Reviews by Matt

Working at a summer camp means that I spend a lot of time around kids during the summer (Not exactly a shocking statement, I know). I can also count on one summer movie for the kids to be quoting (or in some cases singing) parts of the movie. This summer that honor falls to “Kung Fu Panda 2.”

Po (Jack Black) has become the Dragon Warrior and along with the furious five, protect The Valley of Peace. When Lord Shen (Gary Oldman) looks to wipe out kung fu, Po and his friends fight back. Along the way, Po learns the secret of his past.

I was not a huge fan of the first movie. It is a good movie, but my general dislike of Jack Black, tainted my view of the first movie. That being said, I really liked this one. It was funny, action packed and had a pretty strong story to back it up.

Jack Black basically plays the same character in every movie: a goofy schlub. In this case, it works. Po is kind of a klutz and uses humor to cover for insecurities-basically Jack Black. In this movie he has taken on the role of Dragon Warrior and mastered kung fu. The important thing in a sequel is character development (I’m looking at you all sequels to “Pirates of the Caribbean”). Po grows through the revelation of where he comes from. We find out about his family and how he ended up being raised by a duck.

There are some great action scenes in this movie. I did not see this in 3-D, but I would have purely because of those scenes. In animation there is a lot that can be done that cannot be done in a traditional action movie. There is one scene where Po and the Furious Five run up a building as it is falling down. You won’t see that in any other summer blockbuster.

Is this better than any of the Pixar movies? It might beat “Cars,” but it does not reach “The Incredibles.” Still, on its own, the movie is really good. I had only a passing interest in seeing the movie, but it as well worth paying for. With this and “How To Train Your Dragon,” Dreamworks Animation is showing that they can reach Pixar level of awesomeness if they keep trying.

8 out of 10
90 min
PG for sequences of martial arts action and mild violence.

Here’s the thing about the first “Pirates of the Caribbean,” it was a surprise. No one saw it coming. At the time it was seen as a movie based on a ride at Disney. Then it came out and was awesome. It was a legitimately good movie, not just fun summer fair. It was funny and had all the swashbuckling action you could ask for. It was, basically, the best type of summer movie. Then the sequels happened. They were a bloated mess where the director, cast and crew were trying way to hard to get back the magic of the first movie. They failed miserably. Yet, they made billions and that brings us to “Pirates of the Caribbean on Strangers Tides.”

This time Capitan Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) is looking for the Fountain of Youth. Along the way we meet old faces, like Barbossa (Geffory Rush) and new ones, like Blackbeard (Ian McShane) and his daughter Angelica (Penelope Cruz).

Either I am getting better at writing synopsis or movies are getting dumber—maybe both.

The thing with having a huge hit like “Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl” is that it was a fluke. It became a hit by accident and all of a sudden, Disney had a goldmine. What do they do for the sequels? Add more. More action, more adventure, more Jack Sparrow. That was really it. The story did not get better, it just got more. The same can sort of be said of the new installment. It felt smaller in some respect, but there was still more of what the other movies had.

This was not as epic as the previous two movies. It did not have as many huge action set pieces scattered throughout the movie. Unlike the two movies preceding it, followed a (semi)logical path and was a heck of a lot easier to follow. Still, it was just not that enjoyable. I have do desire to rush out to see it again.

It was just more of the same. Even with a change in director (Rob Marshall), it was too much like the others. It was as of no one was really trying. Even Depp, who is great in the role, was just going through the motions. Nothing changes; all the characters stay exactly the same.

I wanted to like this. I love the first one and hate the second two. When I saw the previews for this one, I was hopeful. This was a chance to start anew and it was simply a retread of the first three, but this time with mermaids.

5 out of 10
PG-13 for intense sequences of action/adventure violence, some frightening images, sensuality and innuendo.
136 minutes

Yesterday (May 23, 2011), marked one year since “The End” aired. It has been 365 days since the final episode of “Lost,” a fact I had no idea about until late in the day. Interestingly enough though, I recently had a revelation about the end of the show and why some people hated it. I have heard a lot in the past year about how bad the ending was, but I loved it. I knew going in that there would still be some lingering questions. I thought the ending they chose was the perfect way to end the series.

The main bone of contention is that there are questions that were not answered. These people were watching a different show than I was. Yes, things were not answered, but to me, the show was never about knowing everything there was to know. I loved those questions and I spent hours upon hours online looking at theories and talking through my own with my friends. Despite the endless hours I spent on the mysteries of the island, that is not what defined my enjoyment of the show.

The survivors of the crash of Oceanic 815 were what the show was really about. If you look at season one, it focused heavily on who these people were. All the flashbacks were there to fill in the background information that helped define the character. The show was the characters’ experience on the island—not the viewer’s experience—on the island. Leading up to the finale, I heard executive producers, Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse, say that they would answer a question if it was important to the characters. That right there tells you everything you need to know about the show. The questions, while fun, were not the driving force behind the show.

That is why I loved the ending. It was not about knowing everything there is to know about the island, DHARMA, and all those strange things we saw in six seasons. It was always going to be about the people we were watching. Strong, good characters beat out mysteries any day of the week. To those who hated the ending and saw it as a waste of six years of their lives, think back really hard to season one and tell me if the show was about an island or the survivors of a plane crash?

Well, the summer movie season is upon us. There will be a big name release every week for the next four months. A few weeks ago the summer opened with “Thor,” the latest in a very long line of comic book movies. It is also the first of at least four comic book movies opening this summer.

Thor (Chris Hemsworth), the arrogant son of Oden (Anthony Hopkins) is the god of thunder. With his mighty hammer he is unstoppable and that combined with his arrogance leads to him reigniting a war with the Ice Giants, a race his father beat a long time ago. As punishment Oden strips him of hammer and banishes Thor to Earth. As he casts out his son, Oden sends the hammer to Earth as well with the words “Whosoever holds this hammer, if he be worthy, shall possess the power of Thor.” The hammer crashes to earth and no one can pull it from where it landed. When Thor lands on earth, he encounters Jane Foster (Natalie Portman), a scientist studying unusual phenomena in a small town. Thor is forced to change his ways and learn to live on Earth if he ever hopes to wield the hammer every again.

Chris Hemsworth, was actually pretty good as Thor. He was really funny as well as great in the action scenes. As much as I do not want to say it because it is super cliché, but this is a classic fish out of water story. We spend the first part of the movie seeing Thor in Asgard where he is at home and has power. When he is thrown out he has lost his power and is in a place where everything is different. This is where much of the comedy comes from. There were moments where it could have been too much, but Hemsworth is able to pull of these moments and make them genuinely funny.

Despite winning an Oscar, Natalie Portman was out of place in the movie. I was really not convinced with her performance. I understand her purpose in the movie. She has to be there to make the end of the movie more powerful, but her role never amounts to anything more than that.

I was worried going into this movie that it was not going to be good. There is a lot riding on this movie. If this movie or “Captain America: The First Avenger” fail, “The Avengers” fails as well. Since Joss Whedon is writing and directing “Avengers,” I want to see the movie succeed. I hope that “Captain America” is as good (if not better) because I have a lot emotionally invested in how these movies do. That being said, there is a lot to like about this movie, it is fun, action packed and funnier than I thought.

8 out of 10
115 min
Rated PG-13 for sequences of intense sci-fi action and violence

When it comes to writing reviews, I need a starting point, that one thing in the movie that sways me one way or the other. In any movie this could be the acting, a certain scene or some aspect of the movie that helps to shape the review. In the past few months, I have been jotting down my thoughts in a notebook so that I have something to refer to when I write reviews. The page for “Hanna” is blank because I could not come up with why.

When she was young, Hanna’s (Saoirse Ronan) father Erik (Eric Bana) took her away to protect her. He raised her to be an assassin and taught her the skills she would need to survive. Marissa (Cate Blanchett) and others at the CIA will do whatever it takes to get Hanna and Erik.

If I need a jumping off point to get the review done, then the action is as good a place to start as any. There were some pretty intense action scenes in the movie. Hanna is a trained assassin. She has been working all her life to gain these skills in order to survive, whether that is hunting for food or evading and killing CIA agents who are after her.

Hanna is an interesting character and Saoirse Ronan plays her with a hint of innocence, which is tough when the character is a killer. She is cold and calculating. Her childhood was made up of training, so her social skills are lacking. At one point, Hanna meets a girl her own age and the two form a sort of friendship. Hanna, the killer, is seen as Hanna, the () year-old girl.

Neither the action nor the character of Hanna helped me form a coherent opinion about the movie. It is frustrating for me to sit here and not be able to explain why I liked it. The action was cool, but not outstanding and the character of Hanna was interesting, but the performance was not mind blowing. I should give this movie a 5, because looking at the review, I thought it was “good not great.” There is something about the movie that I really enjoyed. The time flew by and I was toughly engaged, but I just cannot figure out exactly what it was. My hope is that when I rewatch the movie I will be able to see what it is I missed. If I can figure it out, I will let you know.

8 out of 10
Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and action, some sexual material and language.
111min