PopCorn Time

Had it been too desperate and hopeless, ANT-MAN would have shrunk its way for admission to the almost-complete, Avengers team. But neither such concern nor saving the world from an impending catastrophic destruction, holds weight heavy enough to pull this miniature superhero from his top priority: winning back his daughter. The emotional weight of the narrative comes across as an anomalous content to the generally comedic structure of the film, but they serve purpose for the overall flow of the proceedings, nonetheless.

The film follows Scott Lang (Paul Rudd), who has just been released from prison after committing burglary. He has been prohibited to see his daughter due to his inability to provide financial support, no thanks to his being an ex-con that keeps hindering him from getting a job. He meets the highly-intellectual yet solitary scientist, Hank Pym (Michael Douglas), who has a job for him: pulling off a heist on his ex-protégé, Darren Cross (Corey Stoll), who is in possession of a size-changing prototype, that poses massive amount of threats to worldwide security. Using a military suit that allows him to shrink back and forth, in size, Lang carries on with the mission with the hope that by doing so, he would be able to reclaim and earn the reputation and respect he lost, especially his daughter's.

It's easier to see Ant-Man as a beautiful mess, rather than a well-crafted superhero flick with profound depth and sense . There's a lot of illogical nonsense that always nearly sends the film to wreckage, but there's also so much of the fun side to make up for the eventual narrative shortcoming. At the center of its comic efforts, Paul Rudd's Scott Lang/Ant-Man shines with his general amiability, pulling off his role with credible wit and comic allure. Rudd is such a delight here, and his presence and effortless take on his character make the mostly messed-up flow of the events, extremely palatable. There's also much to say about Michael Douglas, how his character, Pym, easily integrates well with Lang and his daughter, Hope (Evangeline Lily) , to provide a firm and well-knitted character framework. Corey Stoll, on the other hand, is less impressive, barely providing the needed threat to make his presence felt and his belligerence imminent. But on moments where he and Lang engage in beautifully-choreographed fight scenes, the ineptitude gets relegated below the more important aspects of the proceedings, and once it does, the breathtaking visual schemes work under the spotlight, capturing Lang's size-changing skill with epic elaborateness. There's magic in every size shift, and the visual artistry is at its peak to deliver the moment.

Perhaps, one of the most immediately-noticeable difference of Ant-Man from its Marvel fellows is that it doesn't engage, nor rush too much, to explosive battles that generally results to immeasurable destruction. It is noticeably evident on the fact that its most interesting and most jaw-dropping action setpiece, happens in a toy train set. Most importantly, this new addition to the Marvel Cinematic Universe places its comic prowess at the center of its general effort to validate its entry to the franchise, and that is achieved without putting the natural action/adventure tendency of its superhero, nor the inevitable emotional nature of its characters, at risk of getting overshadowed by the rudimentary elements of the narrative.

It's actually hard to gauge ANT-MAN using the same measure that made the rest of its pack, mammoth and omnipotently powerful. But in its own right, and sub-atomic scale, this microscopic superhero is clearly a power behemoth, and it will surely spring back to its even bigger form, once the Avenger call is delivered.

When a friend of mine first invited me to see Deadpool my expectations were quite low: I had known nothing about Deadpool and expected to see a classical super hero movie suitable for all ages which I usually don't enjoy. Little did I know Deadpool was a full blown comedy super hero movie made for mature audiences.

Watching Deadpool 4DX was amazing experience. A scene where Deadpool jumps from bridge into a car was one of the most entertaining movie experience I've ever had! If only the rest of the movie was this good... if you're still somehow able to see it 4DX, don't miss the chance.

Deadpol is very bloody with a lot of violence and mayhem. Language used is too obscene for my taste. Many conversations and scenes are very childish. The whole movie is very immature. Deadpool is going to strongly entertain younger audiences. So yes, Deadpool is pretty bold and quaint experiment: you have brutal violence combined with childish humor. For it's authors audacity I give it a seven. Objectively, it's more of a six.

Still, Deadpool's delivery is pretty homogeneous. All the violence and mayhem fit nicely within the context fostered by Deadpool's character. Ryan Reynolds is the guy! He delivered much, much better performance than in Self/less. Morena Baccarin played Vanessa, Deadpool's girlfriend. And when I say she's Deadpool's girlfriend, I mean she IS Deadpool's girlfriend. If you've seen the movie you know what I mean. Let me mention that soundtrack plays a somewhat important role (Deadpool loves good music!) - producers picked good hits which contribute to milieu. Wham!

If you're in for some non sensible crude humor and brutal violence, you'll surely have fun. Just don't forget not to bring your kids with you! "Witness the beginning of a happy ending".

I was able to see 'The Conjuring 2' at an advanced screening last night and I left feeling surprisingly satisfied. I can't remember the last time I saw a horror sequel that was able to hold it's own against it's predecessor, but with James Wan at the helm; I went in cautiously optimistic.

Let me say off the bat that this movie is legitimately scary. It's the scariest horror film I've seen in a while and it does have genius scares, despite having many in the first half that felt a little cheap. This brings me to my biggest problem with 'The Conjuring 2'. Though this movie is consistently intense and definitely never boring, I felt that the first 50-or-so minutes were often formulaic and ineffective. This is a structural problem that I had and I'm sure it won't be a problem for many audience members.

That entire first act consists of many individual scenes that all end in a scare, and the majority of these scares don't necessarily feel earned. So as a result; this section of the film often feels repetitive and drawn out. By this, I mean that one specific character reacts to one disturbing scare by not telling anyone about it. It also includes a few clichés that didn't greatly affect the plot and wouldn't be missed (e.g Ouija board, children hearing something and getting out of bed to look for it; seriously this happens way too many times in this movie). I'm perfectly fine with film-makers experimenting with structure, but I'm afraid it just didn't work for me in this movie. In fact it's a-scare-a-scene design came off as conventional and peddling to the masses. I think the film would have benefited from a greater focus on slow-building tension.

Any problems within the troubled first act are nothing in comparison to the tension and legitimate terror rife throughout the last hour. In fact I feel confident enough in saying that I found this film to be even scarier than the first in the series.

I found the music to be nothing particularly standout on it's own, but it worked well within the context of the movie and is greatly responsible for the tension created throughout. The performances from Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga were very good and the child actors were able to hold their own and not be just "good for kids". This film took risks in it's presentation including the design of many of the entities seen throughout, and I thought that this mostly remained effective.

So overall; I found this to be an extremely successful horror film. I admire James Wan's ambition and I was impressed by his masterful use of long takes. I felt that the flaws in this film were greatly outweighed by it's achievements and I will definitely be checking it out again soon. In my opinion this is the best horror sequel since 'Evil Dead II' and I would definitely recommend it. Go check it out!

A failure of a man working a dead-end job that pays $14/hr looses all of his money on a stock tip given by a cheesy TV show and decides the smartest thing to do is to buy a gun and shoot people. The director expects you to sympathize with this terrorist. Do you?

If yes -> go and see this movie.

If no -> go and see something else.

George Clooney is good. Julia Roberts is also good. The story line is somewhere between absurd trying to be funny and anarchist trying to incite a riot. The best performance is given by the actress Emily Meade, it might be worth seeing this movie just because the character she plays is so good. The script is not well written, there are very few memorable lines. The camera and lighting feels more like a TV show than a movie. The costumes are standard and the extras are mildly funny.

Overall, if you are a failure in life and fantasize about shooting people more successful than you because they are smarter and worked harder, then you will certainly love this movie.