson
Running Length: 125 minutes
Synopsis: Captain America: The First Avenger focuses on the early days of the Marvel Universe where the scrawny but courageous Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) volunteers to participate in an experimental science program that eventually turns him into a super soldier known to the world as “Captain America”. He joins forces with best friend Bucky Barnes (Sebastian Stan) and a bunch of gung ho soldiers in a war against the evil HYDRA organization, led by the villainous Red Skull (Hugo Weaving). He also finds some time in between to romance the beautiful Peggy Carter (Hayley Atwell), though not always to good effect.
Review: After what seems like an endless slew of prequels for The Avengers, we’re finally at the last one before the main event next year, and this time it’s featuring one of the oldest Marvel superheroes – Captain America. Although the film is a serviceable origins movie and fairly entertaining, the fact that most cinemagoers have seen more than a handful of similarly-themed films means that the bar has been set quite high, and the flaws of this film seem particularly pronounced.
Let’s start with the positives. Captain America makes very good use of CGI, and not just in the big action sequences. It’s truly magical to see Chris Evans shrunken down to a much scrawnier size, and this is done so seamlessly that one can’t help but marvel at the advances in technology that have allowed this to happen. It’s also refreshing to see a superhero movie set in the 1940s, and the period details make even mundane actions like operating machinery seem that much more interesting. It’s no surprise that director Joe Johnston has The Rocketeer in his canon of work, because the two films bear many visual similarities.
Captain America is also packed with a good number of comedic moments, and this is largely the reason why the film is rather entertaining. The bigger action set pieces are pretty well choreographed, but for a superhero film the sequences take up far less screen time than expected. Although Chris Evans doesn’t really impress with his acting skills (and the scrawny Evans definitely is a bigger scene stealer than after his transformation), most of the supporting characters manage to acquit themselves, excepting Hugo Weaving who is unfortunately a wasted opportunity in the film, playing a one-note, cookie-cutter villain that really doesn’t deserve as much screen time as he was given.
One of the biggest flaws of Captain America is its pacing. The film spends too much time in exposition and setup, and as a result the final showdown between Cap and Red Skull feels really rushed and very unsatisfying – Red Skull’s fate has got to be one of the hastiest and sloppiest I’ve seen, and the denouement has very little emotional impact. The two modern day scenes that bookend Captain America are also clearly shoehorned into the script purely as an explanation of the Cap’s presence in The Avengers next year, and there’s never a satisfactory or explanatory segue into present time.
Taken on its own, Captain America: The First Avenger feels somewhat hollow and incomplete, but seen as part of the lead-up to The Avengers, the film’s purpose seems clearer. Much as how Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part II managed to round out the deficiencies of the first film, here’s hoping that The Avengers next year will be able to give audiences the big, satisfying payoff, as has been suggested along the franchise’s various films in the last few years.
P.S. As with all the Avenger prequels, there is a coda at the end of the credits, but this time it’s a full-on sneak preview trailer for next year’s The Avengers, which seem to be promising enough.
Rating: * * 1/2 (out of four stars)
e-ramblings 