40) Godzilla, Mothra and King Ghidorah: Giant Monsters All-Out Attack (2001)

(3.5 out of 5)

"The long-lasting peace has dimmed the terror of Godzilla."

Director

Shusuke Kaneko

Cast
Chiharu Niiyama - Yuri Tachibana
Ryudo Uzaki - Taizō Tachibana
Masahiro Kobayashi - Mitsuaki Takeda
Shiro Sano - Haruki Kadokura
Hideyo Amamoto - Hirotoshi Isayama
Mizuho Yoshida - Godzilla
Akira Ohashi - King Ghidorah
Rie Ota - Baragon

I've been anxious to review another Godzilla movie lately. And this one has been at the top of my list for a long time. This is the Godzilla movie with the best title! In fact, it might be the best title of any movie in the history of movies. 

We have Godzilla, Mothra, AND King Ghidorah in one epic showdown film. And not being satisfied with name-dropping these three monumental icons on Japanese monster movies, the title continues with more description. Giant monsters! Hell yeah, giant monsters! Bring me some of that! And what are these giants doing? They're attacking! But they're not just "attacking." They're all-out attacking. Only monsters of a smaller stature "attack." These are giant monsters. No mercy. No pulling any punches. It's all-out destruction and giant monster-attacking madness - sort of! 

This is the 26th Godzilla movie, and the 3rd movie of the Millennium era of Godzilla movies. I go into depth on the various Godzilla "eras" over on my other platform, 1000daysofhorror.blogspot.com where I reviewed the first 15 Godzilla movies in a thread I titled, "Halloween 2022's Godzilla-Maniapalloza Extravaganza #13...For the Love of Godzilla. All Hail, the Monster King!" Just look for my review of the first Godzilla movie, "Gojira" from 1954. 

Before I launch into this review like a guy whose idea of culture is a monster movie marathon suddenly asked to critique high art, I'll mention that I threw those older Godzilla reviews onto my horror blog. I've reconsidered that life decision. Godzilla seems to fit just as well in the Sci-Fi realm. So. I'm including this review on this platform. Plus, I haven't reviewed a Sci-Fi movie in a while. I'm overdue. This movie will do just fine!

"Godzilla, Mothra and King Ghidorah: Giant Monsters All-Out Attack," takes place fifty years after Godzilla first terrorized Japan, caused all sorts of destruction, and roared his way into all our hearts back in 1954. While I love this title rolling off my tongue, I'll shorten it from here on out to "All-Out Attack." Or maybe I'll refer to it as "GMKGGMAOA." Or maybe not. I'll stick with "All-Out Attack."  

This time, Japan is staring into the scary eyes of a reborn monster. And not only is Godzilla on a warpath, but he's also possessed by the restless and angry ghosts of those who were killed during the Pacific War. 

Godzilla rises from the depths of the ocean to decimate Japan. One old Japanese mystic named Hirotoshi Isayama (Hideyo Amamoto) awakens the three guardian monsters of Japan to protect the nation - Baragon (God of the Earth), Mothra (God of the Sea), and King Ghidorah (God of the Sky). These monsters certainly have Japan's back on this. 

Godzilla takes on King Ghidorah as Mothra flies in from behind in
"Godzilla, Mothra and King Ghidorah: Giant Monsters All-Out Attack."

Meanwhile, an overzealous TV reporter, Yuri Tachibana (Chiharu Niiyama), digs deep into the facts of Godzilla, trying to find out why he's coming back now. While she's journalism-ing, Japan's military forces break out all the big guns as they fight alongside their nation's monster guardians to take down Godzilla. 

Battles are waged. Things explode. Buildings are ripped apart. Civilians are lost. Monster battles monster. Can they take down the "King of the Monsters?" And if they do, will he truly die once and for all? It's an "all-out attack" indeed as monster, monster, and monster take on possessed monster! 

Based on the title, I initially expected a cavalcade of attacking monsters. But stupid me, I was paying more attention to the "giant monsters all-out attack" part of the title. I failed to consider the fact that only three monsters are named at the beginning of the title. Those are the three monsters who appear in the movie. So, I can't fault the movie for not meeting my poorly deduced expectations of seeing a lot more monsters duking it out. That's on me. So, the movie delivered exactly what it said it was going to deliver. 

Plus, the movie has Godzilla take on Baragon who's not even in the title. 

Baragon is a horned, dinosaur-like, burrowing monster who first appeared in Toho's 1965 kaiju movie, "Frankenstein vs. Baragon," also known by the American title, "Frankenstein Conquers the World." It's a real movie!

He would later show up in the 1968 film "Destroy All Monsters" which is a much more monstrous monster brawl in the Godzilla-verse than this movie is. It's also Baragon's first appearance on-screen with the King of the Monsters himself. And now, Baragon returns again for this new round! 

"All-Out Attack" came out soon after the release of the 1998 American movie "Godzilla" with Matthew Broderick. I call it, "The Simpsons Godzilla" as the film stars several of the voice actors from the sitcom "The Simpsons." It's a movie that's often despised and looked at with disdain among Godzilla fans, and for good reason.

"All-Out Attack" opens with an exchange between two Japanese soldiers sitting in on a military briefing as a General explains what happened to the U.S. just a few years prior. It sums up the sentiment a lot of people have towards the Simpsons Godzilla. 

"At the end of the last century, a similar monster to Godzilla attacked the United States. The existence of abnormal organisms have since been reported around the world," one solider says. 

"That was Godzilla after all, right," the other soldier says. 
"The Americans reported it as that. Our academics don't agree."

Burn! The 1998 movie was terrible!

"Godzilla 2000: Millenium" came out in 1999, sandwiched between the Simpsons Godzilla and "All-Out Attack" but I don't think it addresses the American version. "All-Out Attack" certainly did. 

This movie, like a lot of other Godzilla movies, builds up to the big climax at the end. 

The movie does drag on a bit, but it delivers action, carnage, and explosions. All the stuff audiences what in a Godzilla movie. 

The special effects that are at times dated and obvious while at other times impressive and satisfying. It's a mix when it comes to the special effects. Plus, the miniatures are well made and really impressive! 

And as I mentioned, the title doesn't deceive.   

Godzilla appears much more frightening, especially as he is all-out evil with his Linda Blair from "The Exorcist" looking milky white eyes. All that's missing is Godzilla speaking in languages he never studied and telling his enemy monsters where their deceased mothers are and what they're doing down there. 

Seriously, this evil detail matches his relentless anger and destructive tendencies. It's worth noting that there have been Godzilla movies before this where Godzilla turns out to be the good guy in the story. Not in this movie. "All-Out Attack" makes the audience want to see Godzilla taken down, especially as civilians suffer all the more. 

Godzilla versus Baragon because giant monsters all-out attack, 
as the title suggests.

The movie doesn't rely completely on the giant monsters fight nor on scientific explanations as to why this is happening. Instead, it embraces Japanese folklore as Godzilla is possessed by the restless spirits of those killed during World War II. Meanwhile King Ghidorah, Mothra, and Baragon are the guardian monsters that protect Japan.

The commentary on Japan's memory of World War II is another stand-out theme of the film. In one scene, Admiral Taizô Tachibana recalls the time Godzilla first attacked Japan back in 1954 as seen in the first movie. 

He says, "I vividly remember as if it were today. Fifty years ago. The sky was a bloody red... buildings and railroads trampled... and a huge, dark mass... slowly advancing through the flames. Its face looked like a devil, furious with hate. I ran and ran among the crowd helplessly seeking refuge. When I realized it, I was separated from my parents. I never saw them again. Not a single day goes by where I don't remember the wretched cries of the dying."

He warns that Japan has forgotten the sacrifices of those who died in the war and recognizes that Godzilla has become an angry vessel for those forgotten souls. "All-Out Attack" is a rare gem of a Godzilla flick since it embraces Japan's memory of the past rather than simply putting on another monster brawl.

But it is, in the end, a Godzilla movie. So, it needs that epic monster fight. 

This movie restores a strong and welcomed sense of danger and suspense. Being possessed, Godzilla is unstoppable. And the human casualties aren't mere casualties to be forgotten. The movie pays more attention to those victims so the audience can cheer all the more for Godzilla's final take-down. 

I admit I'm more familiar with the initial era of Godzilla movies than I am with the Millenium era, which starts with "Godzilla 2000: Millennium" (1999) and ends with "Godzilla: Final Wars (2004)." 

"All-Out Attack" is the third movie in the era. So, I don't know how this compares with the other movies in there. But it does entice in me a desire to check out those movies. Unlike the previous Showa era and the Heisei era, the Millenium era consists of standalone films. 

Speaking of Baragon up above, my complaint is that he disappears way too quickly. 

He shows up and doesn't survive Godzilla's warpath. It's a missed opportunity for a three-way brawl against Godzilla! 

As die-hard kaiju fans probably already know, director Shusuke Kaneko previously sat in the director's chair for a rival Japanese monster franchise, Gamera. Kaneko directed "Gamera: Guardian of the Universe" (1995), "Gamera 2: Attack of Legion" (1996), and "Gamera 3: Revenge of Iris" (1999). 

This is definitely one of the better Godzilla movies in the entire franchise, even as it adds a more, albeit darker, fantasy element as continues the story directly from the very first Godzilla movie. When Godzilla returns, Japan is depicted as a stronger nation 

And it certainly has the best title of any Japanese monster movie! I love a good Godzilla movie, especially on a Sunday afternoon with sunlight spilling through the blinds into the living room. This one delivered everything I want from a Godzilla film.

39) Invaders from Mars (1986)

(3  out of 5)

"Oh, boy! This is going to be a mess."

Director

Toby Hooper

Cast

Hunter Carson - David Gardner
Karen Black - Linda Magnuson
Timothy Bottoms - George Gardner
Laraine Newman - Ellen Gardner
James Karen - Gen. Climet Wilson
Louise Fletcher - Mrs. McKeltch
Bud Cort - Dr. Mark Weinstein
Jimmy Hunt - The Police Chief


Steven Spielberg's recent alien flick, "Disclosure Day," hit theaters on June 12, just a few days ago. Spielberg's sales pitch among many for his movie was that it would shake people's faith, particularly that of Christians. I'll get to that absurdly stupid statement when I comment on his movie. 

Anyways, everyone has been talking about his fourth alien movie after "Close Encounters of the Third Kind," "E.T. The Extra-terrestrial," and "War of the Worlds." Not me, though. Not yet, anyways. No...I'm going back to another flick that, thankfully, didn't try to stir up faithlessness. That's the 1986 movie, "Invaders from Mars," directed by Tobe Hooper. How has it shaken people over the years? In a nutshell, it hasn't. In fact, with all this IP from the 1980s still alive and well and selling seemingly fine at Walmart, Target, and wherever else nostalgic stuff is sold, "Invaders from Mars" is a movie that doesn't seem to be very well remembered.

Occasionally, I find myself wondering if Hollywood's obsession with 1980s nostalgia will only end once every movie, television show, toy line, and any other character or mascot from that decade—which was 40 years ago—has been remade, rebooted, reimagined, or recycled. Maybe the entertainment industry will simply keep remaking remakes until everyone who actually remembers the 1980s is gone.
What I never really considered is that in the 1980s, Hollywood was remaking movies from 30 to 40 years prior. The 1986 sci-fi horror movie "Invaders from Mars" is a remake of the 1953 sci-fi horror movie of the same name, directed by William Cameron Menzies.
The 1986 remake is as typical an 80s movie as such a period film can be. I haven't seen the original movie, but I assume it's a typical 50s sci-fi film as that decade was the atomic age of horror and science fiction. Back then, aliens and giant mutant monsters were the main staples of scary movies.
In this movie, Hunter Carson plays young David Gardner, a rather happy kid fascinated with space and astronomy. He has two loving parents, George (Timothy Bottoms) and Ellen Gardner (Laraine Newman), who support his interests—though not as much as he would like after David witnesses a UFO land in the woods behind their house. They don't believe him when he wakes them up after seeing the massive spaceship land late one night.

Hunter Carson in "Invaders from Mars."

The next day, his dad seems to be acting unusual. He's certainly not himself and suddenly seems eager to take David out into the woods. David takes his concerns about his dad to his mom, who at this point still seems like her normal self. That soon changes, though. His mom isn't concerned, and only starts to worry when George doesn't come home the following evening. 
David notices other people in town acting as strangely as his dad, including his teacher, Mrs. McKeltch (Louise Fletcher). As more people in town stop acting like themselves and instead behave as though something else is controlling them, David discovers that the aliens who landed behind his house have created an elaborate underground base. 

He sneaks inside this base and sees the aliens along with what they're up to. 

Now both of his parents are under alien control, just like his teacher and many others in town. So he goes to his school nurse, Linda Magnuson (Karen Black), for help. David doesn't have anyone else he can trust. Of course, she has trouble believing his claims, but it doesn't take long for her to realize David's outlandish claims are actually fact..
With what they each know, David and Nurse Magnuson go to military authorities at a nearby base where David's dad works. It becomes a race against time for the military to take down these Martian invaders and destroy their base before they conquer the world. 

Krang from "Teenage Mutant
Ninja Turtles" bears a striking 
resemblance to the head alien in
"Invaders from Mars."

For me, this is the "Poltergeist" of sci-fi movies—minus Steven Spielberg trying to destroy my Catholic faith with some fantastical movie based on pure speculation. 

Unfortunately, "Invaders from Mars" doesn't feel thought-through or rehearsed. The line delivery in many scenes sounds scripted. While being an alien movie, it's more of a hodge-podge of horror, fantasy, sci-fi and comedy. The transitions don't work smoothly. It's hard to tell of some of the movie's flaws were done on purpose or not. Seeing as how the movie over-all is over-the-top, I'll give Hooper the benefit of the doubt. 
The effects are practical, and the overall storyline moves along smoothly. And being over the top, "Invaders from Mars" is a quintessential, worthwhile popcorn alien flick. The audience gets exactly what it expects.
It's also a typical 80s movie. What does that mean? What is a "typical" 80s movie? When it comes to the current trend of marketable 80s nostalgia still bringing in the dough in 2026, a "typical 80s movie" has a storyline with a string of characters who are, well, very marketable. Those characters and storylines can bring in large audiences—or at least they could in the 1980s. The good guys are easily distinguishable from the bad guys.
Like many other "typical 80s movies" the plot can be explained in one sentence. For this movie: aliens arrive from Mars to invade until a kid catches on to their plan.
Like most other 80s movies, there's an optimistic tone, even when all humanity is threatened. There's usually a heroic memorable lead to provide the sense of optimism common.
Unlike many 80s movies—which is what makes this one stand out a little—it doesn't have a happy, uplifting ending. The rest of the 80s formula is present:as an ordinary hero makes a fantastic discovery, and of course, nobody believes him (except, in this case, his school nurse and a military general who happens to know his dad).
As the threat emerges (invasive Martians), the action escalates to an epic showdown. But, as I said, the ending is neither happy nor optimistic in the way today's audiences might expect from a 1986 off-the-wall alien flick. Kudos for some originality. Or perhaps Tobe Hooper was aiming for a sequel. Add in practical yet detailed special effects, and "Invaders from Mars" fits squarely as a typical 80s movie.
The special effects are worth the experience since they're done with puppetry rather than CGI. The aliens were created by Stan Winston, who also worked on "The Terminator," "Jurassic Park," "Aliens," "The Thing," and "Predator." They give the movie a B–sci-fi feel. 

Louise Fletcher as Mrs. McKeltch in "Invaders from Mars."

And speaking of typical, the film is also typical Tobe Hooper. It demonstrates his storytelling style just as much as it reflects the "typical 80s" mold. Like his other movies, this one centers on a terrifying event seen through the eyes of an ordinary person—in this case, David. This approach is also seen in Hooper's other films such as "Poltergeist" and "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre."
Like those movies, there's a helpless, nightmarish tone. David is initially the only person who catches on to what's happening. Not only is that a major burden on his shoulders, but he also has to convince adults that aliens are taking control of people. Who's going to believe this kid? On top of that, those he trusts most—his parents and his teacher—are now like strangers to him.
By the way, Mrs. McKeltch, played by "Nurse Ratched" herself, Louise Fletcher, is a truly unforgettable character. She's a stereotypical teacher of the Silent Generation who completely has it in for young David. Honestly, she should be a sci-fi/horror movie icon. She's strict, authoritative, and a monster behind her powdered face. 

Fletcher, well known for playing rigid characters, was superbly cast. She glares at David without blinking, with a rigid posture and sudden unhinged bursts of anger. And when she does smile, it's only when she has David right where she wants him. Fletcher takes this character go from strict to predatory. Some of the most memorably frightening scenes involve Mrs. McKeltch.

There is a call-back to the original movie. In the 1953 movie, Jimmy Hunt plays David. Hunt has a cameo in this remake as a cop who stops at David's house after his mother calls police when George doesn't come home after work. Hunt has the line in that scene, "I haven't been up around here since I was a kid" clearly referencing his role in the original movie. So, that's fun!

"Invaders from Mars" feels more like a child's nightmare than a typical, formulaic alien invasion movie. That aspect makes it more suspenseful and engaging. Its strength lies in its nightmarish, unsettling tone rather than just depicting the spectacle of aliens landing and melting peoples brains. It also features a colorful yet creepy atmosphere with its grotesque practical effects as an added bonus.
Underneath everything is a layer of the playful yet frightening tone of 1950s science fiction. As a remake, its love for early sci-fi cinema shines through. It has its campiness while being a fun experience.

33) The Fantastic Four: First Steps (2025)

(3.5 's out of 5)

"Die with yours."

Director
Matt Shakman

Cast

Pedro Pascal - Reed Richards / Mister Fantastic​
Vanessa Kirby - Sue Storm / Invisible Woman​
Joseph Quinn - Johnny Storm / Human Torch​
Ebon Moss-Bachrach - Ben Grimm / The Thing

Ralph Ineson - Galactus​
Julia Garner - Shalla-Bal / Silver Surfer
Matthew Wood - voice of H.E.R.B.I.E.
Paul Walter Hauser - Harvey Elder / Mole Man

In my last post on "Avengers: Endgame" I said, and I still believe, the best days of the Marvel Cinematic Universe is behind us. Since Endgame, Marvel has released a lot of bombs. In fact, comic book movies don't appeal to me so much anymore. Thei novelty has worn off.

That's part of the reason why I didn't have much hope for the fourth remake or reboot (I don't know what to call this) of a "Fantastic Four" movie. 

There have been a handful of forgettable "Fantastic Four" movies already, starting with one from 1994. I haven't seen it, but I know it's there. 

Then there's the 2005 movie with Ioan Gruffudd and Chris Evans as the Human Torch. That 2005 movie is mediocre at best. Honestly, I don't remember much about it other than the origin story it depicts.

It spawned a sequel in 2007 called "Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer." All I remember about that one is myself not being very impressed. That's all. 

And then Marvel tried to save the face of the Fantastic Four after the failure of both previous movies with a reboot in 2015 called, "Fantastic Four." I do remember this movie. It was one of the worst superhero movies I've ever seen. The story was boring. The characters were uninteresting. The pacing was extremely awkward. Terrible! Enough said. 

This year, the writers-that-be over at Marvel Studios rehashed the Fantastic Four for the fourth time (what a coincidence) like a desperate gambler insisting their luck with definitely turn around on the next spin. “Trust us,” they said, clutching their dice. “We’ve totally figured it out this time.” 

And so, against all reason and common sense financially and artistically speaking, they went ahead and made another one.

The story takes place in the year 1964 but on an alternate Earth called Earth-828. 

We get a brief backstory about the origins of our four superheroes setup like a quick news segment. Scientists have performed the first successful wormhole experiment. In the aftermath of this successful experiment, a scientist named Reed Richards (Pedro Pascal) heads a small team composed of test pilot Ben Grimm (Ebon Moss-Bachrach), biophysicist Sue Storm (Vanessa Kirby), and her impulsive younger brother Johnny Storm (Joseph Quinn) into an unknown realm of deep space. 

Ebon Moss-Bachrach, Vanessa Kirby, Pedro Pascal, and Joseph Quinn in "Fantastic Four: First Steps."

Their ship is hit with a tidal wave of cosmic radiation, giving each of the four team members inhuman superhero qualities. 

Richard becomes Mr. Fantastic. Sue Storm becomes the Invisible Woman. Ben becomes the Thing. And Joseph becomes the Human Torch. 

Since then, Richards has been busy trying to reverse their mutations. 

Sometime later, Earth receives a visit from a strange otherworldly being named Shalla-Ba (Julia Garner) who's dubbed "Silver Surfer" because she looks as though she's made of solid metallic and she rides around on what looks like a surfboard. 

She tells everyone on Earth that the planet has been marked for consumption by none other than the intergalactic gluttonous bad guy, Galactus (Ralph Ineson). I picked up on some "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" vibes with that particular plot point. The demolition of Earth at the hands of an intergalactic giant thing just brought Hitchhiker's Guide to mind. 

Anyways, the Fantastic Four do some digging around into the origins of this Galactus, and find that other planets have disappeared completely thanks to his hunger for power and control. 

So, they follow the Silver Surfer and her space trail to find Galactus with the hopes of meeting him and, maybe, try to make some kind of deal with him so that he won't consume their Earth. 

Meanwhile, Reed and Sue are expecting a child. When the four (well, five because Sue's baby-to-come is certainly a person) have an audience with Galactus, he tells them he'll spare Earth if they surrender their baby to him. Galactus senses that the baby carries a cosmic power that could absorb his hunger.

Of course, they flat-out refuse to do give up their child, whom they later name Franklin Richards. 

So, the consumption of Earth is still on. That leaves the Fantastic Four in need of a plan to defeat Galactus when he arrives to destroy Earth. It's a compelling story, and an entertaining one. 

"First Steps" can stand alone just fine without any regard to the previous movies. Thank you, Marvel! The previous films didn't accomplish much, if anything. For the Fantastic Four franchise, "First Steps" is the MCU equivalent of discovering fire. 

Julia Garner as Silver Surfer.

The characters in the previous Fantastic Four films come across as though their stuck in their situation, and the actors are doing what they need to do to get their paycheck at the end of the day. In other words, they're not very interesting.

Any one episode of Mr. Wizard has more chemistry and significance than the last Fantastic Four movie alone. 

The story in "First Steps" is set in an alternate version of the 1960s with pretty much that familiar sixties style. This version, however, is more technologically advanced with a retro/futuristic style. It's visually pleasing, imaginative, surreal and fascinating to watch. 

Thankfully, "First Steps" reduces the origin story of the four superheroes to a swift and concise reference in the beginning. They went to space, and some freaky space stuff happened. Now they're fantastic - all four of them! In the previous movies, the origin is the center of the story except for "Rise of the Silver Surfer." At least, that's what I recall. 

Rather than obsessing over how these four characters became "fantastic," the story in "First Steps" shifts focus on why these superheroes are superheroes, and what they mean to each other. The story gradually builds up to that aspect as the story progresses. Obviously, that's how stories are generally told. I mention this because the last movie completely missed that point. 

This movie inserts itself into the MCU with the same old parallel or alternate universes trope. Reed Richards makes the comment, "This equation not only confirms alternate dimensions, it suggests that parallel Earths exist on different dimensional planes."
So, the general plot is like all the rest of the comic book movies. A seemingly undeafetable threat looms over the entire planet, threatening to destroy the entire thing. So, the superheroes have their work cut out for them. It's not a bad story. I probably have some comic book movie fatigue. When you see the same general superhero(s) versus bad guy storyline again, and again, and again, it's hard to be wowed even with all the chemistry and such I just got through praising. What sets it apart, however, are the characters and the distinctive atmosphere that lend it a sense of freshness and individuality.

Otherwise, movie explores more mature themes (in a nice way, I mean) as it presents deeper relationships, and the human side of each character. Each of them also contributes something more than just their respective superpower. For example, Ben Grimm/ the Thing is depicted as more of a friend and intellectual peer instead of just being the team's muscle and a character driven by his struggles and difficulties after his transformation. 
"Fantastic Four: First Steps" is a richer and less repetitive Fantastic Four experience. It avoids the fatigue of yet another origin story and gives viewers more meaningful character arcs, and a nuanced storyline. "First Steps" strikes me as a more confident approach on the Fantastic Four, giving these superheroes a much better, and well thought out twist prior adaptations didn't bother to do. It's not the greatest superhero movie I've seen. It's definitely the best Fantastic Four movie I've seen. But it is very much a worthwhile superhero movie. The writers decided to take quality much more seriously this fourth time around. 

32) Avengers: Endgame (2019)

(3's out of 5)

"Everybody wants a happy ending. Right? But it doesn't always roll that way." 

Directors
Anthony Russo and Joe Russo

Cast
Robert Downey Jr. – Tony Stark / Iron Man
Chris Evans – Steve Rogers / Captain America
Mark Ruffalo – Bruce Banner / Hulk
Chris Hemsworth – Thor
Scarlett Johansson – Natasha Romanoff / Black Widow
Jeremy Renner – Clint Barton / Hawkeye
Don Cheadle – James Rhodes / War Machine
Paul Rudd – Scott Lang / Ant-Man
Brie Larson – Carol Danvers / Captain Marvel
Karen Gillan – Nebula
Danai Gurira – Okoye

Now that October is over, I can get back to writing commentary on this platform. It has been a while since I've posted on this page as I was focused on coming up with a thread of horror reviews for October over on 1000daysofhorror.blogspot.com. Go check them out!

Anyways, since I've already watched and reviewed the previous Avengers movies, I need to finish off that short thread with my thoughts on the last of those films to date. 

No doubt the Marvel Studios thinks their Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) hit its zenith when the mega-super collective masterpiece, "Avengers: Endgame" came out in 2019. And it certainly is one hell of a movie spectacle with its cavalcade of stars dressed as iconic figures and heroes, the likes of which certainly hasn't been seen on the silver screen since "Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein." 

After the release of "Avengers: Endgame," Marvel tried to keep up some momentum with its MCU, but it hasn't quite hit that peak that Endgame reached. In fact, Marvel had some pretty low lows. Brie Larson as Capt. Marvel certainly added absolutely nothing to the whole MCU - speaking of low lows. (Cough, cough, "The Marvels" cough, cough). 

All in all, the best days of the MCU are behind us now. Regardless, money still needs to be squeezed out of the rag that is Marvel comics, so Marvel movies still pop out after...what...twenty-plus years?

There's a variety of lists and rankings out there that tries to rank best to worst Marvel movies. IMDB's list "All The MCU Movies Ranked Worst To Best" puts "Avengers: Endgame" as the best MCU movie to date. Considering everything and everyone packed into it, along with its captivating plot, I guess it's "the best." Or maybe that's because it has the best average scores on a variety of movie scoring websites? 
"Avengers: Endgame" begins less than a month after Thanos (Josh Brolin) erases half of all life in the entire universe from existence as seen in the previous movie, "Avengers: Infinity War." So, there's a lot of really pissed off people and aliens and whatever else out there. 

Tony Stark/ Iron Man (Robert Downey, Jr.) and Nebula (Karen Gillan) are out in deep space floating around just as they were from the last movie. 

Super-duper girlboss, Capt. Marvel (Brie Larson - Disney's very short-lived poster girl for girl bosses) rescues them and they all reunite back with the rest of the Avengers. I heard there's a deleted scene in this movie in which after rescuing them and bringing them back to Earth, Capt. Marvel makes dinner for the Avengers and then bakes them a pie. I don't know. That's what I heard. 

By the way, I should mention that if you're a 40ish-year old white dude, please make sure to consult Brie Larson as to whether it's o.k. for you to watch whatever particular movie you want to watch and then dare to form an opinion about it lest that movie isn't for you. Our sweetheart, Brie, made that clear in her 2018 Women in Film Crystal + Lucy Awards speech regarding the movie "A Wrinkle in Time."  

I wonder if she has since seen the memo stating that the most powerful people in Hollywood are those who shell out cash for a ticket. I think the late actor Bob Hoskins (a white dude) said that? I don't remember, though. 

Anyways, enough about Brie. I know Disney has had enough!

The top priority now for the Avenger's and all other superheroes - SpiderMan, Black Panther, the Guardians of the Galaxy, Ant-Man, and all the rest of them - is to find Thanos, utilize some time travelling trickery thanks to the magical know-how of Dr. Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch) and stop him from snapping his fingers (literally) to erase half of the universe's population. To prevent this snap from having any effect, they need to take the infinity stones from Thanos which gives him that power. 

Thanos is hiding out on some deserted planet. So, all superheroes unite under this one cause. This is their one and only chance! 

This movie tries its damnedest to be a colossal epic, which I won't claim isn't colossal. I will say it lacks depth despite its efforts to at least feign depth. 

The emotions and feels are there. In fact, the film presents a sense of emptiness impressively well. With all the emptiness from the huge loss of life everywhere, as well as the sadness alongside the comedy, battles and action, all supported by complete fan service, the entre spectacle feels a little too uneven at times. The whole movie really works itself trying to keep up with itself. 

I think the movie is stuffed with so much fan-service working with all its might to keep the movie afloat alongside the effort to be that colossal spectacle, both aspects loom over any character emotion and drive. This all hits a climax in the final battle scene, which is what audiences want to see, and rewatch, and rewatch. 

Josh Brolin as 'Thanos' in "Avengers: Endgame."

None of the characters are very relatable. The movie is 181 minutes of self-involved superheroes saving not just the Earth but the whole galaxy. I mean, it is a comic-book movie so that scenario makes perfect sense. It's a huge task with nothing much to take away other than experiencing a game-changer of a comic-book based movie with huge stars back at it again for the whatever-teenth time. 

In other words, if someone asked me what I got out of this movie, all I can think of is the mere thrill of watching a movie that no doubt considers itself the comic-book movie of all comic book movies, even when it comes to the other movies within the respective cinematic universe. 

It throws everything it can to wow the audience unlike anything Hollywood has ever done. And, to its credit, as an entertainment experience, it certainly accomplishes that. But that's as far as it goes. There's little substance to the characters and even the story. 

The movie really takes its time. It goes step by step which I have mixed feelings for. In the negative column, it feels too pretentious and long. The audience knows what's going to happen already so why drag it on for three hours. In the plus column, again, the audience knows what's going to happen, so the movie makes it interesting and engaging...or tries to. The honest effort is there. 

There is plenty of explaining but at least the movie also shows what the characters are trying to accomplish rather than constantly talking about it. I think the first Avengers movie made that mistake. 

All these superheroes fighting in the same universe makes so many of them feel redundant. Again - fanservice. Otherwise, why does the movie need Thor and Hulk, and also need Hawkeye who just shoots arrows? He's several talents less than Batman.  

Hawkeye is only there because of his name and role in the comic books. The movie really works itself to make sure all these characters are packed into the story and actually have something worthwhile and entertaining to do. Whether that something is relevant or not is debatable. 

The movie does succeed in delivering a long-anticipated satisfying payoff as Kronos is avenged for his ultimate crime. Even that is drawn out as if to really hammer in the feeling of satisfaction for the audience. 

Of course, a good epic take down comes with a tragedy or scar. In this case, Tony Stark/ Ironman sacrifices himself for the sake of the world. Such a scenario feels pulled straight from a comic book writer's mind. 

I don't think all the performances are terrible as many of the actors manage to convey some emotion, particularly Steve Rogers' (Chris Evans) quiet retirement as Capt. America. 

I think the logical culmination of the entire Avengers movies up to this point is the final epic battle, which is certainly one of the biggest big screen spectacles as far as live-action comic book movies go. 

It's well executed though saturated in CGI effects. All things considered, movies are meant to entertain before anything else. And this certainly entertains. 

Despite all the characters all doing something different for the same cause, their respective stories manage not to get lost on the audiences. It is all tied together well. 

The movie knows how big it is. I guess that's no revelation. However, the underlying premise of time travel and multiverses gets convoluted. It gives the already loaded movie an overstuffed feeling. The time travel part of the story makes the story as a whole come across as more complex than it needs to. It could still be a decent movie with a less convoluted storyline. Like the endless thread of time and space, the movie feels like an endless thread. It just keeps going for as long as it can as the second act ends and the third act begins. Again, it's three hours and it feels like three hours. 

I suppose the time travelling plot point is a resolution that goes outside of any standard movie resolutions. I think I've seen a lot of multiverse movies at this point, it's already repetitive in my head. 

Despite this jam-packed story line, the movie relies a lot on its own callbacks and fan service. 

There's so much to say about "Avengers: Endgame." I guess it all boils down to it being one giant spectacle of a film that is determined to outdo any other movie, comic book based or otherwise, that has ever come out of Hollywood before. 

"Avengers: Endgame" is one lofty and emotional (give or take) conclusion to the saga. It’s not perfect no matter how much it might think it is. It feels like one final celebratory extravaganza of the whole entire MCU covering the previous decades up to now. Or, rather, up to 2019.

And now there's a new Avengers movie coming out. Anyone who saw the 2025 movies, "Fantastic Four: First Steps" surely saw the mid-credits scene with Dr. Doom. 

I'm curious to know what else the story thread will bring in the upcoming ""Avengers: Doomsday" will bring. Like the comics, the stories never actually end no matter how many grand finales and send-offs are thrown to the fans in the audience.

The best part of the entire movie, hands down, are the Guardians of the Galaxy. The first two Guardians movies remain my favorite of the MCU movies. 

31) 2010: The Year We Make Contact (1984)

(3.5 's out of 5)

"All these worlds are yours, except Europa. Attempt no landing there. Use them together. Use them in peace."

Director
Peter Hyams

Cast
Roy Scheider - Heywood Floyd
John Lithgow - Walter Curnow
Bob Balaban - R. Chandra

Helen Mirren - Tanya Kirbuk

Madolyn Smith - Caroline Floyd
Dana Elcar - Dimitri Moisevitch

Douglas Rain - HAL 9000

Candice Bergen (credited as Olga Mallsnerd) - SAL 9000

I didn't know that director Stanley Kubrick's 1968 sci-fi "masterpiece" (as it's often considered) "2001: A Space Odyssey," based on the novel by Arthur C. Clarke, has a sequel. I only found out about this tidbit of trivia when I bought Gary Gerani's book "Top 100 Sci-Fi Movies." It goes with my set of his books that include "Top 100 Horror Movies," "Top 100 Comic Book Movies," and "Top 100 Fantasy Movies."

The 1984 sequel "2010: The Year We Make Contact," which is based on Clarke's 1982 novel "2010: Odyssey Two" sits at number 82 in Gerani's book. 

He also puts "2001: A Space Odyssey" at number two. What did he put for the number one sci-fi movie? I'll give you a hint. It's my number 27 on this platform.  

I put "2010: The Year We Make Contact" on my must-review list for this blog. I was curious. And I happened to find a copy a few months ago at a Half-Priced Books in Omaha. It was marked somewhere around $5, so I snagged it. 

The first and only time (to date) I watched "2001: A Space Odyssey" I was thoroughly confused. In fact, I had to pause the movie and read a plot summary and synopsis just to figure out what was going on and where it was all going. In other words, I didn't understand it. 

While I found the 1968 movie confusing and difficult to understand, thankfully I found its sequel easier to follow as far as the plot goes. That's not to say I wasn't somewhat confused. I could follow the general storyline, but I was still baffled at what it all meant. Maybe I don't have the sophisticated mind for such intellectual science fiction. 

This is a sophisticated sequel orbiting deep in the shadow of "2001: A Space Odyssey." So much so, even I didn't know of its existence until I saw it Gerani's book. 

The monolith endures.

The story picks up nine years after the first film when the Discovery mission spacecraft took off for Jupitar. That's the ship that was commanded by David Bowman (Keir Dullea) in the first film. 

Bowman, his crew, and the ship became lost back in 2001 and Bowman is surely died. Or is he?  

Tension between the United States and Russia, which was the USSR back in 1984, are high. And yet, both nations are tasked with individual missions to find out what happened to the Discovery. 

The Soviets are working on a spaceship called "Leonov" while the Americans are working on their own spaceship called "Discovery Two." 

Even though the Russians are farther along in the development of their Leonov, only the Americans can reactivate the sentient computer HAL 9000.

The reason for Discovery's demise is blamed on HAL 9000. If you've seen "2001: A Space Odyssey," then you know all about HAL and the chaos he, or it, created. Evidently, he's not evil. He was just programmed by evil government bureaucrats. 

Out of the kindness of their dumb ol' hearts, the Russians agree to bring NCA Director Heywood Floyd (Roy Scheider - formerly played by William Sylvester in Kubrick's movie) as well as the Discovery designer, Walter Curnow (John Lithgow) and Dr. R. Chandra (Bob Balaban) who designed the HAL 9000. The Russians take them because the Discovery is spiraling its way towards Io - one of the moons of Jupitar.  

Chandra, by the way, uses another supercomputer similar to the HAL 9000 called the SAL 9000 which was used as an earth-bound mission simulator for the Discovery. He experiments with the SAL 9000 to figure out what went wrong with HAL. Fun fact - Candice Bergen voices the SAL 9000, and is credited as "Olga Mallsnerd."

However, there's a mystery in their path. That mystery is none other than the enigmatic alien monolith. It's the same sort of monolith that confused me when I watched the first movie. 

I think I need a better grasp of the original story to fully appreciate this movie. 

The more I think about it, the more part two helps clarify some elements from part one. I've only seen "2001: A Space Odyssey" once so maybe it's time for a revisit. 

"2010: The Year We Make Contact" doesn't flow as majestically and pretentiously as Kubrick's flick, but it does flow with some complexity. It's not as intellectual as Kubrick's movie, but it certainly tries to be. Thankfully, it doesn't make a fool of itself when trying to do that. 

That's not to say it isn't a smart flick. It doesn't go out of its way to try and convince the audience that it's a lofty complex highly intellectual science fiction experience. 

It has a slow drag feel to it thanks to all the explaining it constantly puts the audience through. Its charm comes from its being a sequel to none other than Kubrick's highly regarding movie. 

Maybe I've been too spoiled by sci-fi that has laser fights and a variety of colorful and crazy planets and aliens blowing stuff up. This movie doesn't utilize any such tropes to tell a compelling follow-up sci-fi story. 

Despite it being just a little easier to follow, the ending left me with the same question as I had after watching the first. "Wait! What happened?" Again, I had to consult a plot summary on Wikipedia to make sure I understood what I just watched. The ending is a sappy product of its time - the United States and the then U.S.S.R. seeking peace, blah, blah, blah. 

"2010: The Year We Make Contact" doesn't set out to out-perform Kubrick's movie. It's clearly interested in simply continuing the story. 

The movie slowly builds up anticipation and intrigue one step at a time. The space visuals, while looking dated, are still well done. Before I forget, kudos to the story for redeeming the HAL-9000 and making it a good super computer in the end!   

Despite my lack of proper understanding to Arthur C. Clarke's story, and Kubrick's movie, this movie seems to be a decent enough follow-up. It managed to make me want to go back and give "2001: A Space Odyssey" another chance. 

28) Avengers: Infinity War (2018)

(3.5 's out of 5)

"This is Thanos we're talking about. He's the toughest there is." 

Directors
Anthony Russo
Joe Russo

Cast

Robert Downey Jr. - Tony Stark/ Ironman
Chris Hemsworth - Thor
Mark Ruffalo - Bruce Banner/ Hulk
Chris Evans - Steve Rogers/ Captain America
Scarlett Johansson - Natasha Romanoff/ Black Widow
Jeremy Renner - Clint Barton/ Hawkeye
Don Cheadle - James Rhodes/ War Machine
Josh Brolin - Thanos

The stakes are higher in this third Avengers movie - the 19th film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU). It feels like this Avengers thread of movies within the broader MCU is finally narrowing in on a worthwhile and entertaining story. Plus, the heroes that make up the Avengers, played by the same actors as before, are up against their greatest threat, Thanos (Josh Brolin). 

"Avengers: Infinity War" tries to out-Avenger the previous Avengers. And being the grand spectacle that it works so hard to be, I'd say it succeeds in outperforming the other movies at least as far as the entertainment factor goes. It feels more focused than the previous movies, and it seems to know where it wants to go. 

In this movie, the evil alien warlord, Thanos (Josh Brolin), continues his efforts to acquire the infinity stones - six gems that when brought together give the possessor power over existence. Once he acquires all six stones, Thanos plans on using them to erase half of all life in the universe. All it will take for him to do that once he has all six stones is the snap of his fingers - literally. 

Each of the infinity stones control some specific part of existence - space, the mind, the soul, reality, power (as vague as that sounds) and time. Personally, I would think control over reality would, ipso facto, mean control over the other parts of existence. I guess that cynical mindset is why I don't write movies. 

Josh Brolin as Thanos in 'Avengers: Infinity War.'

Thanos has just got his hands on the power stone when he intercepts a ship carrying survivors from Asgard's destruction. That's where Thor is from for those wondering where Thor is from. 

He and Thor (Chris Hemsworth) clash, and Thanos gets the upper-hand. He then takes the space stone from the Tesseract which I've mentioned in my previous Avengers reviews. 

Thanos kills Loki and Thor's Asgardian pal, Heimdall who while dying sends Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) down to Earth. 

When Hulk/ Bruce Banner hits Earth, he crashes into Sanctum Sanctorum in New York City where Dr. Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch) is residing. He warns Strange about what Thanos has planned. 

Bruce and Strange get Tony Stark/ Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr) to help stop Thanos from destroying half the universe. 

Peter Parker/ Spider-Man (Tom Holland) also joins the effort as do none other than the Guardians of the Galaxy. That part got me excited as "The Guardians of the Galaxy" vols. I and II are my favorite flicks in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. So, I was all in with their inclusion. 

Anyways, more Marvel superheroes assemble to keep Thanos from fulfilling his evil plan. 

When they all fail and Thanos ends up destroying half of all life in the universe including several members on the Avengers and other important superhero characters, the stakes are raised to a level with seemingly no solution. 

As far as the Avengers are concerned, there is no solution. What's done is done.

Dr. Strange jumps around other universes, called multi-verses, to see how the Avengers could have prevented Thanos from destroying everyone he did.  

Out of the millions of ways this event could have gone, only one of those ways has the Avengers defeating Thanos and preventing the snap from occurring. Getting to that solution is impossible, though. Stay tuned for "Avengers: Endgame." 

To me, this is where the Marvel movies reach their Zenith (continued onto the next movie, "Avengers: End Game.") The rest just can't climb that high, or it would look like Marvel is trying to make lightning strike twice. Everything after this and the next Avengers movie doesn't seem as monumental or exciting enough to have to run out and seen it. 

"Avengers: Infinity War" carries an intensity that increases as the story progresses. It keeps the audience more and more invested. 

What's impressive about the movie is how many characters are packed into the story, yet it's easy to recall what each character is doing while the story transitions from character to character, from one scene to another. The story is taking place in various locations. It other words, it's not hard to follow nor is it confusing. 

Thankfully, to the movie's credit, every character has something worthwhile to do that's neither forced nor superfluous. It's all necessary for the plot. And it's entertaining for the audience. That certainly deserves praise.

The story balances all the plot points carefully for the sake of the audience's attention. 

This movie has really big ambitions and makes it a priority not to strain the audience, nor burden them with such interwoven plot points and storylines. It's impressive. 

This is Marvel's equivalent of "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World" minus the comedy. The story packs in a lot!

But as the story ends on a major cliffhanger after two and a half hours of so many superheroes fighting and doing superhero things, only to pick up again with the even longer "Avengers: Endgame" it feels like an excessively drawn-out pretentious flick. Maybe that's why producers tossed the word "infinity" into the title? 

I'm being generous with that half a star..or half a Thanos... up there. I want to give this movie three Thanoses, but it's better than the last two movies. So, three and a half Thanoses it is. 

For the number of characters and the interwoven subplots making up the entire story is quite an accomplishment. It manages to be entertaining and very well assembled. Still, there's truckloads of action, split into two movies, just so some good guys can take down one bad guy! "Avenger: Infinity War" certainly takes itself too seriously. 

26) Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015)

(3's out of 5)

"I once had strings, but now I'm free."

Director
Joss Whedon

Cast
Robert Downey Jr. - Tony Stark/ Ironman
Chris Hemsworth - Thor
Mark Ruffalo - Bruce Banner/ Hulk
Chris Evans - Steve Rogers/ Captain America
Scarlett Johansson - Natasha Romanoff/ Black Widow
Jeremy Renner - Clint Barton/ Hawkeye
Don Cheadle - James Rhodes/ War Machine
Aaron Taylor-Johnson - Pietro Maximoff
Elizabeth Olsen - Wanda Maximoff

Paul Bettany - J.A.R.V.I.S

James Spader - Ultron

The stakes are greater, and the fight is certainly narrowed down in "Avengers: Age of Ultron," the sequel to "The Avengers" and the second movie in the Avengers line-up from Marvel. My thoughts and feelings about this movie are scattered.

"Avengers: Age of Ultron" is a slightly more entertaining film than the previous movie. It's packed in with as much Marvel-ly stuff as it can hold. It also feels like it's making the plot up as it goes along. 

The movie begins as the Avengers- Iron Man, Hulk, Capt. America, Black Widow and Hawkeye- attack a Hydra facility headed up by Baron Wolfgang von Strucker. The Baron had previously been conducting experiments on people with Loki's staff from the first movie. 

While raiding the joint, the Avengers find two of Wolfgang's subjects - Pietro (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) and Wanda Maximoff (Elizabeth Olsen), who are twins. It turns out Pietro has the ability to travel at superhuman speed. Wanda, as those who tuned into the Marvel series "WandaVision" know, possesses telekinesis. So, they're quite the brother and sister duo. 

Loki's staff contains a gem that possesses an intelligent power. Ironman/ Tony Stark (Robert Downy, Jr.) and the Hulk/ Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo) use this gem to enhance Stark's global defense program named "Ultron." 

Ultron, voiced by James Spader, in "Avengers: Age of Ultron."

Well, as one would expect in a superhero movie, Ultron (James Spader) becomes self-aware and sentient, and all evil and stuff. By "evil" I mean he starts to think that he needs to eradicate all of humanity to save the earth. 

He sets his crosshairs on Tony Stark's personal AI system "J.A.R.V.I.S." So, to get to J.A.R.V.I.S. Ultron attacks the Avengers' headquarters. 

He also consistently upgrades himself while doing all this. 

J.A.R.V.I.S, meanwhile, is hiding somewhere in the deep corners of cyberspace (does anyone still call it that anymore?). 

Stark and Banner manage to secretly transfer J.A.R.V.I.S. into a synthetic body (Paul Bettany) and use that gem from Loki's staff to animate J.A.R.V.I.S.'s body. 

Somewhere around this time, Thor (Chris Hemsworth) returns to help his fellow Avengers save Earth after he has a vision that the gem inserted onto J.A.R.V.I.S.'s forehead is one of the six infinity stones.

So, the Avengers square off with Ultron for the sake of humanity's existence. 

"Avengers: Age of Ultron" is an improvement from the first movie. There's so much packed into it that the movie doesn't waste a moment. There's certainly less in-between scenes with a lot more dialogue than anything else. Afterall, "Age of Ultron" isn't trying, or trying as much as the first, to set things up like the first film did. 

There's more substance in this sequel. That is, there's more action and, basically, stuff other than dialogue happening. 

While the movie manages to entertain, and despite how lofty a production it is with a major stellar cast returning, it's still a lot of the same as the other Marvel movies. Nothing much stands out.  

Regardless, I was much more involved and interested in this story than I was in the first movie. 

It plays out much better than before. My investment into the film didn't quite fade. 

There's some character insight as well, particularly with Hawkeye. The introduction of the Maximoff's and their turmoil with Tony Stark was also an intriguing plot point. They, along with Hawkeye, convey the most emotion and personality compared to the rest of the characters who are pretty much just as dry as they were in the first movie. Otherwise, the movie just pushes ahead. 

Aside from that, there's not much room from much character development among anyone else. 

I guess character insight was dealt with in each of the superhero's respective stand-alone movies. It's up to audiences to watch them and figure it all out themselves. 

Watching this second installment made me realize that Ultron is a much less interesting villain compared to Loki. Ultron turns out to be just another out-of-control intelligent robot that isn't intimidating nor possessing much, if any, personality. Give one point to part one for having a better villain. 

As for the overall plot, though it kept me interested, it seems like everything that happens is made up as the movie progresses. It's as though the producers were desperate to make this experience better than before and careful not to forget all the typical Marvel comic tropes. Nothing, if anything, about the movie feels fresh. There's hardly anything eye-popping. 

The fight scenes were entertaining, though. I wouldn't call it exciting, though. The movie is a service to fan as it strives to meet audience's expectations before the next movie, "Avengers: Infinity Wars" was to come out. All in all, "Age of Ultron" builds upon what the previous movie setup and manages to tell a story, leaving all the set-up to "The Avengers." That's about all this movie has going for it. It's not great, but at least it's not part one. 

23) Ready Player One (2018)

(3.5 's out of 5)

"I'm not crazy about reality, but it's still the only place to get a decent meal." - Groucho Marx

Director
Steven Spielberg

Cast
Tye Sheridan - Wade Watts/Parzival
Olivia Cooke - Samantha Cook/Art3mis
Mark Rylance - James Halliday/Anorak
Ben Mendelsohn - Nolan Sorrento
Lena Waithe - Aech
Win Morisaki - Toshiro Yoshiaki/Daito
Philip Zhao - Sho
Simon Pegg - Ogden Morrow
T.J. Miller - i-R0k

The 2018 sci-fi action movie. "Ready Player One," based on Ernest Cline's novel of the same name and directed by Steven Spielberg, is one long eye-popping pop-culture fest. 

I enjoyed the book very much, and the movie is just as loaded...saturated even...with all things pop culture from the last 50 years. So many characters and properties are crawling throughout this story that it'll take a lot of viewings to catch half of them, especially characters who have a second or less of screen time. 

Otherwise, "Ready Player One" is high energy entertainment. It doesn't waste any time. 

The takes place in the year 2045. All of society has grown immensely despondent, and everyone collectively escapes from reality by immersing themselves in a virtual reality world called the OASIS (Ontologically Anthropocentric Sensory Immersive Simulation). Every participant takes the form of an avatar and conduct themselves in all manners of entertainment, commerce, education, etc. It was created by programmers James Halliday (Mark Rylance) and Ogden Morrow (Simon Pegg) both of whom founded the fictional company Gregarious Games. 

Users can choose their own avatar, which are often characters from various movies, television shows, music groups. or video games. They can also purchase or acquire various power-ups or accessories also taken from various properties. So. the OASIS is jammed with just about every pop culture reference you can think of. 

As Halliday has since passed away, his avatar known as Anorak, previously announced to all the world that Gregarious Games and the entire OASIS will be handed over to one single lucky winner of an on-going contest taking place inside the OASIS. All the lucky winner has to do is be the first player to find an Easter egg hidden somewhere in the artificial world. The egg is locked away and can only be obtained with the use of three separate keys that also need to be found. 

To achieve the keys, players need to accomplish three separate challenges which aren't easy to win. 

OASIS avatars Parzival (left) and Art3mis in "Ready Player One."

Any egg hunter looking for these keys are referred to as "gunters." 

One of these gunters happens to be Nolan Sorrento (Ben Mendelsohn), the corrupt millionaire CEO of Innovative Online Industries, or IOI for short. 

Sorrento utilizes both IOI employees and indentured servants to work around the clock digging through all of Halliday's interests life events which may serve as clues as to where he hid this egg so IOI can own Gregarious Games and control the OASIS. These workers of his are known within the OASIS as "sixers."

Meanwhile, one random teenager named Wade Watts (Tye Sheridan) not only immerses himself in the OASIS as frequently as anyone else, he's also a dedicated gunter. 

Inside, he goes by the avatar "Parcival" and is friends with a few other gunters called Art3mis (Olivia Cooke), Aech (Lena Waithe), Daito (Win Morisaki) and Sho (Philip Zhao). 

Wade studies the life and interests of James Halliday closely as records of Halliday's life, interests, writings, likes, dislikes, life events, achievements and failures, and other works and points of interest are all recorded in an archive database. 

After Wade figures out how to win the first challenge - a race that no one has yet won - and becomes the first gunter to win and score the first key, he works tirelessly with Art3mis, whom he has a crush on, and his other friends to find the remaining keys and be the one who scores the egg.

Wade becomes the first played to find the first of the three keys, which grabs the attention of Sorrento. He's willing to do anything to make sure he finds the egg before Wade does. 

It's comical to watch a corporate type wrack his brain and spend hours upon hours trying to figure out rather insignificant things (well, to most people) such as how to maneuver through now obsolete Atari 2600 games such as "Adventure" for clues alongside memorizing the importance of retro junk as it all pertained to one dude, Halliday. And he puts himself up against one teenager who's smarter than he is. It certainly says a lot about greed - corporate greed, which is certainly a plot point of the story. 

The whole thing feels satirical. So much energy, importance, life and death, over a giant virtual reality system. Of course, the prize is immense. It's like a modern day, or futuristic, action packed, geek version of "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory."  

There has to be hundreds of pop culture references dating between the 1970s to the mid-2000s jammed in here. Unless you watch "Ready Player One" which has a run time of 140 minutes, one frame at a time, or you have the attention and eyesight of a falcon, or just have nothing better to do on a Friday night and are desperate to accomplish at least one thing in your life, there's otherwise no way to catch them all. 

The Iron Giant attacks Mechagodzilla in the OASIS.

Most of the ones that are catchable have less than a second of screen time. Nevertheless, the movie depends so much on all the pop culture jampacked into the story that it seems the movie forgot to add some much-needed depth and development to the characters. 

They're too stale. It's not necessarily bad to focus on what Wade and the other characters are trying to accomplish. The movie feels completely full. There's a lot happening at every inch of the story, which alternates between the OASIS, Sorrento, and Wade's activities. Yet, the one thing that's missing is any insight into the characters. There's some insight, but not nearly enough. That's really the only initial problem I have with "Ready Player One." 

There's a fortune at steak, but it's hilarious watching everyone treating the OASIS like an absolute necessity. I'm sure there's some social commentary in that as far as modern society's dependence on technology and its addiction to constant visual gratification. That's on top of the commentary of corporate greed. All these references to other movies and such brings to mind those "member berries" from "South Park." Remember that? Remember? Oh, sure - I remember that!

Anyways, Spielberg knows how to wow an audience with eye-popping visuals and can tell a story that completely immerses the audience's attention. The pacing is great, and the story is entertaining. Weirdly enough, its audience is broad yet specific. Pop culture fanatics, geeks and nerds probably get the most out of this movie. There's enough pop culture and video game culture to feed the movie's intended audience of Gen X'rs, Millennials, and maybe some Gen Z'rs which spans more than 50 years. 

I read the book before the movie's release, and I enjoyed it. I also read the sequel, "Ready Player Two" as well, also by Ernest Cline. It felt slower and not as thrilling as the first book. 

Anyways, I like this movie for two reasons. The first being its dedication to irreplaceable reality (believe it or not), and that reality is where we all need to really need to spend most, if not all of our time. And two - the notion that we need to work for our success no matter what amount of success we achieve. No one's entitled to anything. Halliday makes each player use their brains to find his ultimate Easter egg. The entire experience comes down to its entertainment factor, and it is entertaining!