Change Your Image
UberGoober1411
Reviews
A Haunted House (2013)
An atrocious "Scary Movie" rip-off based off of new-age "found film" movies
Did anyone think this movie was going to be good? Anyone? You over there, with the Evil Dead shirt – you did? Go die, sir. Please. As everyone expected, A Haunted House was a total embarrassment when it comes to films. Yet another movie staring (and directed by!) Marlon Wayans, this movie follows the basic "Paranormal Activity" theme about a newly living together couple and their "experiences" with the paranormal.
Light and extremely crude humor along with a "cameo" of Nick Swardson as a homosexual psychic are the sole high points in an otherwise horse manure-filled experience. There is a lot of yelling, a whole ton of partial nudity and absolutely no plot. Even the funny moments weren't funny enough because they were too singular which made them awkward. This is a movie you rent from Red Box using a guy's credit card whom you don't really care about.
I really have nothing more to say about this movie. Its pretty God-awful and goes against every bullet point set by good films throughout time. I understand this film was supposed to be a spoof movie but that doesn't necessarily mean it has to be bad. Scary Movie and Scary Movie 2 proved that.
Aside from the occasional humor that would only make a frat bro laugh, this movie bites a big one. See it drunk or something.
+2 for technically being a movie
Gangster Squad (2013)
Classic American action movie with a great cast & setting
Personally, I love the post-WWII era. The suits, the hats, the demeanor of the ladies – everything points to a society with much richer cultural roots. So when you take my two favorite things, that being the post-WWII era and any combination of Josh Brolin/Sean Penn, you naturally have my attention (catch that Django reference?).
Sean Penn plays Mickey Cohen, a boxer turned mob-man wanting to take over Los Angeles and make it his new home. Turns out that the LAPD doesn't like East-coasters coming in on their land so they form an "undercover" unit, later dubbed as the gangster squad, to quickly and quietly take down Mickey Cohen.
This movie almost has an Ocean's Eleven feel to it, which I strongly enjoy, and there is no lack of action. The movie itself is actually quite dark which I thought was an excellent and accurate portrayal of the mob underworld. Anyone who thinks that mob-men are actually nice people who do things "by the book" has got another thing coming. Sean Penn portrays his character flawlessly (as Sean Penn usually does) and Tommy Lee Jones .err, Josh Brolin does an excellent job as well. Throw in Ryan Gosling, playing another dreamy lady's man, Emma Stone, and that weird guy from Ted who dances to 80′s music and you got yourself a solid cast. With the solid cast comes a solid story and, surprisingly, quite a bit of humor. I thought the humor and the darkness of the plot counterbalanced each other and it didn't make the audience feel uncomfortable in any way. This is a rare thing in today's movies because so few of them can balance two polar opposite sub-genres of film so eloquently.
Although the film's plot is general and the above-average movie-goer can more-or-less guess what's coming next, the many action scenes and gun fights keep the audience on the edge of their seats throughout the show. This is a classic American action film set in one of the best era's movies could be set in.
All-in-all I highly recommend this film while it's currently out in theaters.
+2 for Brolin/Penn
+2 for supporting cast
+2 for counterbalancing of humor and dark-atmosphere
+2 for it all coming together
House at the End of the Street (2012)
A run of the mill thriller with a few twists
Seeing this movie, I got what I expected. Jennifer Lawrence stars as a teenager (even though she looks 25) in high school who moves into a neighborhood and falls for the quiet introverted and clichéd "weird" kid who lives in a house by himself. As the movie progresses, Lawrence's character finds out that Ryan (Max Thieriot) isn't all that he seems...and that he may have a few secrets.
The cast, aside from Lawrence and Thieriot, is just average. Elissa's (Lawrence) mom is the run of the mill single mom who doesn't know how to raise a child by herself. Working two jobs and one late one until 10 or 11 in the evening sure doesn't help. Aside from the mom, there is the town police officer as well the rest of the kids in the town, who really don't like Ryan. Everyone does a passable acting job and there's really nothing to complain about.
The plot, although shopworn and overused, does have a few twists. As one can no doubt tell from the previews, Ryan has a dirty little secret, one that no one suspects. He keeps his sister, the one who killed their parents, in his basement. This obviously comes into play and brings Ryan's sanity into question. It will leave you guessing, as this is an unique way to set up a horror film.
All-in-all, this movie is an above average thriller/horror movie that I would recommend Red Box'ing sometime in the future. It's at this time I wish I graded in 1/2 points...oh well, I suppose I'll round up.
+2 for Lawrence's good acting
+2 for Thieriot's good acting
+2 for unique plot twists
The Possession (2012)
Just an average horror film
I went into this movie with low to moderate expectations. This movie met those expectations. It was one of those films that you see a preview for and say "Hey, that might be good" completely under your breath because you truly don't know how it'll be. Then you see it and you're glad that it's not as bad as you initially deduced.
The acting was, for lack of a better word, "meh". Not great, not bad, just run-of-the-mill, right down the middle neutrality. Kyra Sedgwig is the lone gem (if you can call her that) in an otherwise lackluster cast of "actors-I've-never-seen-before". They did an okay job, but didn't make this movie any better for what it's worth.
The plot is as lackluster as the movie itself. As one can no doubt tell from the preview(s), a young girl living in a family who has recently gone through a divorce, finds a strange box at a garage sale and, of course, opens it. What follows is a "based on a true story" account of what happened to said girl as the Jewish spirit possessed her. The movie followed a shopworn plot that you've seen many times before, even if you're just a casual fan of the horror genre, and the ending was as predictable as the Patriots reaching the Super Bowl.
Aside from the fact that the overused plot brings the movie down a few points, the fact that the demon/spirit/possessive entity has Jewish roots (as opposed to the more common Christian) is a breath of fresh air in an otherwise musky complex. Aside from that The Possession brings nothing new to the table and fails to turn a new page and set a standard for future horror movies. And hey, that's difficult to do, and I in no way expected it to actually succeed.
+2 for Kyra Sedgwig
+2 for not being atrocious
+1 for "fresh" spirit origin
Lawless (2012)
Tom Hardy solidifies himself as the baddest badass of our time
I'll be blunt, I came into this film with low expectations. Shia LeBouf was never my favorite actor, apart from when he played Stanley Yelnats in Holes (even if he was badly mis-cast). I was getting ready to hear him yell things towards something past the audience and watch him force himself to cry, which is one of the ugliest things I have ever seen. Apart from my low expectations, I kept an open mind and, let me say, I was pleasantly surprised.
The basic premise of Lawless tells a story about a family of country bootleggers in Franklin, a small village somewhere hear Chicago. As prohibition came to fruition, the law started buckling down. Enter Guy Pearce, the Special-Super Deputy in charge of seeing over the shutting down of all stills and confiscation of all moonshine out of Franklin. What follows is an account of the Bounderant family taking a stand for their own product and going against the law.
The acting in this movie is quite good, with the performance of Gary Oldman being short but meaningful. Guy Pearce makes a really good bad guy, almost Jude Law-esque from Road to Perdition. Shia holds his own and the supporting cast isn't bad, but Tom Hardy steals the show as the "invincible" Forrest Bounderant. As the title suggests, Forrest is a badass in this film. I can't go into details for fear of disclosing spoilers, but just know that Hardy once again makes us fall in movie-love with his character.
The story is quite good, giving the audience a different look to the bootlegging scene. The HBO show Boardwalk Empire provides an inside look at upper-class bootlegging while Lawless takes us into where the alcohol originates: in the country. There are twists and turns in the plot and the ending wraps everything up nicely.
All-in-all I'd recommend this movie. It's a solid all-around film, and although it seems to drag out sometimes there's plenty of action to boot.
+3 for Tom Hardy
+3 for story-telling
+1 for supporting cast
The Expendables 2 (2012)
Aside from the bevy of famous actors, this movie is just bad
Where to begin? Well, the acting was okay. Just okay. Aside from Jason Statham who is above-average acting talent, everyone else was sub-par or well below average. The addition of the random Oriental actress didn't help this movie's cause. Aside from that, everything was predictable and the facial expressions and everything else that goes along with acting was pretty atrocious.
The plot was lacking substance and purpose. A clear revenge story with no end, it seemed to drag on and add fuel to the fire in all the unnecessary and sometimes necessary, although predictable, ways. The violence factor was through the rough, which offended me as a portion of the audience. It was as if the director (if this movie even had one) didn't hold the movie-goer to a high enough standard and threw in as much and blood and violence as possible. Maybe to distract the audience from the limitless holes in the plot.
As well as including pointless sections of wasted film into this movie, there are so many stupid and absolutely ridiculous corny jokes. As if the director had a hard-on for every Schwarznegger film ever made and decided to include every piece of cinephile-ific reference into the cracks of this movie.
I don't know what more to say. Bad acting, bad plot, yet good (sort of) casting. I will be merciful and reward this movie points, even if it didn't go the whole nine yards to receive them.
+1 for non-stop action
+2 for casting
Total Recall (2012)
The 90′s film receives a facelift, but with little meaning
I have never seen the original version of this film but I had a friend silently whisper me the details and differences of it throughout my watching of this 2012 version. The story revolves around the main character, Douglas Quaid (or so we think is his name), played by Colin Farrell, who is tired of his boring simple life and decides to go to a program called Rekall, a memory-altering procedure that implants illusions into one's mind convincing the human psyche that it has actually experienced the said memories. As one can denote from the preview, something goes wrong with the machine and Quaid is forced to defend himself against the horde of enemy soldiers that busts through the wall – to the surprise of the intruders, and Quaid himself, he does this rather well. And so begins the drawn out plot-line where Quaid has to run from, shoot at and avoid nearly every thing that moves while keeping his female companion, played by Jessica Biel, alive.
The story itself was rather weak. A rather large amount of video games implement the same style store, Far Cry 2 serves as a good example, so therefore the plot and storytelling is nothing new. Basically mirroring the 90′s movie of the same name, it is there simply to defend the actions of everyone in the film and move the story and characters along.
The graphics, on the other hand, were quite good. I'd even go as far as to say exceptional. What I was truly in awe of was the architecture of the film: the way the buildings formed during chase scenes, the way they floated above ground, and the futuristic outlay of the whole Total Recall world. Everything was fit together perfectly, like a jigsaw puzzle without any missing pieces. The textures and the CGI used for the "car" chase scenes are both breathtaking, often moving from one scene into another fluidly and without miscues or missteps. This, along with the seemingly never endless bevy of cool and visionary electronics, make this movie a marvel to watch. Everything that you can possibly think of (well, almost everything) is present in the Total Recall world, face changers and hand phones to name a few. These little wonders make the movie fun to watch and will have you saying "Wow, that's cool!" more than once or twice.
Casting gets a solid B+ from me. No amazing actors/actresses and certainly not ones worthy of an Oscar-nominating performance. Kate Beckinsale holds her own with her sexy English accent, Jessica Biel plays a good yang to Farrell's ying, and the terminal one mentioned does a good job as Douglas Quaid, making a good, albeit sudden, transition from factory worker to historic badass. The supporting cast is simply okay, with Davey Jones making a brief appearance.
For anyone who hasn't seen the previews for this film, it's an actions packed sci-fi flick, with plenty of fighting and shooting throughout. Although this may be a fun outing to the average movie-goer, the ending of the film leaves you with nothing to take forward and nothing to learn from. It's essentially empty. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, considering Total Recall wasn't trying to be something more than an action sci-fi; if, on the other hand, it masked its true nature with the desire to be "something more", then that's where we would have a problem. Alas, we do not so therefore the empty feeling as you walk out of the theater is easier to deal with.
Overall this movie is a good watch for fans of the 90′s flick, as well as for fans of Farrell. Aside from Fright Night, this is one of his best movies of the last decade, and rightfully so.
+2 for Farrell +1 for rest of cast +1 for action sequences +2 for graphics and architectural prowess
The Dark Knight Rises (2012)
Near perfection that you have to see more than once to fully appreciate
I do not know how to begin this review. This usually isn't a problem for me, but today it is. Where to begin? The sheer magnitude of the storytelling? The almost infinite layers of plot? The superb casting/acting? Or just those little details that everyone enjoys seeing? So let me begin with a narrative tale to tickle you interests.
I came into this movie with high expectation. Very high to be precise – The Dark Knight was an amazing movie in it's own right and I was looking forward to see if Nolan can give it justice with this finale. And justice he gave, scads of it. The story you can essentially get from the preview but for the one who lives under a rock I'll summarize it. Batman goes into hiding after the events of the second movie and has no reason to come out of "retirement" (if you can call it that) until a new enemy, Bane, begins to take over the criminal underworld.
The reason you have to watch this movie twice, or three times, is because of the way Nolan tells the story. There is so much to take in, so much to discuss and ponder that you need a second go through. The plot has an immense amount of layers that are all stacked on top of each other perfectly, like a Jenga tower wholly stacked at it's prime stage. As you delve deeper into the story, revelations leak out and you begin to truly appreciate the gravity of the plot. Everything is so whole, so complete that nothing needs to be deleted or replaced. A movie like this comes out once or twice every two to three years, and you just have to stand back and marvel at the acerbity of it. Through the entire 2 hours and some-odd minutes, the waterfall effect of the storyline, the seemingly endless trickle of characters, plot points and perfectly inserted flashbacks, gets stronger and stronger until the movie finally concludes in an excellent fashion.
Everyone that played a part in this movie was superb. End of story. Christian Bale is Christian Bale: born to play this part the minute the writers saw his acting in American Psycho. Anne Hathaway makes a great Catwoman while Tom Hardy as Bane provides a menacing appeal to the film while balancing out the equation. Marion Cotillard, Morgan Freeman, Gary Oldman and the multitude of other actors cast for new or repeat roles dazzle in their respective guises and make the film even more tight-nit.
Nolan seems to appreciate making his audience happy and his audience sure appreciates him for doing so. The movie is filled with small things that you look at, or even double take, and go "Wow, I would have never thought of that. That's pretty cool". I'm not going to give anything away, so you'll just have to see it for yourself. They happen throughout the movie and add even more wow factor to what already is a colossal epic.
If there is one thing I have to criticize about this movie it's this: the ending leaves me with questions. Now that's not good nor bad, but the 3rd movie in an obvious trilogy that is supposed to "end all the Batman movies" should not leave me with questions. Rather, it should tie itself up adeptly and conclude on a final note. That may be too much to ask of most films these days, but The Dark Knight Rises had the potential and more to do it. Having said that, this movie was loosely based on the comic of the same name and therefore is a "remake" of sorts which in turn leads to an "already done before" stamp. Although this stamp is light, it is still there and needs to be acknowledged.
What more can I say? This movie is almost perfect, save for the ending and the fact that it's essentially taken from a comic book. Aside from those facts, one has to see this movie for themselves and delve deep into the different layers of symbolism and quality. This movie will have your brain working and mind turning the whole 2 hours. This movie is the best movie of the summer, and of 2012, by far. This movie is outstanding. I had to pay more money to see it a second time, but you know what? I wouldn't have it any other way.
+5 for the story and magnitude of plot
+3 for casting & acting
+1 for attention to detail
The Bourne Legacy (2012)
A great follow-up to a superb movie trilogy
When I first saw the preview for this movie, I was excited. I was hoping it would have traits similar to those that made The Bourne Identity such a good movie: enveloping story, strong lead role, and intense, yet cool action. This movie did not disappoint.
This summer's new Bourne movie had a new face: that of Jeremy Renner. Although we were all used to Matt Damon as the lead awesome-super-agent role, Renner fills his shoes nicely and provides an overall great acting performance. I enjoyed hearing Renner, as Outcast agent Aaron Cross, give lengthy conversations about what they did to the agents in question and how that all tied into the big picture.
Although there was action that was stylized after the original Bourne trilogy, there wasn't enough of it. There were a handful of scenes that showed off Cross's prowess with all sorts of weapons and machinery, but the fact that these scenes were few and far between left me wanting something more. The other portions of the movie were spent talking about the storyline, which if you haven't seen the original Bourne movies (and I mean recently), it will somewhat confuse you. Key phrases that tickle your memory of years past are thrown around like trifles and although you don't need to understand the story to enjoy the movie, it does help. If the story seems gray to you and you seem to be asking questions that sound like "Why are they killing them?" or "Why do they want to do that?", be quick to hold judgment and go watch/re-watch the original series.
Everything is tied up nicely in the end (if you can call it "tied up") but although the movie is a good 2+ hours long, the ending is sudden. At least it was to me. I sat back and had to double check if those were credits I was seeing.
All-in-all, this movie is definitely worth seeing, even if you've never seen the original Bourne trilogy. The story elements that tie into the original Bourne plot-line can be dismissed, and although the action scenes are limited they are cool and memorable. The Bourne Legacy is a step in the right direction towards a potential new Bourne trilogy.
+2 for Renner's performance
+1 for supporting cast
+2 for superb action sequences
+1 for storyline
+1 for good springboard into possible new Trilogy
Notes: - Sometimes difficult to follow storyline due to frequent past-movie references - Quick and sudden ending - Few actions leave something to be wanted
The Watch (2012)
Predictable but still funny
When a comedy fan sees this preview it sends shivers down their spine: Ben Stiller, Jonah Hill AND Vince Vaughn all in the same movie? Not to mention the English dude that nobody knows, but still: English people are usually hilarious. So when I went to see this movie I had moderate expectations: I had hoped that all the funny portions weren't shown in the previews, that the story wasn't extremely stupid or put together with Elmer's glue, and that the inclusion of "crude but smart" humor wasn't completely misspent. Almost Wedding Crashers style. I wasn't let down, but I wasn't jumping for joy either.
What one can ascertain from the preview is that Ben Stiller's character makes a neighborhood watch and then this band of misfits stumbles upon the potential discovery of aliens. Throughout the whole movie there is good, albeit crude, humor. Still humor nonetheless, and you will be laughing for a while. While this movie is not as funny as Wedding Crashers or this summer's comedy blockbuster Ted, it still provides some comic relief for the viewer while maintaining an easy storyline to follow and some relate-able moments that any father, husband and friend can appreciate.
What I didn't enjoy about this film was that Vince Vaughn came out of the role he's so firmly planted himself in these past 10 to 15 years. He's always this serious, expression-less character who can make anyone laugh with anything he says. However, he perpetuates a role that is extremely hyper-active and goofy, although still funny. I guess I just missed the Old School type of character he portrayed in the past.
Jonah Hill also takes a turn in a different direction, playing a character that is extremely strange and at points, mental. It's not a turn for the worse, just something different. Fair warning, this is not the same Jonah Hill that made Superbad so enjoyable.
The plot is simple and easy to follow but is too predictable. Although there are a few twists, they aren't anything major and don't do much to set the plot apart from something that a Joe Blow could make up in his spare time. Everything that happens could be guessed in three tries or less and the end ties everything together in that American-esque way that things these days are so often concluded with.
The special effects, although few and far between, are pretty easily recognizable as CGI. A comparable movie would be X-Men Origins: Wolverine. An everyday movie-goer could tell that the special effects in this movie were just that: effects. Too fake.
All-in-all, The Watch isn't a bad film and is worth a watch (pardon this atrocious pun). Ben Stiller, Jonah Hill and Vince Vaughn all come together nicely and the addition of Richard Ayoade pulls everything together well; after all, everything's funnier with an English accent.
+3 for the comradery between the four main characters
+2 for the laughs
+1 for simply not being a disappointment
1408 (2007)
Best "horror" film of the new century so far
John Cusack, you stole the show. Cusack's role as cult urban myth writer Mike Enslin is breathtaking and will have you wondering why he has been in such movies as Must Love Dogs and Serendipity. I can't say this enough: he absolutely steals the show. An amazing performance from him, combined with an immersive plot and great supporting acting from Samuel L. Jackson as the Dolphin Hotel's owner, creates a never before done "horror" film for the ages. I put horror in quotes due to the fact that this movie isn't a true horror film: meaning it doesn't follow the rules written so many times before it with movies like Saw and Friday the 13th part 85. Rather, it delves deep into a story of a man who simply cannot get out of a room filled with his own subconscious thoughts, ones that he must conquer and ones that he must learn to forget.
After spending a night in yet another "haunted" hotel somewhere in the rainy portions of the United States, Mike Enslin gets a postcard from the reclusive Dolphin Hotel in New York City with the words "Don't stay in 1408". Seeing it as a form of a challenge Enslin travels to New York, which coincidentally happens to be the residence city of his estranged wife, to spend a night in room 1408. He thinks it will make a good ending chapter for the book that he currently writing. After some arguing with the booking agent, he reserves a room in 1408 only to be told by the hotel manager that there have been numerous deaths and strange occurrences in that room since the hotel's opening. Not heeding the manager's warnings, Enslin decides to spend a night in the room just to see for himself. What follows is a shattering yet immensely interesting count of what happened to Mike Enslin in room 1408.
There are a few "jump" moments in this film, but nothing too bad. What really pulls you in the the way you seem to easily connect with Enslin from the beginning of the movie right through to the credits. He's a quirky yet comical guy with his own brand of satire and he seems convinces that ghost and ghoulies don't exist. He doesn't even believe in his own writing, as hypocritical as that is. Without spoiling the plot I can tell you this: the story is as immersive as the Stephen King short story of the same name; nothing is lost in the literature-movie transfer.
There are parts of this movie that are visually appealing as well and will have you gasping at what Enslin attempts to do to get himself out of the room. You will be sitting there with the movie paused, discussing with your friends what you personally would do if this would ever happen to you. The ending to this movie (I saw the Blu-ray ending, which is the original theatrical UK and European ending - the better one in my opinion) is fitting and concludes the awe-inspiring story with ease and will leave you with questions. Some will peak your curiosity so much that you may decide to sit down and read the short story that this movie is based off of. I highly recommend this.
All in all, 1408 is a dazzling display of cinema and Stephen King writing at its best. John Cusack's acting, along with the innovative plot, will keep you at the edge of your seat all the way to the sweet (or bitter) end.
+3 for Cusack
+3 for plot
+2 for supporting acting
Savages (2012)
An empty plot mixed with sub-par acting from the entire cast leads to yet another revenge story
When I first saw this preview in the theaters, upon seeing Oliver Stone's name a kind lady said, "Oh! Oliver Stone, this should be good!". Oh how wrong she was. Savages is another one of Stone's tries at greatest and let me tell you it's farther than a stone's throw from greatness than it could ever be.
The story starts off with the background events which one can find out by just watching the preview. Ben and Chon grow the best weed in the world and when the drug cartels move north into Laguna Beach and Ben and Chon refuse to partner with them, those said cartels steal O, or Blake Lively, away from them as a revenge tactic. But revenge is not merely what they want - what they truly want is that partnership. The plot eventually unfolds revealing the background story of many of the characters, all of which the audience doesn't really care about. Aside from the basic information about Ben and Chon's previous lives, the plot decides to spend time telling us who in Salma Hayek's family died; something that we don't care about.
Although this movie was slatted as an action film, the action is few and far between. In all, there are about 3 action scenes through the entire film, with the rest of the movie being encompassed by boring interviews with nobody's and the useless torture of "bad guys". The grotesque nature of the action in this film does little to redeem it, only briefly taking our attention away from the character flaws and stories we really don't care about. All we really needed to know was that there was a drug war and people are going to die. Then the two main characters pick up a Batman and Robin-esque relationship and swing off to rescue the damsel in distress.
Aside from the horrific story-telling and the seemingly endless boring parts of the film, there a few plot twists that will peak your curiosity. And when I say a few I mean just that: two. You will walk out of the theater disappointed and confused why the movie wasn't so much more.
All-in-all the emptiness of the characters, endless droll talking, and ridiculously luxurious hospitality for Blake Lively while she is being held prisoner, Savages is yet another blip on the radar, much like Colombiana. The movie does nothing to set itself apart from every other revenge story that has ever been told and with just decent acting to barely hold it above water, this movie is barely worth a watch for the $10.
+2 for casting. Benicio del Toro is a good actor, despite portraying a stupid character
+2 for the few plot twists
The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)
A good, but not great, re-introduction to the world of (your friendly neighborhood) Spider-Man
Being the Spider-Man fanatic that I am (and I mean that sincerely), I went into this movie with high hopes. Extremely high. Needless to say this movie was a humbling experience which showed me that just because a series is popular enough to be rebooted, doesn't mean that the reboot will do the series itself justice. With that being said, this movie was leagues ahead of Sam Raimi's trilogy of whatever bad noun you can think of and set itself up for future movies.
For anyone who has ever read Amazing Spider-Man #6, first appearance of The Lizard, this movie follows that plot to a T. Well, maybe half a T, but you get my point. A more modernized version of ASM #6 that's not set in the Everglades. Peter Parker, your average skate boarding high school-er, stumbles into a lab in Oscorp (after sneaking in of course) and gets bitten by a (radioactive) spider. What follows is one and a half hours of slightly sloppy action, minor romance and astounding graphics.
So we'll start with the good news. The cinematography and graphical design was absolutely fantastic. Could not have been done better. The special effects on the Lizard were so real you could tell his skin was slimy and his fingers were razor sharp. Scenes of Spider-Man swinging from building to building interloped nicely with scenes of Spider-Man fighting bad guys or getting annoyed by cops. The fight scenes were credible, but could have been done better but the placement of all the characters and fluidity of motions exhibited by the pro- and antagonist of the movie made up for lack of "pazzaz" during action sequences. Slow motion was seldom used, but when it was it was equipped nicely and never became shopworn. The way the Lizard tore things apart while throwing them at innocent bystanders, along with Spider-Man, was choreographed perfectly and all-in-all the movie's graphical prowess is where the majority of the gold lies.
Behind solid acting, Emma Stone and Andrew Garfield (along with bits and pieces of Rhys Ifans) carry the movie forward and their torrid love affair never gets in the way of Parker being Spider-Man. The chemistry between these two is good and hilarious at times, because Garfield really has that whole "awkward science nerd" thing down pat. Aunt May and Uncle Ben were the weakest acting roles in the whole movie, and that is now dis to Sally Field or Martin Sheen. They just didn't have enough of an impact, as characters, on Parker's story and family life to have a lasting appeal to the audience. Ben's obligatory death wasn't heartfelt or difficult to bear - it just, sort of, happened. Aunt May never gave one of her "there's a hero in all of us" speeches (a la Spider-Man 2) and therefore didn't strike a chord in the proverbial storyline.
I wish I could tell you more without giving up spoilers, but I really can't. Aside from the facts that I just gave you, expect clichés and corniness throughout the film. Innocent bystanders trying to be heroes and things to that nature. And going along with the recent trend of after-credits nuggets that Marvel oh-so wonderfully set up, this movie contains a "preview" (if one could call it that) of the next film. I am debating on whether putting a question mark at the end of the sentence because that after-credits scene did absolutely nothing for me.
Enough of my talking. Here's the low down:
+2 for Garfield's perfect (and hot, no homo) portrayal of Spider-Man
+1 for Stone's great portrayal of Stacy
+3 for graphics/cinematography
+1 for comic nerd appeal
Ted (2012)
Ted makes you laugh "hahdar" than you have laughed in a long time, while still maintaining relate-ability
I do not give 8 out of 10's often; I am not trying to seem like a pompous ass, even though I'm listening to Kate Bush singing "Wow" as I write this review, but 8 out of 10's are hard to come by. Well, at least they're hard to come by with the scale that I grade movies on. And 8 out of 10 comedies are even harder to come by due to the recycled nature of all 2000's interludes post-Anchorman/Dodgeball. That being said, Ted deserves this honor (if you can call it that) wholeheartedly and without question. And here's why.
"Stupid comedies" with "stupid humor" have been a part of American culture since Judd Apatow first took his directing reigns and graced the silver screen with his comedic genius in 2004 and Ted certainly falls into the category of "stupid humor" - at least at times. But how does Ted separate itself from everything that has been done and is already shopworn? Enter Seth MacFarlane, the brains and voice acting behind the hit TV show Family guy who not only directs this work of art with class and ingenuity but also adds in some Family Guy-esque humor, a brand that we are all so familiar with, in all the right places.
Everything you need to know from this movie you can find out from the preview, therefore a summary (and spoilers) is not necessary. Mark Wahlberg plays John, a 35-year-old rental car center employee who has a stuffed Teddy bear and a girlfriend who clearly deserves better in Mila Kunis. That being said the humor starts as soon as the beginning credits roll and doesn't die down until the conflict of the movie. Only a stone-faced GTA mom will sit through this movie and never donate a smirk. The plot is filled with hilarious one-liners and quick-and-quirky comedy that will have you in stitches; that already divulged comedy is peppered into an actual plot, stellar acting performances (including Ted's) and completely random and unexpected spouts of hilarity.
Although the plot is actual, it isn't strong. Clichéd is the best word for it, but I was not expecting a Stephen King or Martin Scorsese screenplay. The movie follows a basic outline of background information, setting-up of plot, conflict, rising action, falling action, and climax. And the climax will make anybody who is a child at heart tear up - yes, I had to hold back tears because of that oh-so-wonderful Teddy bear. The plot adds onto the character "models" nicely and the audience develops a care for the characters, something that is missing from almost every recent film and is an absolute afterthought when making comedies. The biggest thing that makes you care about one particular character in this movie is the fact that he's a Teddy bear. Simple as that. He's adorable, funny, and despite having a 38-year-old Connecticut man's voice, cute.
Mark Wahlberg once again steps out of his "cop, fightah, cop" comfort zone and plays a comedic and sometimes awkward funny-man, similar to the one he played in The Other Guys. Oops, he was a cop in that one too. Regardless, his performance deserves mention, as does Kunis's. She plays a stunning girlfriend extremely well and the chemistry between her and Wahlberg is a nice touch to the playful plot. However, Ted steals the show despite being 100% CGI. This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone for the movie is titled after the fuzz ball. The emotions evoked in the bear's face really display a forward progress of computer generated graphics and the fact that Wahlberg had to talk to, essentially, nothing for the length of the movie is respectable.
What else do you need to know? You don't need to be a certain age to enjoy this movie. All you need is an open heart and a soft spot for stuffed animals. And the latter is optional. Although the comedy dies down within the second half of the movie, the twists kick in and it's a stellar ride to the end. Few smudges, on an otherwise paramount comedic performance, make Ted an enjoyable film for anyone. You will want to dig up your old Teddy bear after watching this movie - I did.
+3 for comedy gold
+3 for Ted himself
+1 for Wahlberg/Kunis
+1 for inclusion of plot
Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter (2012)
Great choreography & breathtaking visuals, along with solid acting, cover a few plot holes in an otherwise fun film
Unlike most people who wrote this movie off as soon as they saw the title, I was excited to see this film. Regardless of what the movie is called, whether it's Jesus the Pedophile or George Bush the Camel Tamer, if it looks good you can bet your ass I will go see it. Putting my ranting aside, this movie is based off of a book by Seth Grahame-Smith with the same name and having heard rave reviews about the work of literature I went into the movie expecting a good movie. I was not disappointed.
Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter is a movie based loosely off of the life of the 16th President of the United States. Right away this movie sets itself up as a fantastical movie with lots of action and gore, fully deserving the R rating (in the best way possible). Abraham Lincoln's mother gets killed by someone, who Lincoln later finds out is a vampire, and wanting to exact revenge he takes a midnight jaunt to this vampire's last known location and puts a bullet into his head. Little does he know that bullets, apart from silver ones, do not kill vampires and subsequently gets his ass kicked by this dead fiend. After a nice whooping, a nice gentleman saves him and after waking up in this aforementioned gentleman's house Lincoln pleads his case and the gentleman, who ends up being Lincoln's future friend Henry, teaches Lincoln the secrets to vampire hunting. Setting up a decree of guidelines that Lincoln has to follow, he proceeds to sends Lincoln a new target every now and again, hoping to thin the vampire lines and eventually wipe out the race entirely.
The fight scenes in this movie are extremely exciting and are fully worth the 3D surcharge. This movie has to have been filmed with a 5K resolution camera because the graphics are up to par with Ridley Scott's most recent piece of dung, Prometheus - and that's saying something. The choreography in said fight scenes is probably the brightest star that shines in this bijou's plentiful sky. All the actor's are completely enthralled in performing their respective roles and it shows because every motion from jump, to crouch, to a swing of Abe Lincoln's axe is beautifully detailed and fluid, without choppy motions or uneven transitions. The use of slow motion really adds to this effect and despite being used frequently does not become shopworn or banal.
I mentioned the visuals in the previous paragraph but they deserve another look-see (as weak of a pun as that is). The blood effects in this movie are detailed and disgusting but it makes it all the better; the simple graphical ends in this movie make it an all-around beauty to watch - the dirt that is kicked up during a chase scene with about 100 horses is detailed and visually entertaining; the battle scenes where the dead attack the living are visually pleasing and you can almost see the ageless wrinkles on the vampires' faces. All-in-all this movie should be considered in contention to receive the title of graphical powerhouse.
Amidst the great choreography and breathtaking visuals there lie a few miscues and maybe even plot holes. When Henry gets bitten by a vampire he turns into immediately while his wife, who also gets bitten, lies limp and dying in his arms. Soon after she dies - why? How come both female characters in the film who get bitten by the vampire, along with Lincoln's future son, die soon after their wounds are inflicted? And how can Speed commandeer a horse and carriage to go directly through a building's window/wall without any damage to the animals themselves? Given the "castles in the air" nature of the movie I can get over the latter quip of the two mentioned.
So, should you go spend some amount of money on this movie? Yes. Should you fork over the extra (approximate) $2.50 surcharge for 3D? Maybe. If you're a 3D buff, then yes. If you are rich, then why not? The 3D, unlike in some movies, compliments the plot and action scenes so therefore you hardly notice that you're wearing glasses 15 minutes into the film. Therefore, I would recommend seeing this movie in 3D, if you're not too frugal.
In the end, this movie proves it's worth to me and silences the naysayers and critics (and that one woman behind me, who after seeing the trailer for the movie thought that the director/screenplay writer were re-writing history). This is a very solid film with stellar acting performances from Benjamin Walker and Dominic Cooper. And to answer the question whether this film is worth a watch, I shall take a lyric from the band Rev Theory: "Hell Yeah".
+3 Graphics
+1 Choreography
+2 Benjamin Walker
+1 Dominic Cooper
Rock of Ages (2012)
A fun-filled movie experience that's a great excuse to listen to 80's music
I'll start off by stating that I have never seen the Rock of Ages Broadway play so I had no expectations coming into the movie, aside from the fact that I really wanted to hear Tom Cruise sing Pour Some Sugar on Me. I have never been a fan of Tom Cruise from the beginning but his performance in this film speaks otherwise. He did an outstanding job as the lead rock star Stacee Jaxx. The chemistry between him and Malin Ackerman's character, Rolling Stone writer Constance Sack, was breathtakingly beautiful. Rolling around Tom Cruise's HQ at the Bourbon Room and singing I Want to Know What Love Is was an absolutely amazing display of vocal prowess and talent. It was amazing seeing these two work together and I only wish that this movie was longer, if only by 5 minutes.
The music chosen to be included in this movie was also outstanding, truly exemplifying the 80's genre. There were some songs that did not make it in, like I Just Died (In Your Arms Tonight) and Keep On Loving you, but it could be argued that the genre of these songs is new-wave Pop, not Rock n' Roll. Regardless, the choices made and displayed in the movie were perfect, ranging from Night Ranger's (pardon me) Sister Christian to Journey's Don't Stop Believing (unfortunately). The choreography in the film to go along with the songs was questionable at best but it is also difficult to take a Broadway and put it to screen.
I also thought the chemistry between two unlikely characters was good too: Alec Baldwin as Dennis Dupree and Russel Brand as Lonny, for reasons I shall not mention in this review.
The plot, unfortunately, was very week. The lead female role, Sherrie Christian played by Julianne Hough, goes to Hollywood looking for fame and fortune (and everything that comes with it) only to have her bags stolen within the first 10 minutes of entering the city. She then meets Drew Boley, a simply guy who has dreams of rock n' roll and who too left home for Hollywood - he offers her a job at the Bourbon Room and the love starts. It was a predictable love story and the chemistry between these too never quite reaches the peak that the chemistry between Cruise and Ackerman defined. Nevertheless, this alone does not keep the movie from losing points.
There is quite a bit of comedy in the movie and will keep you laughing hysterically, especially when Tom Cruise is on-screen (by now you should have a pretty good idea that he is a freaking awesome character). The comedy keeps the movie more fun and lighthearted, and makes a good transition into the musical portions.
In the end, Rock of Ages definitely is the best musical of the year (although it'll probably be the only one) and is so far the best musical of the 2010-2019 decade. Tom Cruise does a stellar performance, the musical choice for the soundtrack is exceptional, and although the story lacks depth and creativity at some points, the comedy and transitional effects between movie and musical make up for it.
+3 for Tom Cruise's performance
+1 for chemistry between Cruise & Ackerman
+1 for chemistry between Baldwin & Brand
+2 for music selection
Prometheus (2012)
Ridley Scott, where have you disappeared to?
Let me start off by saying I have never seen any of the 1970's Alien movies. Therefore, I will not be comparing Prometheus to Scott's apparent 70's "gold". Regardless, I have seen Gladiator, American Gangster, and Robin Hood as of late, the first one mentioned being the best of the three. Hard to argue with that.
Having said that, Robin Hood was awful. This is going to seem like unintelligible discourse but that movie was absolute horse dung. The most boring movie I have seen to date and it cannot even hold a candle close to the 1991 Robin Hood starring Kevin Costner. So needless to say I wasn't expecting much from Ridley Scott's 2012 sci-fi flick.
Prometheus is a futuristic 2093 space science fiction epic film with the basic plot line that contains something along the lines of humans going out to find the beginning to their proverbial existence. This inevitably brings out the taboo topic of evolution vs. creationism but alas, the topic, which has so many possibilities, peaks and valleys, is thrown by the wayside and a much more haphazard design is espoused: one that cannot even be described in words because I honestly do not know what happened.
To explain, there were many instances in the movie where I just sat back and had to say "What?". Shaw gets an emergency c section and subsequently has her stomach stapled shut, but the crew of the vessel hardly pays attention to her. The woman just got emergency surgery yet it is completely dumped from the plot, as if her being pregnant was as common an occurrence as the Patriots making the playoffs. I understand that no one else knew about the happening but the fact that the writer simply waved it off as a minor token in a seemingly bulletproof story line was extremely confusing. There is also the fact that Shaw can run, jump, crawl and play Jenga when she just underwent major surgery, but I will ignore this point due to the fact that she's tweaked up a bunch of drugs during- and post-operation - drugs that are probably futuristic and do a barrage of different things.
When the two scientists get lost near the beginning of the story (the biologist and the geologist), they find a cave with a bunch of alien "vase"-looking pustules. When a completely undiscovered and unknown life form pokes its "head" from the murky depths of the galactic tar, these two geniuses think that it's a good idea to touch it. Needless to say they both die, although the geologist has one more sprite-ly encounter before meeting his doom in the form of APC tires and flamethrower fuel. This movie could have been so much more than 45 minutes of build-up to barely disgusting/spooky horror scenes and an ending that just screams "Sequel". It could have made us wonder about the philosophical journey that the human race made from the expanse of history or had us question whether God does exist. Even a story that had absolutely no thesis besides the "aliens are here, let's look around" synopsis would have been better, when compared to the way were teased with a deeper plot and never got the satisfaction we were craving for.
The good news is this movie revolutionized the way CGI is used in movies today. I would go as far as to say this movie is almost on par with Avatar in it's visual prowess and special effects. The alien planet looks marvelous and the make-up the artists use for the actors/actresses is astounding in quality. This is one visually appealing film that is worth owning on Blu-ray, if only for the eye candy. And alas, Michael Fassbender, you have again saved the show. Being the proverbial gold nugget in a river of dull rocks and Charlize Theron, his portrayal of the android David seals the deal for me as the best acting performance in the entire movie, and one of the best displays in Fassbender's career. Even in extreme situations his soft voice and calm demeanor makes us think that everything is okay - he even makes us chuckle at times, when making a quip about Shaw's vivid surgery (which once again shows that his movie did not take it seriously).
All-in-all, Prometheus provides a stunning display of visual effects and Fassbender's performance almost saves this film for me - almost. If it were not for the completely random plot, lack of character development, and seeming lack of concern for the viewers intelligence, this movie would have gotten a 6, maybe a 7. For now it stays at a 5, until the Director's Cut (crossing my fingers) comes out and fills in some of the plot holes it left.