Movie Review: Notorious (2009)

The best kind of films are when you see them and they inspire you. Rarely does a flick come along that has such a strong inspirational influence over a viewer. Notorious is a 2009 film directed by George Tillman Jr and proved itself to be one of those inspiring movies. The film casts the likes of Jamal Woolard, Angela Bassett, Derek Luke, as well as Anthony Mackle and is the biography of hip-hop artist/Rapper The Notorious B.I.G. The film starts out with this young boy on the poor and rough streets of Brooklyn and follows him into his career as a musical legend. I really liked this movie. It was fascinating and it is one of those movies that increased my interest in Notorious (not just as a music artist, but as a person) The acting was supurb especially from our lead (Woolard) and Anthony Mackle who gives a grand, thorough performance as rapper Tupac Shakur. The movie also highlights just basic Brooklyn poor people life, and that was great because it showed us and gave us a reason for our hero to start rapping. The reason this movie seems so underrated is most likely due to the fact that the ending doesn't provide the emotional pay - off it should have given us. It's very dark and depressing at the end and it doesn't come off that way because none of the actors and actresses give a very emotional performance. While some do give their best, the overall consensus as well as most of the emotion throughout this film didn't come across as it should have. Despite that, this movie is very good and since it's a quite good film I cannot sit here and bash it. After seeing Notorious I put it up there as maybe one of my favorite biopics. I highly recommend Notorious. I think it's quite rewarding not just for the viewer, but really makes you want to learn more about Notorious BIG as a person. Overall, Notorious was a very good film that pleased me and inspired me in just the way I wanted it to. Three stars

What Matters: Matilda

What matters? Telekinesis matters, great nostalgia matters, and Miss. Honey matters. In this edition of What Matters, I'm going to be reflecting (not reviewing) Matilda (1996) which is an extremely important movie to me and was one of the earliest films that sparked my deep passion for film and the cinema. Matilda, based off the book of the same title by Roald Dahl is the story of a young girl who discovers she has telekenisis and uses her intelligence and great friendship with her elementary school teacher Ms. Honey to escape her abusive parents and finally find and receive the family she truly deserves. The first time I ever saw Matilda was when I was probably seven or eight years old. Looking back on it as a whole, the movie probably is not the most appropriate film for a child. In fact, Matilda really isn't a kids movie at all. It's marketed for children, but it has a far more advanced story that has some unsettling elements to it. In short, Matilda was the first time I ever sat down at a movie and said: huh, that was a great film. It's engrossing and it was the first moment where I ever actually looked to see if a movie was worthwhile in quality. Because of the complex that all kids "love" whatever stimulates them, most people didn't believe me when I was talking about this great film about a girl who finds her true mother amidst a darkened, black, gaping hole of a world. Let's talk about Miss. Honey...I love her. Rarely will I ever watch a film and find a character that I would like to know in person. Only a few movies have ever done that for me and Matilda is one of them. Miss. Honey is one of the most heartfelt performances ever given in film. It sounds crazy because Matilda is not best picture material, but I truly believe that this is Danny DeVito and Rita Pearlman's best role too. Matilda also inspired me a lot because I watched it multiple times and it was (at least for Me) a story that I could escape to. Whenever I felt worn out, stressed, or just needed to relax Matilda was always right there on On Demand. I loved how powerful it is and how it drowned the viewer in this world. It was my story, and it felt as if I owned it and could return to it, relate to characters, and come to it whenever I needed it. Matilda is an underrated masterpiece of a film that will not only stimulate kids and whenever I watch it I feel the story come back to me.

Movie Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001)

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is a 2001 fantasy film directed by Chris Columbus and based off of the book by J.K. Rowling. The film stars an ensemble cast of actors and actresses: Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Richard Harris, Maggie Smith, Robbie Coltrane, Tom Felton, and Warwick Davis to name just a few. The movie revolves around a young boy named Harry who discovers that he is a wizard and goes to attend Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. I am a big fan of the Harry Potter series of books and movies. I've loved them ever since I was in my youth and maybe my most vivid memory was seeing Sorcerer's Stone as a drive in movie when I was eight years old. I loved the movie so much. It was intriguing, the characters were interesting, the story was awesome. All that mixed with the magical and quite innocent tone of Columbus's movie made it such a great experience for me. I've never stopped loving the Harry Potter series and this is the first time that I've not only reviewed a Harry Potter movie on Media World, but have watched one with a critical eye. We don't have to hold our breaths on this review because Sorcerer's Stone was actually pretty satisfying even all these many years later. The magical tone and the innocence is all still there. This is a wonderfully acted movie (with not one bad performance) and Daniel Radcliffe is Harry Potter. He molds into the character. As does Albus Dumbledore (Harris) and Hagrid (Coltrane). The translation of these characters from how they are described in the book to how they appear in the flick is remarkable. The innocence and that constant idea and theme of loss of innocence are what really drive Sorcerer's Stone and satisfy me the most as a viewer. The movie puts you right in Harry's perspective and we feel as if we are discovering the world of magic alongside him and that by far is the strongest aspect of the first Harry Potter movie. The idea of discovery and exploring the past and what is unknown is really interesting as we watch the film. This is an entertaining, visually impressive movie that really makes you care about characters (who almost always have a caring disposition on camera) and are an enjoyable watch. The issues with Sorcerer's stem from the fact that there really isn't too much to analyze  as far as a film goes. I got into the world of cinema and analyzing films because I like to take apart a director, cinematography, or actors work and make meaning of it. The Sorcerer's Stone doesn't do that. There's not much to analyze in this movie as it is literally a direct adaption of the source material. Which is the reason why I found it difficult to break apart this movie and find a deeper sense behind Columbus's direction. The film also has a lot of exposition that is not necessary for the story. Characters say things that are shown visually and don't need to be spoken. An example of this is the scene where Harry almost swallows the golden snitch. He stands up and Hagrid yells "looks like he's going to be sick" which is already shown by Harry's clutching his stomach and looking as if he will belch. There are moments like that sprinkled throughout the movie where a person will say something that would be more powerful and have more meaning if it were displayed visually. Overall, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is a good, fun, enjoyable film that really is effective as far as the overarching emotional journey goes, but does have flaws when it comes to not needed exposition and a lack of depth in some respects. Three stars

Movie Review: Traffic (2000)

Reviewing the movie Traffic is sort of like writing one of those very short, few-sentence reviews that you read in a weekday newspaper. I don't want to throw everything I liked about this movie at you (because it would be a long list) but then again I also want to present why Traffic is a great film. Without further ado here is my review of Steven Soderbergh's Traffic. Traffic is a 2000 film directed by Steven Soderbergh and stars Michael Douglas, Don Cheadle, Benico Del Toro, Dennis Quaid, and Catherine Zeta-Jones. The movie follows several different stories about drugs, their effects on addicts, the drug trade, and how a judge (Michael Douglas) deals with his drug addicted daughter, all while trying to create a safer community that has a lacking of narcotics. Traffic in short is probably one of the greatest on screen depictions of drugs and drug use ever done. It's so real, powerful, and has so much to it that one cannot possibly just see Traffic and walk away. As I watched this movie I felt as if I were in the middle of the events depicted on screen. This movie comes alive not just due to it's raw subject matter, but to it's performances. Every actor and actress on screen did a great job with this film. Douglas is perfect as a judge and a father torn between both sides and discovering what justice is. My favorite performance (which I wasn't expecting) was from Topher Grace. Grace is by no means bad at acting, but his performance in this film is so great that he feels real. All of these characters (despite how caught up in the narcotics world they get) feel extremely real and like they're actual people. That's what I loved about this movie, it feels real. Many movies use drugs and have the participants do drugs on screen. That's all interesting, but this movie gets how to properly inject drugs into the story line. It's not a case of a bunch of folks sitting around a table and snorting coke. The movie goes so much farther than that as we get that drugs spiral people out of control and ruin their lives. Traffic understands that drugs aren't just a plot device in a film, they can actually have a substantial, meaningful role. The cinematography also changes throughout the film as we switch to each characters story. It's grainy, dirty, with a dream like feel and it creates such a mesmerizing experience. Does the movie have it's own deal of flaws? Yes! Traffic does two things that got to me. First off, the movie ends way too abruptly. It just cuts to credits (in the middle of a scene might I add too) and you leave feeling as if you should have gotten more. Not saying the film does not provide within it's two and a half hr duration, but it feels as though a certain knot wasn't tied. My second flaw is that the movie should have had (in my opinion) more scenes which emphasize tension. There's a great scene between two characters (a drug dealer and a cop) as they discuss how the dealer illegally is burning CDS. The conversation gets so intense and leads to so much, but it's one of maybe 2, 3, or four scenes that showcase that kind of awkward, close tension that I would have wanted to see more from. Despite those issues, the film Traffic was really fascinating. Overall, Traffic is a great movie that does feel a little uneven at times, but that doesn't prevent viewers from enjoying great performances, great inject of drugs into the material, as well as great look and feel. Three stars

Blog News

I've been looking over the blog and trying to see what changes could be made as well as how the quality goes for everything. First off, I do realize that I've only done one What Matters post and haven't started the versus series which I've still to do. Both of those things are still around and I'm going to try to keep up with a schedule a bit more frequently than I have been doing. For my first versus series, I'm going to be comparing Clerks (1994) and its sequel Clerks II (2006) and then I'm also going to be doing a What Matters blogging (which is TBD) very soon if not within the next few days. Thanks to all who are supporting and hopefully my delay hasn't been that bad for you guys. 

Wonder Woman Comic - Con Trailer Review

So without looking at any other reviews or reactions to the new Wonder Woman trailer, I set out to see the trailer and give you my honest thoughts on it. I won't go frame for frame because this trailer has a lot to it, but without being too vague I thought this movie looked better than I was expecting. Gal Gadot looks great as Wonder Woman. It's not her superhero powers that make it that way though, it's how she embraces being a female. Her heroism stems from the fact that she is a girl, and that's the idea behind Wonder Woman. It's about powers, but about how she prospers in a world where most superheroes are males. As far as Chris Pine goes, the opening to this trailer looked pretty bad. "You are a boy" "Am I?" I wasn't crazy about that, but then as the trailer got further on, I saw how his performance is pretty good. He's very funny and in fact, that's what makes this trailer look so good. This film seems to have a lot of humor to it. I laughed out loud on multiple occasions and that's great. Pine does a great job with the humor. Now I'm not really a huge comic book kind of man, but this movie does look like it has some great action sequences. There's a scene on some battlefield where Gadot is letting bulletis fly right off her shield. In the end I was pretty satisfied with this trailer and it made me more interested to see Wonder Woman next summer

Movie Review: The Bourne Identity (2002)

It's interesting how interesting characters, good story lines, and an entertaining movie never gets old. We can see the same movie over and over and over again and still not tire of it's spark. The Bourne Identity is a 2002 movie directed by Doug Liman that does just that. It's a story that seems so familiar, yet retains all originality. The movie features Matt Damon, Christopher Cooper, Brian Cox, and Julia Stiles (just to name some of them) and follows the character of Damon's as he washes up on a boat with no memory of who he is. The one thing that he has, is incredible physical skill and talent. As the movie progresses, Jason Bourne slowly peels back the door of suspense as we learn who he is as well as his past. I'm going to come forward and say it: The Bourne Identity is a great movie and is one of Matt Damon's best performances of his entire acting career. First, everybody on screen was great in their roles. In fact, one of the best parts of this movie is just simply watching the character Jason Bourne. He's much more intriguing than one might expect. He does a lot without saying much. In fact, Bourne Identity is so great because it tells a story and shows emotions without having a ton of dialogue. The movie shows you the story. It's a great screenplay because it understands how a film like this should be. Just because we are in the midst of explosions and spy-wear does not mean a story that gets left alone to whoever comes along. It has very little exposition which does lead me to my one flaw (and the reason why it doesn't register as four star material) which is that there are moments where I felt actually confused within the story. I won't spoil anything, but two characters are working for some other characters and that doesn't get revealed. Until of course the end. Then things start to come together. This movie is also so great because of how Bourne's true self is revealed to us. The movie shows us what his character is thinking and feeling and we get more of a sense of his identity. Despite the almost 2 hour runtime, this movie does end in an abrupt manner, leaving the viewer wanting more. Overall, The Bourne Identity is a great movie as a thriller with interesting characters, a clever screenplay and phenomenal performances from all actors and actresses. Three stars.

Movie Review: Sinister 2 (2015)

Sinister 2 is a 2015 supernatural horror movie directed by Ciaran Foy and stars James Ransone and Shannyn Sossamon in the leads. The movie follows a woman who is trying to win a custody case over her abusive husband, while her two boys named Zachary and Danny find a series of tapes in the basement (much like the original Sinister flicks) shown to them by ghosts in their house. I reviewed the original Sinister movie a long time ago and I was really entertained by it. I thought it was a really good, suspenseful, creepy movie that actually succeeded as a horror movie. However, Sinister 2 does none of that. While it's true that the acting from Sossamon is great at times, the rest of the characters don't really give very good performances and they don't seem very well crafted. One of the things about the first Sinister movie that was something I actually liked was how it was creepy and yet not in your face about it. This movie misses that because it's composed entirely of jump scares. First jump scare is the only one where I actually jumped. The rest of it is somewhat startling, but doesn't match up to the psychological horror of the first installment in this series of flicks. Something startling and making you jump isn't what actually creates a scary and horrific atmosphere. What does that is creating a disturbing plot. That leads me to my next issue which is that the story line doesn't really suck you in. I felt bored and disengaged with this movie multiple times and was even checking the time around the first half hour. It gets very boring and dull at parts and doesn't really give you a story which leads to a thrilling adventure. Now as a horror movie goes, I'm sure teenagers and younger peoples will jump and shriek and moan at all the right moments, but that is not what this movie was supposed to do. Overall, Sinister 2 doesn't live up to the original as it really misses what made Sinister 1 very creepy. 1.5 stars

Movie Review: The Happening (2008)

The Happening is a 2008 movie directed by M. Night Shyamalan. The movie follows Mark Wahlberg and Zooey Deschanel as a couple who along with a few companions flee from a natural disaster. That disaster being? Toxic air that causes people to commit suicide. The Happening is a movie that once again is so bad, it's good. There are no real good parts to this film (which I will talk about more later) The movie focuses on this natural disaster and there are some many problems with the movie that I cannot even focus on where to begin. The first issue is the acting. From the opening minutes of The Happening, the acting blatantly isn't good. It feels like a movie from the SyFy network (In fact, this entire film does) and it just goes downhill from there. Mark Wahlberg does not even try in this movie. I'm sorry to say that about him because I do like Mark as an actor. He's done some fantastic movies and this however, isn't his moment. Zooey Deschanel does provide an interesting, if not even bizzare and strange performance, which really falls apart once you realize that she is not intentionally trying to make you feel weird. The Happening also deals with (like Lady In the Water) a very intricate plot that goes far too in depth. It gets to a point where the story becomes so confusing and messed up that you cannot even follow it, let alone maintain solid interest in this toxic air. Oh yeah, about the air, I always had an idea for this movie: when the air hits people, make the citizens of these cities and countries go after one another...not themselves. That doesn't even seem remotely realistic. The movie keeps going like this throughout the entire ninety - minute runtime. However, this movie is actually a guilty pleasure and is very enjoyable. You can't take The Happening as a serious film that has real messages about life, but look at it as an enjoyable film with some scenes using the tone from the Sharknado films. In the filmography of M. Night, this is the movie that does seem to be one of my least favorites of his. Even given his track record, Happening doesn't touch me and entertain me personally as much as other movies of his. Even as a disaster/apocalyptic/ end of the world movie it doesn't quite meet the standards of the genre. There's plenty of disaster cinema out there, but this one doesn't really feel like a disaster film because we don't fully understand what the disaster is. Another issue? Well, there is an over - abundance of exposition. There are scenes where the characters just stop and pick up a radio. Radio then tells them what has happened with the natural event, but the problem is this happens like about every twenty minutes. M. Night Shyamalan didn't quite have a clear vision (at least not in the film) of what this "thing" was and henceforth neither do we as audience members. Overall, The Happening is a guilty pleasure film, not all that great, that offers a good time for those who need a mindless brain - trip through Shyamalan. 1.5 stars.

Movie Review: Lady In The Water (2006)

Lady in the Water is a 2006 film written and directed by M. Night Shyamalan. The movie revolves around a landlord played by Paul Giamatti who discovers a mermaid - like sea nymph named Storm (Bryce Dallas Howard) living in the swimming pool of the apartments he manages. This movie off the bat is slightly better than Shyamalan's previous effort (The Village) and that satisfied me. There are some cons with this movie and there are some pros. However upon its initial release, Lady in the Water was pretty much trashed on by film critics. One of the reasons for that backlash is Shyamalan himself making an appearance on screen (in a much larger role than any of his previous movies). The movie also injects a lot of fantasy elements which are not fully developed and aren't fully explained. Then there are some pros, which I will talk about first. First off, this movie is fun and entertaining. I had a good time with Lady in the Water and it really satisfied me because the pacing is back to normal and it's just good fun. The cons with this movie are pretty much everything that I didn't mention (or are what causes some of the flick to be good). No one in this movie (except Shyamalan himself) gives a really good performance. Aside from a surprisingly good and focused performance from M. Night Shyamalan, the acting is pretty dull. The characters aren't boring people, but I don't exactly buy all these performances. The acting is so average and funny that it actually makes the movie good. This is an example of a film that is so unbelievable and believes it is so much bigger than it is in reality, that it's good. My next and even bigger issue which is the fantasy world. This story puts a lot of fantastical and magical creatures into the plot. I didn't understand or invest in any of that. This movie throws stuff in your face that I don't think most people would care about. The issue with Shyamalan's choice to utilize the fantasy genre would be interesting had he actually tried to make you care. The movie is good though, even though it does have flaws with it. There are effective moments of humor that are typically for Night's filmography. I would definitely reccommend this movie if you weren't a fan of The Village and have nothing to do on a good Friday night. Overall, Lady in the Water is far from flawless, but it is an entertaining and fun movie with enough good to make me sit back and enjoy this flick. Two stars.

Movie Review: The Village (2004)

So I've seen The Village before and what I did was I tried to watch it again a few days back (in order for me to give a good review of it). However, I couldn't get past the first 45 minutes of it upon seeing it on a repeat viewing. So then I got the idea to mention that in this review and to go ahead and talk about this flick (I've seen it before) and use what I gathered from my first viewing and from the semi part of the second viewing of it. The Village is a 2004 psychological thriller starring Bryce Dallas Howard, Adrien Brody, Sigourney Weaver, Joaquin Pheonix, and William Hurt. The movie focuses on an isolated Pennsylvania society who fear creatures lurking in the surrounding woods. For me, the first time I watched The Village I thought it was good. The twist in the end is good as long as you are not prepared to actually be swept away by something. The movie itself is suspenseful and it's an entertaining and enjoyable flick, but oh that was just the first time watched. The second viewing of this movie was a huge shock to me because off the get go there were a few problems that I noticed automatically. The first is the pacing. Something that always stood out to me in this movie was how slow it is. This is almost painfully slow in the beginning and the movie doesn't even really go anywhere until after the first hour. The second thing that stood out to me was Bryce Dallas Howard's character named Ivy. This is a blind girl and there are some scenes (though brief) where it looked as if she was breaking character. She glances in different directions and makes expressions that show as if she's looking and SEEING something. I think Ivy is a good character. The acting from all the actors and actresses involved is good. However, this is a role were Dallas Howard didn't quite stay in character. The third problem that stood out to me was how messed up this movie is. The film itself as quality goes, isn't all that bad. However, there are so many plot points, ideas, and messages behind this movie that it turns into a muddled mess. There's a romance between Joaquin Pheonix and Bryce Dallas Howard. There's a story about these beasts living in the forest and preying on the people in the village. There's also a bigger message about betrayal and trust. All of these things are good story ideas, and really are. However, there not layered and they just fall on top of each other and crisscross to make this puddle of good and bad elements. It's not all that rewatchable. I'd also say outright that I kind of do like the plot twist. It is your conventional Shyamalan twist. Overall, The Village is a good quality movie, but it does have a very messed up plot, slow pacing, and a story where the plot takes too long to become apparent. Two stars.

Movie Review: Signs (2002)

Signs is a 2002 directorial effort by M. Night Shyamalan. Signs stars Mel Gibson and Joaquin Pheonix as two brothers who find strange symbols carved into their cropfields. Gibson's children in the movie as well as the two men themselves slowly began to investigate into this incident and become increasingly more obsessed with it. All while also paying notice to a seemingly random invasion of UFOs over the entire globe. The movie Signs has always been my favorite film directed by Shyamalan. It's a great movie. That's really how I would sum it up. This is one of the best movies I have ever seen. What works so well about Signs is how director Shyamalan builds suspense. The first time I saw this movie I was instantly notified of how creepy and eerie this movie is. The movie feels very uneasey right away from the get go and it doesn't let that feeling go until the last second of the picture. I suppose the best part of this film would be it's acting. Mel Gibson gives a riveting performance as a man who has lost all of his faith. I won't spoil why because that's part of the story, but this movie really encorporates the theme of faith excellently into the story. Are there any flaws? Yes! There is one very minor flaw that I have which is how the alien looks. I won't say anymore than that, but there lies a problem in that the alien doesn't look realistic. One of the best things about this entire film is the child performances. The daughter portrayed by Abigail Breslin is really terrific, inspired, and scary. This is a movie that comes from somebody who loves film. It's a product of a filmmaker who loves movies. I love that about Signs. It's very inspired by other content. The movie excels at sucking the viewer right into the film and making them want to witness these events as they unfold. Overall, Signs is an effectively suspenseful and creepy movie that offers great performances, great storyline, and an even greater rewatchable science fiction masterpiece. Four stars

Movie Review: Independence Day (1996)

So going into a movie like this, I was prepared to witness a slow, cheesy flick about aliens who come to earth with one goal in mind: to destroy earth. I was wrong. Way wrong. Independence Day is a 1996 movie directed and somewhat written by Roland Emmerich. Emmerich is a good director. There is no denying that for me. While some of his movies have very successfully tanked there is a decent number of them that are enjoyable and good pleasure movies. Independence Day surprised me because this movie was really good. It's not a perfect movie, but it's really entertaining and does have some moments when you feel for the characters. The film stars Will Smith, Bill Paxton, Harry Connick Jr, and Jeff Goldblum (An ensemble group of casted members that are too long to list in one sitting) and the movie basically explores various characters (air force, scientist, U.S. president) as they deal with an alien invasion. This movie tells the story in a really effective way because if we look at some of Roland's more recent efforts (White House Down) the entire story takes place within one confined location and doesn't really present what is happening as phenomena that effects everybody. Independence Day really pleased me with that. The transitioning between each of the characters is really good and the characters in this movie are surprisingly deep for a movie of this kind. Will Smith is a butt - kicking character in this film. He's one of the coolest guys on screen in this movie and gives a real great performance. Are there any flaws? Yes, this movie does have a couple of flaws that stood out while I was watching it. The first one is that not all of the film feels emotional. There are some scenes where there is emotion, but for the most part there is no real feelings. Any attempt to create emotional depth doesn't reach the heights that I would guess director Emmerich was aiming for. That being said, this is a fun, good, interesting movie that really explores this event from a serious angle. And I was pleased by that. Overall, Independence Day is a very good movie that I enjoyed all throughout the duration of its run. Three stars.

Movie Review: Unbreakable (2000)

It's a tough call to make whether The Sixth Sense, 1999 or Unbreakable (2000) is the better film. Both are so fascinating, great, strong, and good.. Unbreakable is a 2000 movie written and directed by M. Night Shyamalan. The movie follows a man named David Dunn (Bruce Willis) who is the only one left standing after a fatal train crash. Dunn is then contacted by a man named Elijah (Samuel L Jackson) who suffers from a condition which makes his bones break easily. Elijah forms a bond with David as he tries to convince Bruce's character that he is indestructible aka unbreakable. I've seen this movie twice and I thoroughly enjoyed this film. This is a very intelligent, very well acted, and entertaining as heck thriller that I dig to this day. The movie works so well because of how the story is shown. We could have had a superhero movie from this film director that showed a hero saving people in the act. That would have been a clear way to establish who everyone is. However, Bruce's character doesn't know that he has these superhuman abilities in this movie. Instead, he has to slowly convince himself that he is unbreakable and that's genius. As we discover who he is as a character, David Dunn is discovering who he is as a person. It's a movie about self - discovery and that never happens in superhero movies in this time in film. Most studios are focused on bringing in the most popular characters and technology. The constant anticipation of who will crossover into which part of the Marvel/DC universe is always present before a release of a comic book movie. Shyalaman has struck all the right notes with Unbreakable and I am publicly stating that directors of upcoming superhero movies should use this as the mold from which they will build their flick towards. It works perfectly as a superhero movie and even better as an entertaining flick. Looking back on this movie on repeat viewings, I cannot really name anything that I don't like about it. It has great performances from both of the leading actors, a great suspenseful twist (which I will not mention), and also is more than a movie. It elevates itself to a higher power about people and their inner, undiscovered strength. Three stars.