Suicide Squad Trailer: DC gone berserk

Just when I thought DC must be resting quite satisfyingly after that awesome Batman v Superman, one day later later they drop the Suicide Squad trailer. Firstly for obvious reasons, its not as epic as Batman v Superman trailer was and its not going for that either. It definitely is more of an edgier presentation.

Viola Davis' Amanda Waller just works. That headstrong authoritative character remains intact in the performance. In the trailer Waller seemingly discussing with an Army general for what looks like a grant to assemble a team which consist of convicted people. This what is Suicide Squad main premise lies and they also have a great excuse to build this team since they have 'built-in deniability' meaning the authorities can just blame them for if anything goes wrong. That's quite tragic yet interesting. The film-makers also managed to throw in a superman reference claiming him as a beacon for the villains to go back into hiding. I think from here we again can see the First Contact story angle in the DC universe where the arrival of Superman is used as a world-building device. 

I will be honest I did not know what Suicide Squad was before this, maybe I've heard the name before since it seems familiar. Anyway, my point being that when I was looking into the characters, many of them have you can say, 'exotic' abilites and I remain curious has to how writer/director David Ayer portrays these powers in a universe that is quite adamant about its realism. Though what does excite me is its really edgy tone with a dash of mania to it.

The trailer also gives us little bits of action, which again has a sense of zaniness with examples such as those absolutely crazy panda outfits and that Batman Mask. And yet somehow does sell an atmosphere of anarchy and distraught in a plausible way which DC seems to go for in its cinematic universe. They also put in that leaked Lamborghini scene with Batman on the roof, I'm personally quite hyped as to how this sequence takes place in the movie.

Even though we see all the team members of Suicide Squad such as the likes of El-Diablo, Killer Croc (though absurd looking in that press photo, surprisingly working in film), The Enchantress, Katana, Captain Boomerang etc. But this trailer mostly seems to focus on 2 of the members, Deadshot (Will Smith) and Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie) in particular plus the ending to which we shall come. shortly.

The trailer shows a sort of fatherly relationship with Deadshot and really delves into the whole anti-hero aspect of it all and even though I had my doubts with Will Smith's casting but from the trailer, I think I can run with it, he looks and sounds good in this. There is also a line by Jai Courtney as Captain Boomerang, he just sounds like Jai Courtney in a weird get-up, but again we haven't seen enough of him as of this point.

Most of the screen-time in this trailer is occupied by Margot Robbie's Harley Quinn. First Impressions: she fits as Harley Quinn and the design is accurate in terms of the 'New 52' rendition. The trailer first reveals her in what I assume is Belle Reve Penetentiary (from where the Suicide Squad operate in the comics) in a special cage, doing gymnastics? but it sells the whole creepiness the movie is going for. Robbie nails the voice where she does not copy Tara Strong's voice and her performance is quite original yet gives you a sense of how messed up she is remaining true to the character. I do have a theory that they will change her origin and as an extension Harley would play a really major part of the main story. In the original story Dr.Harleen Quinzel, psychiatrist at Arkham Asylum basically had Counter Transference (Google-it) with Joker and she got enamoured by his personality and since became his follower/sidekick. But in the movie I think that she will get (potential spoiler) mental torture as we can see when Joker is escaping the asylum (I think) and Harleen Quinzel strapped to a hospital bed and we see the Joker with that looks like electrodes used in Shock Treatment. It could be that he uses those on Quinzel to physically mess up her brain and you add the trauma of the event which makes her into Harley Quinn. Still just a theory. It does seem that the David Ayer will push this character and it could be something truly awesome. 

And of course we have our first performance reveal of Jared Leto as The Joker. I always did support this casting because he is an actor that can take his performance to crazy places which you need for this villain. When the first look of him in bleach came, I was quite mixed, where he did capture the psychopath side of him but overkilled it in what looked like a Marilyn Manson tribute. Plus that cringe-worthy 'Damaged" forehead tattoo, ugh and I don't like the teeth-grills too much since (to me) the silver just doesn't go with the white skin like it doesn't contrast the teeth. However Leto does justice with his performance where there are clear influences of Heath Ledger in his voice but his face does emote more than past Jokers and that completely sells the character. But in the end it depends on the character written because with Joker, a writer has 2 options: crazy lost the mind joker or the more calculative criminal who is seriously dark. The best Jokers (including Ledger's ) often walked the fine line between the two. From the looks of it, its gonna be the former, but you cannot judge a character from just a line though the performance is very scary and spot-on indeed. 

In many respects one can argue that Suicide Squad is DC's answer to Guardians Of The Galaxy and in that case it is a serious contender. It is pretty much DC setting out to prove that there can be a movie consisting entirely of villains though there is definitely a more anti-hero angle than downright villains with Suicide Squad. Nonetheless this teaser sets the stage and grabs our heads. My takeaway from this is that it looks to be a character driven adventure with a really edgy tone. However we are still not properly introduced to the whole team so we are still short of seeing the dynamic between the members. Though we must remind ourselves that this is a teaser, and a friggin great one at that. DC is totally hell-bent to capture Marvel's lead.



ps. ANT-MAN should have released this weekend but it has been postponed to next week in my region but I will try to review asap. God knows how much I want to kill the executives who changed the date.

Batman v Superman: The Trailer we Deserved

Now we are talking ! DC had released the new trailer for Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice on July 9th shortly after their Comic Con 2015 appearance and God, is it mighty. I shall place the video down below just in case you haven't seen. Firstly I must give credit where credit's due, thank you Zack Snyder for finally giving us some actual colours in the movie.

The trailer started with a bang, with Superman(Buff as ever Henry Cavill) going to an activist-filled senate hearing (headed by Holly Hunter as a Senator) for the people to know just what his standing is in the world. Is it just me or did I quite verbose inspirations in this treatment of Superman to Dr.Manhattan from Watchmen (another DC movie he directed) in the way he depicted the situation of a god-like being who is put under heavy scrutiny for good reasons. Speaking of good reasons, I would like to see the faces all the fans who mobbed over director Zack Snyder over Superman not saving people and pretty much laying metropolis to waste. I did not see that coming, using the Metropolis fight as a powder keg moment for the world to just erupt on this guy and for Superman to face consequences. It was a genius story move.

Anyway the next big reveal the trailer shown was that Bruce Wayne (Batman just in case you live in a cave) was actually present in the Metropolis disaster has he pretty much practically runs into all that mess without his Batsuit (so heroic) and we see the broken sign of the Wayne Financial building in the left-hand corner. First of all it is nice to see the that last fight from Man of Steel from literally a different perspective on the people at the ground, and as a result it does elevate the impact of all the destruction that took place. But what doesn't click with me is that people sending Wayne letters saying "You've let your family die !" , well it wasn't his fault was it ? I don't recall the time where the owner of the World Trade Centre got a letter accusing him of letting those people die in 9/11. I don't see how he could've stopped the whole Metropolis thing. So I don't buy that motivation for him to destroy Superman, unless if there is more to it. Zack Snyder's idea of treating both Gotham and Metropolis as sister cities is a nice touch and that Gotham was more of a lower end(society/crime wise) city than Metropolis. They seemed to hint on this to factor into the story somehow, maybe that would be our extra motivation. Maybe we could expect some tension between the citizens of both cities.

This trailer also gave us a really good taste of the new Batman, as Perry White(Laurence Fishburne) claims to be a 'one-man Reign of Terror'. I really like that analogy. And it shows how brutal this Bat-fleck will be as we can see the Bat-symbol branded on a guy's chest. It leaves us no question that this Batman is a darker/more serious one than his predecessors. Also during the Comic-Con panel Zack Snyder claimed that the Batman mech-suit is not an armour but a self-preservation suit that doesn't actually enhance any of Batman's strength, hmm. Of what glimpses we have seen of the Bat-cave, I'm really liking the design of it like a very high-tech garage, which also was in the Watchmen movie which basically proves that he was trying to pull-off a Batman with that Night-Owl suit. Also it happens to be beneath a derelict Wayne Manor(or so it seems), so is it possible that he maybe had taken hiatus like Dark Knight Returns and that this whole Superman fiasco brought him back to the suit. That Robin suit with the Joker reference does add evidence to that theory. Something really trivial I thought that in a scene in the trailer (2:34) I do not know why but Ben Affleck reminded me of Vincent D'nofrio as Wilson Fisk in the Netflix Daredevil series? There is also a brief appearance of Superman as Clark Kent trying to find and take on Batman to which Perry White argues that 'no one cares about Clark Kent taking on the Batman' a bit of foreshadowing there. Also I am really curious as to how this plot-line pans out

Plus Jeremy Irons (from looks alone) seems to be a very different Alfred then Micheal Cain's portrayal. He appears to be a little more stern and straightforward to Bruce while still serving to be his voice of reason. there is also a brief appearance of Jeffrey Dean Morgan (The Comedian from Watchmen) as Thomas Wayne...as he gets killed in crime alley but it looks to be a very stylised version of it which I'm curious to see

We also see Batman in a desert-outfit fighting what seems to be really deviant trigger-happy followers of Superman, of what it looks like even Superman does not approve.It is very reminiscent of the followers in hockey pads in The Dark Knight. Are they called the 'Red Capes' as Lex Luthor happens to say in the trailer?

Oh yeah, Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg) is in this trailer and I still don't buy him furthermore that

hairdo regardless if its a wig or not, looks silly. What many people feared also kinda happen that it still looks and sounds too Jesse Eisenberg and its a but hard to see him as Lex Luthor.  I don't know maybe I'm wrong and he happens to be awesome, we will have to see. However I did like that Luthor revelled in the whole Batman v Superman fight. And also there is a scene where he nearly happens to be caressing Superman as he is kneeling before Lex and looking very angry. Interesting.

Now we all remember when it was announced that Wonder-Woman was going to appear in the movie in a major role and that it felt shoe-horned in. It was reported that Wonder-Woman will play a sort of drug to propagate the formation of the Justice League. We do not see her much in this trailer but of what is seen is indicative of that she and Bruce Wayne will have a lot of, mingling so to speak. It seems that Wonder-Woman will serve as a Third-Party perspective in this fight, which can go either way. As for Gal Gadot in the casting, I can sort of see what Zack Snyder is going for in the terms of an elegant Amazonian warrior-princess but yes she doesn't exactly fit the physicality of Wonder Woman that has become pretty archetypical to the character. And also I would have liked for DC to do a modern-take on her outfit but since I do not know what her story will be in the movie per se, I will give the benefit of the doubt,

Not all of the trailer is just people talking, there is also some really great bare-knuckled brawls of fighting scene and they look quite spectacular as pretty much the 2 most famous superheroes fighting each other. To be specific there is really a provocative image when Superman breaks the Bat-mobile's roof and Batman just stands up to him, that gave me quite the chills. I trust cinematographer Larry Fong to do a good job since his previous films 300 and Watchmen (both directed by Snyder) had a really stylish look to them which translates well into comic book movies. My only concern remains is that there should be a good reason for these two giants to fight so it doesn't seem like a squabble and there is some real emotional weight to the fighting. Though again the fights as themselves really look to be a DC fan's wet dream. One thing I must admit though, some of the special effects still looks just a hair bit rubbery, but they could improve it by the time of release.

This trailer is superb it just gives us enough information we need to know to get super hyped and make us watch the movie, it just goes above and beyond in its awesomeness. It has a nice 'First Contact' story feel to it and the story seems to be super-grounded in reality. It serves as an awesome first real look at Bat-fleck and gave us enough of the fighting with jam packed story content. Also there is a brief appearance of  General Zod's body, will he factor into Doomsday's origin if he at all is in there? .I don't know but I do believe that Zack Snyder and DC are definitely holding their cards to the chest and we would have to see the movie to find out. 

Movie Impressions: Minions

Few things become an instant hit like the banana loving Minions from Despicable Me and their own movie seemed, inevitable. Since Despicable Me 2, I saw that a story centred around the minions could work. Though the question remained that whether they could lead a movie on their own. The film-makers have served up a clever premise here where the minions existed for thousands of years and their only purpose, to serve the most despicable being alive. Could it actually work?

The story mainly follows our three leading minion characters Kevin Stuart and Bob, who try to find a new master to serve because the Minion family is getting bored without a master. So they find themselves in the 1960's and into service for Scarlett Overkill (Sandra Bullock), the first female villain-star and an assigment to steal Queen Elizabeth's crown. Though things don't go as planned which pits Scarlett and the Minions against each other. Let the hilarity ensue...

Firstly I must address the significant increase in the quality of animation, the Minions have never looked better, the amount of eye-candy is very impressive (and that is me after watching Inside out) which is supported with a nice colour palette which does illustrate the vibrancy of the 60's. The animation power here does not disappoint and executes itself with style.

The humour with the Minions has never been subtle, or even that clever since it relies heavily on physical humour and the weird yet enjoyable language that they have. I never had a problem with this style of comedy when done right, and it always was done right in the case of the minions. However I do understand situations where you might feel that the jokes feel too much of the same thing, because they do work best as a side-gag. But there are some jokes which are genuinely good such as the opening montage (narrated amusingly by Geoffrey Rush) and the Football game. But if you happen to be a kid, you will laugh your heart out and be immune to all such issues as I was assured by the kids in the theatre.

One thing I really liked in the story is that they really played off on the innocence of the Minions and never for once were they actually 'bad guys' and it was just sometimes they lost track of things or they were just plain clumsy and their actions made them perceive as bad even though their intentions were good-natured right till the end. I also like that it added to how close knit this group is and how much they care for each other.

The minions Kevin, Stuart and Bob are very well written which makes each of the three distinct personalities where Kevin the optimistic leader, Bob is over-enthusiastic and adorable and lastly Stuart is more of a ukulele playing guy who just wants to be famous. By the way, all voiced to great enjoyment by Co-director Pierre Coffin. Scarlett Overkill voiced by Sandra Bullock also makes a nice foil to the minions and has a motivation that actually made sense for her character.  The film also has other voice talents such as Jon Hamm as Scarlett's Husband/inventor Herb (really good voice acting and a different role for him). Micheal Keaton as Peter Nelson, the husband of a villain family (and hitching the minions a ride), among others.

So to answer the question did it work? could the minions hold up themselves, and...yeah I think they did because I felt more enjoyment just seeing minions bored out of their minds in a cave rather than the humans. The main minion characters were also great with individual personalities. The animation and setting were superb. And also the soundtrack by Hector Pereira had a very 60's Beatles/Hendrix-y rock vibe with also your normal orchestrations. Furthermore, The third act of this movie is some of the best minion action/comedy there is. Its just a solid movie that delivers what it sets out to deliver, nothing more nothing less. 

Movie Impressions: Terminator Genisys

Honestly, I was never that big into the Terminator franchise, but I always like that it had a really dark 90's sci-fi edge to it with some a high stakes war story background woven into a personal story about family and humanity as clever low budget film of its time. With Terminator Salvation, we all thought the franchise died for good and I wasn't all too sad. But now it seems Paramount Pictures wants to take another shot at reinvigorating the franchise with even more convoluted timelines and plot threads in Terminator Days of Future Past.....no, uhh, I mean Genesis....no, uhh GENISYS, yeah that's how you spell it...

This is a fractured timeline story much like the aforementioned X-men outing, just more convoluted and I really do not want to explain this spaghetti of a plot, but at the end of the day its main purpose is to change the status quo of the whole franchise using complicated time-travel, that again convolutes more than it actually resolves, and brings it to a point where any further sequels would begin to feel episodic. Though, it starts very promising in the beginning with a solid sequence in the apocalypse of 2029 but it quickly bogs down as it starts to set-up too many sub-plots for itself to keep track and eventually throwing most of it up in the air. There are definitely some real clever angles in the story, with opportunities for character drama and social commentary concept-wise but much of the story does not integrate into a whole. Not to mention that it feels like a retread of the basic plots of the previous movies and it proved that the marketing failure of a spoilt plot-twist from the trailers was indeed a huge dent in terms of story impact, because the underlying implications of that twist certainly would have been a big blow to the whole point of the story and challenge the whole point of these movies.

At this point I would like mention the director Alan Taylor, who you might know from Game of Thrones and more recently, Thor: The Dark World. From Thor I realised that he was definitely more focused on action than story. Though that is the case here as well, he juggles between the two far better. My only gripe is that he should have paid more attention to all the story-threads more because it isn't motivating the action all too well and it emotional detaches you. And that just becomes doubly disappointing since the action is quite good in itself, not T-2 levels (of course) but good nonetheless. There is also some really neat fan services to which Taylor meticulously recreated from the original movies, but it just doesn't have that weight to it that it should have. Also I just don't know if it's me or Genisys looks too colourful for a Terminator since the previous movies had more of a muted colour palette for the most part.

Anyway let us move on to the characters and performances since those are the stronger parts of Genisys. Jason Clarke as John Connor I went with it, he really came across as a strong leader with a sense of humour although it wouldn't argue if you said that he doesn't look like the dark war-torn John Connor from T-2. Linda Hamilton and Micheal Biehn both owned Sarah Connor and Kyle Reese respectively, however Emilia Clark's portrayal felt really respectful to the character and her predecessor right down to her physicality. Jai Courntey as Reese just did not cut it for me since the difference between him and Biehn is just...sad and he could not pull off a chemistry with Clarke, even though the love story between Sarah and Kyle seems to work in the story.

On the other hand Clarke's chemistry with Arnold Schwarzenegger is brilliant, serving as a father figure to Sarah, which made a nice dynamic and some nice comic and emotional moments. In fact everything about our old T-800 is brilliant in this movie, he played him spot-on, his character had a lot of heart to him yet he also spews one-liners and just being plain cool as usual. There is also a neat angle over here with an ageing terminator model and that he is an 'old relic from a deleted timeline' sort of like robot mid-life crisis which is a nice justification to accomodate his real age. He definitely serves as the emotional centre and levity of the movie contributed by Arnold's performance and some good character writing.

I was also intriguingly surprised to see J.K Simmons and eager to see his part, he's a cop and though underused his character actually has a neat back-story and Simmons used all the given screen time well. Matt Smith also has a huge role as he basically plays, well Skynet himself. And he too works very well as a menacing evolving system determined to ensure its own survival and dominance. 

The effects are okay here where the special effects on young Arnold are very good(certainly better than Salvation) yet there are also some 'CGI' that do feel 'CGI' especially the T-1000 that still looks like its from 1997. And I'm forgetting but I think that they did used more CGI than practical and frankly they should stop it since the Terminator franchise really prides itself on the use of both computer and practical effects in unison. And the audience has got bored with overused computer effects.

There is an undeniable stench of corporate around this movie, though it is good to see Terminator back in the first decent sequel attempt after a long while. Though if I had my way, I would really try to find a way to not do a time-travel story again and look for more story potential rather than making a 'greatest hits version', remixed.  The biggest gripe I had with this movie was that I had no take-away from this, it was like not even mixed just 'okay'. The movie didn't make me feel like it accomplished something since we have seen the same 'destroy skynet before it awakes' plot for 2 movies prior and this makes the third time, its really getting old. But again its not bad and it has apparently got James Cameron's seal of approval, and if you are a Terminator fan, you will not be that disappointed since it definitely has its moments its just that those most of the moments run dry in the first half or come few and far between and that it mostly comes from the inherent nostalgia (for the most part) rather than its own merits.  

Movie Impressions: Inside Out

A family sitting at a dinner table, in a discussion about the daughter's first day in a new city, and all of a sudden, zoom into their heads revealing their personified emotions working as a team and we see how the back and forth of the family members are reflected as these different emotions respond  to other emotions that literally 'drive' the humans. And so is the premise of Inside Out, Pixar's latest film. It is a colourful, fun and an inventive joy ride that is really creatively executed by director Pete Docter (UP 2009), in what could be Pixar's return to form for a foreseeable future.


The film revolves around an eleven year old girl named Riley and the 5 emotions inside her head, Joy, Sadness, Disgust, Fear and Anger. The main story involves around Riley's Core Memories, the important ones that define her, and I would tell no further unless I wanted to ruin the emotional experience.That being said this movie is definitely not a story-driven/heavy movie, nor is it so much a character driven movie as much is it an idea-driven movie, where the story/plot seems to serve a singular purpose to showcase these wild ideas throughout an 'exploratory tour' of the movie world, akin to Toy Story or Wreck it Ralph (which is not even a Pixar movie).Though with UP,  Docter did deviate from this formula as it told a story first rather exploring a concept. But with Monster's Inc. we do know he can go further than the formula.

And this proves true here as well since those ideas are so fun and inventive. Even though to my realisation that the overall premise is not entirely novel as other reviews have pointed out, but it is what  the movie does with its premise is what makes it stand out from the competition. In true Pixar fashion, they built the world wonderfully and showcases just how may layers are there in the brain and how busy it gets in there using wildly creative analogies (Dream Productions being my personal favourite) with a vibrant colour palette coupled with Pixar's tech prowess in terms of details and animation certainly makes this movie good eye-candy and invites the audience to experience this 11 year old's brain.

This movie also boasts with some great voice talent including Amy Poehler as the over enthusiastic in-charge, Joy , Phyllis Smith as Sadness, Mindy Kaling as Disgust and Lewis Black as Anger that form up the basic emotions that control the 11 year Riley, played by Kaitlyn Diaz. This list of characters does go further that are equally entertaining and serve the story well. All the emotions do play off each other very well and also show character depth which makes each one distinct enough both from character design and performances. Joy and Sadness are the main characters here as they find their way back to the Headquarters(from where they drive Riley), and on the way they realise the importance of each other while the other emotions struggle to keep Riley stable. The arc here is satisfyingly good

The one area where the movie falls short is in the real-world story, most of it coming from Riley herself. She just does not feel like it's her own character and her Emotions seem too independent to make it seem that they are a part of Riley since those emotions don't represent in Riley very well. Furthermore, this hinders character motivation since it always feels like the Emotions are driving this vessel and Riley is just not aware of her emotions and have any sort of input to it like a human should. Even the some of the other characters and relations in the real world feel not so fleshed out and makes this part of the movie very secondary to the 'Brain' where it should compliment each other. Not that it doesn't work at all, because the overall story uses the dichotomy well but the level of detail in the Brain-world just lacks in the real world. That is disappointing.


In essence Inside Out celebrates childhood, growing up, and not always having a singular experience or response to life. The story produces heart-warming moments which are super-effective. It's great entertainment for audiences of pretty much all ages. Kids can admire the colourful worlds and inventive ideas while finding their own take on the message while the adults can reminisce on those days and get the deeper angles. It is a family entertainer through and through. However, again lack of motivation and weight between the humans and emotions does make me cringe, though not really movie breaking in the grand scheme of things since it has such a wild imagination to make up for it. Pixar was getting worn down by competition but with this movie I can say with assurance and 'joy' that Pixar is still in the game and has some tricks up at sleeve still.

Movie Impressions: Jurassic World

I do not need to explain the significance that Jurassic Park has to the history of cinema, revolutionising special effects with a captivating premise of seeing extinct beasts come to life once again and the repercussions of fiddling with nature. 22 years and 2 fairly disappointing sequels later, we have a decent film as Dr John Hammond's vision is finally come to fruition and it seems that it is time to play god again in Jurassic World, helmed by Colin Treverrow this time round. If you come into it expecting to hold-up to the original, then you will be disappointed. This iteration is definitely a different style of Jurassic Park while it hits the classic beats from time-to-time though you cannot deny it that it definitely an enjoyable experience on its own merits and it uses the nostalgia factor in a satisfying way without feeling phoned in.

We return to the island of Isla Nublar 22 years since the Jurassic Park incident, and the park is now open for a good number of years, but the audience is now getting bored of dinosaurs (somehow..) so the genetic scientists cook up a new species of dinosaur that is bigger, smarter with more teeth, the Indominus Rex. However when it escapes, it is up to dinosaur behaviourist, Owen Grady (Chris Pratt) and Claire (Bryce Dallas Howard) and the rest of the crew of the Park to handle the situation before it goes out of  hand, however in true 'Jurassic' fashion, things do not go exactly to plan.

Let's start at the eponymous resort. It is very refreshing that we finally get to revisit the original island of Isla Nublar which with updates, looks better than ever. The resort/park is meticulously detailed, littered with all sorts of attractions where you can look at the different dinosaur species first-hand in a hamster-ball, or see the genetic scientists doing their thing or watch a dinosaur movie at an IMAX screen. This park pretty much what you can call a glorified zoo mixed with Universal Studios and Disneyland, not unlike the dinosaurs don't you think? There is something grand and darkly poetic about seeing Dr.Hammond's vision come to life. The attractions are fully designed and well thought-out which makes this park seem plausible enough and for this reason it really immerses you in this world .This movie is quite the watch just for the park alone.

If you look at the story of Jurassic World from a very general perspective will seem like a re-tread of the same ' running from a dinosaur' story, but it is by far the most interesting and better motivated story than the previous sequels combined with really interesting new underlying themes and plot-lines that refresh the whole lore and forwards it in a natural progression such as gene-splicing dinosaurs to attract guests, which does 'up at the ante' with the fact that people are getting bored of just seeing dinosaurs which works both in respects to the film world and the real movie audience in terms of how we have seen the evolution of special effects. These ideas are well presented in the movie, though they take the back-seat to the action ( a bit too common with summer movies this year, I've noticed) but nothing really cringe-worthy. The story does take some time to start where it only starts to take-off after the first hour and even far into the second act there is a feeling that there is lack of 'epic' if you will. However it is in the third act where you will start to get your money's worth and it is the highlight of the movie, which is why I shall not spoil though if yo have seen the movie, you will probably agree with me. Also unlike the previous sequels, Jurassic World is able to recapture some of the wonder and awe of the original, largely due to its premise of the 'open park' and there are also references to the original park, some bigger than others, and there is a logical inconsistency as to why they exist since I should expect them to clean the island before construction. Speaking of logical inconsistencies, the radios over here are so conveniently malfunctioning and overall park security still hasn't quite improved for some reason that even though it is funny for a few giggles, is seriously immersion-breaking. I must address that Chris Pratt playing dog whisperer with velociraptors does not feel as far fetched than most people would assume and frankly have used this relationship in a satisfying way.

The human characters are written well, though most of them lack depth. Chris Pratt as Owen Grady is definitely a very likeable hero much due to the contribution of the buoyant personality Pratt is and he leads the movie effortlessly and also his character is not a generic wise-cracker and his humour is toned-down and he is an all round bad-ass.It looks with this one he has solidified his screen presence as a star. He is another important reason for you to watch this movie. Claire is arguably the main
character in the movie since she is really the only character who has a clear arc from an uptight businesswoman who is ignorant to someone who really cares for dinosaurs as beings. Bryce Dallas Howard also puts up a very good performance and certainly lives in the active, no-nonsense character that Claire is. Though you have to put up with a rather forced/unnecessary romance between Owen and Claire .The brothers Zack and Gray played by Nick Robinson and Ty Simpkins are on a sort of family vacation here and they really play off from each other.Though my investment in their story pretty much ended when they stopped just visiting the attractions and allowed to let me see the park more. Though what will come as a surprise to you is just how likeable and funny Jake Johnson is as Lowery, part of the monitoring crew of Jurassic World who sits in the new command centre. Lowery is just a really likeable character and Johnson's performance just makes him that much more than just comic relief. We also have Vincent D'nofrio, Kingpin himself, as the head of security at the park and again he is 'love to hate him' kind off person he is a major player in the story, without getting in to spoilers. Special mention goes to Irrfan Khan as Simon Masrani, the new owner of the park, who inherited the park from Dr. Hammond. Khan really portrays this optimist billionaire very well and it was very nice to see an owner who actually cares about consumer experience rather than profits and sees the park as a sign of showing humility to humans and how small we are in the world. I really liked his character and was quite sad that he was not used more, but he had his moments just like every other character which is a good thing.

We have finally reached the meat and potatoes of the Jurassic franchise, the Dinosaurs and there is no surprise in saying that they are the best part of the movie, not as well used in the original of course but there is a good variety of species to be found here such as the fish-like Mososaurus, Pteranodon, the iconic Velociraptors and of course the genetic abomination that is the Indominus Rex. My problem with the I-Rex is that even though it is supposed to be a like a super-dinosaur with plot convenient super powers like camouflage and such, it is really is underused for some reason since every single ability of his is just shown one-time and does not really result into something bigger like we show you what it can do bit-by-bit and then she will use everything she has in a finale. And because of the fact that the plot really focuses on a singular threat and when it is underutilised really starts to bog down the whole movie, and it starts to overshadow the other dinosaur species in a bad way. A singular threat should not really be the focus of a Jurassic Park movie since the whole premise really is that pretty much any and every dinosaur is a potential threat and we do not know how a dinosaur will react and that unpredictability I felt was missing and made the I-Rex a missed opportunity. The special effects are also really well done overall although there is still an over-reliance on computer imagery than animatronics which again prove the superior form of special effects especially in the Apatosaurus scene. The only real problem in the CGI I felt was that it seemed to inconsistent, at some parts it held-up but in others it really seemed a bit rubbery(Although it could be just me). But for the most part the dinosaurs look wonderfully photo-real. Again I said before the dinsoaurs really shine towards the later part of Act-2 and the entirety of Act-3. The climax is something that is truly the highlight of the movie and may have given us one of the best contributions to the legacy of Jurassic Park.

I think that Jurassic World (as many have said before) should be viewed as a monster movie than the classic horror-action roller-coaster that the original was, and it really is a personal preference as to which style you gravitate to. For me a Jurassic Park is all about a huge T-Rex head coming at you in total darkness with your heart coming in your throat with fear. So its obvious that I was not too into the movie here that was largely daylight and was more 'action' than 'horror-action'. A monster movie is a more accurate appraisal of this movie than calling it a classic 'Jurassic' style film though it definitely does not discredit this movie and its direction. In fact I am really quite surprised that it took 22 years for us to get a decent sequel though Treverrow and all the cast and crew have really done a marvellous job in recreating some of the magic that we sorely missed and once you see the movie you can see the passion and respect the film-makers have to the legacy of the original without it being copy-paste, and permeates through every aspect of the film from the writing to acting to the visuals and the amazing score by Micheal Giacchino (a phenomenal homage to John Williams score while adding his own stamp) and this respect to the source material helped in re-invigorating the franchise and our love for it. Does it stand any chance against the original ?, of course not,  but is the only one that came closer than the others, at that alone should make it worth for at least one watch. The story is a bit long and weak unlike the tighter and focused plot of the original, it may lack the horror aspect but again just seeing that vision of the park come to life and seeing these new characters plus dinosaurs and going back into that universe is a blast nonetheless.


ps. I would suggest a front row sitting for a full experience...

What makes the Awesome Mix (Guardians of the Galaxy) so Awesome ?

OK....I just watched Guardians of the Galaxy, for the first time (I know timing...) and somehow kept myself out of the gaze of spoilers for a year so I that I ruin it for myself and I am glad I did that since I got to witness the awesomeness that is Peter Quill's Awesome Mix Vol's 1&2. Though, if we really take a look back, its definitely not the first time famous hit songs of yesteryears have been used in films. So the question here is, what makes an arrangement of random songs resonate with us as an audience into what I believe, one of the most inventive uses of soundtrack in film ?

A movie's soundtrack does wonders to define its tone, to drive home points in the movie.  And Guardians takes full advantage of that fact through its Awesome Mix with its arrangement of light-hearted yet emotional mix of both rhythmic and soothing songs that prepares you for an adventure, couple that with clever tonal shifts and its impact is fully realised(eg. that intro feat. 'Come and Get your Love' by Redbone). However, if you remember, Watchmen (2009) was also going for a similar thing by using 'period-appropriate' pop music for setting its tone and it did that very well. However, what was different is that each song in that was pretty much used in isolation to add a layer of emotion to events in the story, unlike Guardians, where its soundtrack goes beyond the plot of the movie itself, as I shall explain further

Where most soundtracks in film (meaning cherry-picked songs, not original soundtracks) most of the time is used to set a mood or too depict a certain situation, However, what Guardians has to its advantage is its setting, space, and it is really far away  from Earth. The director James Gunn explained in the commentary on the blu-ray that he wanted to use the cassette as a link or his attachment back to the Earth. Even if we do not see the Earth, the Awesome Mix acts as our little memento of Earth and I believe that sets-up a really great context for the movie that makes us realise that we are indeed in a far place, but because of the music it makes the world seem to us more Earthly because it attaches us right back to Earth and makes us forget about poisonous lizards or talking genetically Raccoons. Also as a bonus, through this Mix-tape, it also touch upon the point that music transcends species where they may not understand the words but the rhythm and melody is just something that they intrinsically connect to, like the Mean Guard.

The idea behind the Awesome Mix in the context of Quill was that it served as an attachment to his mother, who died of cancer and (metaphorically speaking)  that through music she was still able to communicate to him. Again paraphrasing from the commentary, Gunn said that the all the songs that were put in the cassette represented her character, which can be seen in the form of a mix upbeat, energetic and soothing rhythms that illustrate a hopeful and optimistic character. That in itself is an example of a very clever usage of soundtrack, but when I was browsing through the official listing of songs given in the mix, I noticed something. For anyone who has seen the movie, you will know about Peter's 'questionable' ancestry, and if you look closely at the official order of the playlist for the Awesome Mix Vol.1 you can notice that it tells the story of Quill's mother meeting and falling in love with 'someone' and her being abandoned with Peter, her feelings about the whole thing and raising him as a single parent with help from his grandparents, while she still remains hopeful for a better future. Trust me pay attention to the lyrics and the themes in the song's themselves, you can notice as well. Now, I could very well could be over-thinking, but if this is true, then my mind is blown, it is fascinating as to how a bunch of seemingly random songs can be put together in order to tell a coherent story. This kind of subtlety is what puts this Mix in high praise in my eyes.

I think we really can learn something from this, to use soundtrack not only to set a mood or a situation but also using it as a tool for character development. Trying to string together a bunch of random songs to convey a singular emotion can be a very hard task and it gets harder once you decide that the same group of songs will be used to serve a variety of  functions other than what it is usually implemented for, it went the extra mile in terms of what period soundtrack can be used for and hence goes beyond than just setting a tone, but increasing immersion in a whole new way. Such little touches is what makes the Awesome Mix great and also the general world-building of the movie awesome that even the littlest of things/ideas in the movie which appear for seconds has several pages worth of thought put into it. Furthermore, it seems that James Gunn has announced that he has selected all the songs in Awesome Mix Vol 2.  for the sequel as well, and as for many fans, I am very excited as to revisiting this 'awesome' world.