Schnayblay Reviews

Mamma Mia! (2008)

This Movie Is Bad. Plain as That

[3/10 · 28 July 2014]

I'm going to try to keep this as simple as possible. This movie is terrible. It is one of the most gruelling films I've ever had to sit through. You would think a concept such as taking an ABBA-inspired Broadway musical and adapting it to the big screen would be at least decent. But this film is so poorly executed in every scene that you can tell within ten minutes that all your hopes for this movie are gone.

So "Mamma Mia!" is about a young girl named Sophie who is about to get married. However, she doesn't know who her father is, and after reading her mother's diary, she deduces there are three possibilities as to the identity of her dad. So she invites all three to her wedding, much to her mother's displeasure, and now we have our movie. Literally there is no real plot to this film, we get that five minute set up and the rest of the film is just stupidity that ensues, and you know precisely where this is going. Daughter's going to have mixed feelings between "fathers", the mom is going to fall in love with one of them, and the dads are going to all try to connect with Sophie. You've seen this movie before, just in better quality. It's cheap, cliché, and boring. No one cares.

And there's another thing about this movie. I care for absolutely nobody. None of the characters strike my interest, none of them demand attention, and none of them are relatable because they are all acted so poorly. Meryl Streep and Amanda Seyfried are the only ones I can say actually tried in this film. But everyone else phones in false energy, painful smiles and typically awful singing, in particular Pierce Brosnan. I know the man isn't a stellar actor, but I at least enjoyed him in the Bond films. Here, I want to punch him. His character becomes one of the leads, but honestly he was the "father" I was least cared about, not to say I had much care for any of them.

Now, the singing. I was excited for this movie at the beginning honestly, because I enjoy musicals and ABBA's songs are always enjoyable. Well scratch "always" because I've found the exception. The pitches, the tones, the ranges, everything about this soundtrack screams for help. Pierce Brosnan has the worst singing voice I've ever heard an actor present on screen. Next time anyone complains about Russell Crowe in "Les Miserablés", show them this movie and see what they say afterwards.

I honestly don't have anything else to say about this film. It's so shallow and unappealing I don't even want to talk about it. Everything is bad. I will never watch this willingly ever again, and if I do by chance have to sit through it with a future girlfriend or something, I think I'll just plug in my iPod and play ABBA's original tracks over the musical numbers. At least that'll add some enjoyment to it.

Brooklyn Nine-Nine (2013–2021)

A Cliché Breaking and Hilarious Sitcom With A Balanced and Unique Cast

[9/10 · 19 July 2014]

Cop shows are not something I particularly love. The routine case-of- the-week format gets very old very quick, so it's up to the writers to create at least one character that will intrigue the audience week after week. Several big shows have done this ("Bones", "The Mentalist", "Castle", etc.) and while it's nice that we have that one character, it's always refreshing when the entire cast is the draw. It's also refreshing when the focus is the characters and not the case that comes up every week. These breaking of stereotypes define "Brooklyn Nine- Nine", a new cop sitcom that premiered last fall. The only reason I hadn't gotten around to watching it was that I was in the middle of a lot of other shows. But with my summer airtime free and the added incentive of Netflix putting all of season 1 up for binging, I decided to dedicate a few days to watching how things played out at the Nine- Nine. In short, it's quite good.

I'm not a giant fan of sitcoms. I think too many of them follow the same format far too closely and thus all fall into mediocrity. The times when one sitcom rises above the rest is when at least one character, or hopefully all, have such unique and hilarious personalities that the audience feels justified in coming back week after week. For "How I Met Your Mother", despite the entire cast being absolutely hysterical, Neil Patrick Harris' Barney Stinson was the fan favourite. "Two and a Half Men" had Charlie Sheen (as basically himself, before his meltdown). "The Big Bang Theory" has Jim Parsons as Doctor Sheldon Cooper. All sitcoms need a main star to draw them in. Yet I feel very justified in saying the entire cast is equal in for the audience. While each character definitely appeals to a smaller portion of that audience, the sums make up a whole that is undeniably intriguing and therefore makes you want to keep watching through every episode.

So let's list off the cast. The show's headlining star is comedian and member of the band The Lonely Island, Andy Samberg. I've always been a fan of his, so to see he got his own show highly pleased me. Samberg has what I think I'm going to start calling "Star-Lord syndrome". I know "Guardians of the Galaxy" isn't even out yet, but from the trailers I can already deduce this: like Star-Lord, Samberg's Detective Jake Peralta isn't quite as cool as he thinks he is. Yes, he can make a funny reference or spout out a witty one-liner, but all in all he's a man- child living out his twelve-year old self's dreams of being a hard-ass cop. Any guy can relate to that, and Peralta lives the closest type of life a normal guy could get to that classic 80's machismo cliché.

The rest of the cast is filled out by Melissa Fumero as Det. Amy Santiago, an uptight, by-the-book cop who is Peralta's partner. She frequently kisses up to her captain and would-be mentor, Captain Ray Holt played by Andre Braugher. Holt is the new Commanding officer of the 99th precinct, defined by his blank stare, empty face and monotone voice. He adds a lot of fun, dry humour to the show that should appeal to say, Aubrey Plaza fans. Joe Lo Trugilio plays Det. Charles Boyle, an awkward yet loyal and determined cop who has a pretty good bromance with Peralta. Initially during the pilot, I thought Boyle would become my least favourite character as he starts off being set up as the slapstick comedic relief, but thankfully that doesn't follow through the show. Boyle is also infatuated with Det. Rosa Diaz played by Stephanie Beatriz. Diaz has the characteristics of a goth. She's mysterious, very smart, and sometimes kind of scary and disturbing, yet she has a heard of gold. Leading this squad of misfits is Det. Sgt. Terry Jeffords, played by former football star and Expendable, Terry Crews. Crews is the oddest cast member of this show to me, as I have never really found him all that funny in any other comedies I've seen him in. Here though, he's finally found his perfect role. Terry is the desk-working squad leader who was pulled from field duty after an incident after his daughters were born, as he became terrified he could die on the job and leaves his children fatherless. And finally, as Cpt. Holt's assistant is Chelsea Peretti as Gina Linetti, a narcissistic and confused intellect who typically annoys the rest of the squad and is childhood friends with Jake. She is by far my least favourite character on the show. I know what they were going for, and I've seen her archetype done before to much better fashion. I don't know if it's the writing or Peretti herself, but I can't stand this character and I wish she wasn't featured as much as she was. Maybe as a recurring, in small doses?

Other than all that, does "Brooklyn Nine-Nine" set out what it means to do? Is it funny? Yes, I laughed a good deal through the first season's length and was always entertained. I'm highly excited for the season two, which premieres in two months on September 28th, and I think the cast works extremely well together. The characters are equally funny and as far as I'm concerned, the show doesn't fall into cliché sitcom structures like most do. Here's hoping for a long life for this hilarious new series.

Knights of Badassdom (2013)

Not As Good As It Could Have Been, But Enjoyable None The Less

[7/10 · 18 July 2014]

There's something refreshing about a film that is only made for a certain, small audience. They usually know precisely what they are, and therefore the audience ends up enjoying themselves all that much more when they watch it. But every once and a while, there are movies of the sort that have so much potential and yet the end up squandered and falling short. While not the complete case here, "Knights of Badassdom" definitely needed another draft or two on its script. As much as I wanted to love this movie, I just couldn't. At least, not fully.

"Knights of Badassdom" is about a group of friends whom, after one of the three getting dumped by his girlfriend, go to a LARP festival for the weekend to get his mind off her. What is LARPing? Live-action-role- playing. Imagine a bunch of dudes in armour and robes with foam weapons playing out scenarios from Dungeons and Dragons. This alone was enough to get me interested in the film. I've always considered attending one of these events, if just for the experience. The money and passion some people put into this stuff is out of this world. And even the most anti- fantasy person could get down with swinging around a sword of any type against other people without consequence. It taps into a child-like imagination that I think really ups the enjoyment in the film for me. Had this been any other type of event where the plot happened, I wouldn't have enjoyed it as much I think.

The second things that got me into wanting to watch this knight's tale is the cast. "Game of Thrones"' Peter Dinklage (who also produces this film) and Summer Glau of "Firefly" and "Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles" (two of my favourite TV shows) are both featured. No matter what these two do, I'll always watch it. And they are without a doubt the best parts of the movie. Not just from a fan-based perspective, but they have the two most interesting characters in my opinion. Dinklage is an accidental millionaire who is a regular attendee and enthusiast of LARPing, while Summer Glau plays chaperone to her hardcore LARPing cousin whom she watches after, due to him having a mental disability. Quite touching for a movie that didn't really require any emotional depth to the characters, but it's highly welcomed and appreciated that the film actually took this next step and made it more logical for a drop-dead gorgeous woman to attend something like this. Not to say LARP women can't be attractive, it's just in media, the stereotype works against that.

So how is the acting in the film? Well, it's hit and miss. Some characters are great, others aren't. Our main hero is Joe; a heavy-metal singing guy who just wants to live a normal life, despite his eccentric friends. Actor Ryan Kwanten does him decently, but his characters archetype is so clichéd that I can't help but barely care for him. I don't know if he didn't do as great of a job because of the weak nature his portions of the script were, or because Kwanten himself just isn't that great an actor. Either way, mediocre to say the least. For me, the biggest disappointment was Steve Zahn as Eric, the most dedicated of the company. I like Zahn in what I've seen him in, especially the highly underrated (in my opinion) "A Perfect Getaway". Here, however, his character was flat, annoying and expendable. I think this fault is more on the writers and director Joe Lynch, as whenever Eric makes a joke it always falls flat and I wind up hoping for his scenes to end.

The two final things I want to address here are the special effects and the climax. I feel like with a film like this, it's important to point out how impressed I was with these elements. The special effects are almost all practical, with a little bit of low-quality CGI. However that kind of works with the half-assed nature of LARPing and the characters costumes in general, so I can run with it. In the end of the film, there is a giant monster that goes on a killing spree. And I was so joyed to see it was rubber suit. Too many low-budget horror films use almost all their spendings on terrible CG to make their creatures, or they try to make sure the monster is in the film, but just rarely or never show it to "add mystery". It's so refreshing to see this art has not completely died out. Considering the nature of this film, I think they nailed this perfectly. Also, the climax of this film is great. It's a fun little field battle, speeches and all. The comical nature of legions of grown people waving foam swords around had me thoroughly entertained and I think it was the best part of the whole film. Also, the way the monster is defeated completely lives up to the title of 'badassdom' and is one of my favourite film kills as of late.

In the end, I didn't completely love nor hate "Knights of Badassdom". I'll say it was worth the watch, but I'm unsure whether I'd buy it. Maybe if I saw it for $5, as Dinklage and Glau definitely add rewatchability to it and the overall premise is amusing. Not as good as it could have been, but it didn't fail in its purpose either. Now, if these knights select to go on a second quest, I would most certainly accompany them once more.

The Grand Budapest Hotel (2014)

Another New Wes Anderson Classic, But Not As Great As Others

[8/10 · 16 July 2014]

I've always loved quirky comedies. The genre is so full of generic sex and stoner jokes that to see something off-beat, awkward and with true passion behind it is the most refreshing thing for me. Sadly, for the longest time, I had never heard of Wes Anderson. I don't dive into indie films that often unless it has an actor I love or some other person of personal preference connected to it. It wasn't until 2012's "Moonrise Kingdom" that I was introduced to the work of the auteur director, and immediately after watching, I blew through his entire filmography and all related works. I found several gems, and some more boring pieces, but overall I was filled with joy over this sub-sub-genre of comedies I had discovered. So I was very much looking forward to Anderson's next directorial effort, "The Grand Budapest Hotel". And my patience was well invested.

I want to start off by saying that I think Anderson's masterpiece is "Moonrise Kingdom", although many say "Rushmore" or even this now. But to me, the characters in Kingdom were the most developed and relatable out of Anderson's many creations throughout the years. So I went in hoping that "Grand Budapest" would surpass his previous film and become my new favourite. This is the only part of the film I'm truly disappointed in. I don't think Anderson caught that lightning storm in a bottle he had before. Instead this time, he's caught a single bolt, which is more than enough for a great movie, but it's not as great.

"The Grand Budapest Hotel" is the tale of Monsieur Gustave and his lobby-boy Zero whom, while attending the funeral of one of Gustave's many elderly lovers, discover she has been murdered and that she has left her most prized possession (a priceless painting) to Gustave himself. Fearful for their lives, Gustave and Zero steal the painting and run across country to avoid Madame D.'s vengeful son and the authorities in hopes of keeping their fortune and discovering Madame D.'s killer. It's a classic who-dunnit with Anderson's signature twist that makes the film feel very fresh and unique. It definitely stands apart from many of Anderson's previous works, while still keeping many of his trademark themes.

Ralph Fiennes headlines the film as Gustave. I've always like Fiennes work, but I always felt like he would never break free of me only being able to see Voldemort when I look at him. But he has finally shattered that mental state with his performance in this film. I will always see Gustave now. Fiennes plays the role with complete confidence and conviction, as if it's a hidden method character he's had boiling in him for years, only to now finally be able to release it onto the screen and give us one of the most interesting and amusing cinematic bachelors in many years. You can never take your eyes off him, and from his mood swings to pointless ramblings he always has an intoxicating affect. You might not understand everything that he's talking about, but you're intrigued regardless.

Zero, played by Tony Revolori, is basically Anderson's new Jason Schwartzman. I can see a long and prosperous partnership blooming here. Rightfully so, as Revolori is a great new actor. He has a nice breakthrough here in "Budapest Hotel", and while the film doesn't let him show off as much of his skills as I wish it did, he still is always a friendly and comforting face to see. Even if it usually stays in that flat, indifferent expression most of the time. Zero is sadly made an observer in the film, not one to take action. Therefore, Relovori isn't given as much to do as he deserves. Regardless, I look forward to seeing him in future Anderson projects and hopefully breaking out on his own.

Aside from those two, the film mostly consists of Anderson's more recent recurring actors that he's assembled from his past three of so films. Harvey Keitel, Edward Norton, Adrien Brody, Tilda Swinton, Jeff Goldblum and Willem Dafoe all appear, along with Anderson staples Bill Murray, Jason Schwartzman, and Owen Wilson. All these combined create a classic ensemble of whacky and lovable characters who just add more fun and delight to the film. Although I think Harvey Keitel should get a reward for best transformation. It took me a good minute to recognize him.

Overall I very much enjoyed "The Grand Budapest Hotel". I would call it Anderson's third best, behind "Moonrise Kingdom" and "Fantastic Mr. Fox". The characters are very interesting and enjoyable, the plot's entertainingly complex (although not by that much), and Anderson's classic visual style, unique humour, and gorgeous music all combine to make for one of his best films.

22 Jump Street (2014)

Definitely Not As Good As The First, But Still Holds Strong

[8/10 · 16 July 2014]

Comedies are a genre I'm scarcely impressed by. Unless the humour is highly quirky or the film is deliberately offbeat, I typically don't like them. So from someone like Jonah Hill, (who I had come to expect just mainly sex jokes from after "Superbad"), I was really surprised to discover he wrote "21 Jump Street". Was I impressed that he basically took (what I guess was, at least) one of his favourite shows from when he was a kid and pointlessly slapping the name on a new undercover cop movie? No. But the fact he was smart enough to address that and that he was actually capable of writing clever humour and completely emotionally developed characters, in the end won me to over to end up loving 2011's "21 Jump Street" and accepting it as one of my favourite comedy film in the past few years. However the immediate set-up for a sequel really dismayed me because I was worried it would become a classic case of 'rinse and repeat' sequel syndrome. And in that, I was pretty much spot on.

So "22 Jump Street" takes place only a few months or so after its predecessor in that after being off Jump Street for a while, officers Jenko and Schmidt are re-assigned back to undercover work because they did it so well in their first case. So now they're sent off to college to do the exact same thing as the first film. And the thing that forgives most of the film for this is that the writers were clearly aware of this so they made full well the audience got the message that "Yes, we know this is the same as the first movie. Don't bash us for it, its part of the joke. Go along with it". But in that, at the same time, the movie also feels highly rehashed and you can't help but go "This is the exact same". I got sick of it towards the end, I just wanted something new. And a movie, especially a sequel should not make me do that.

The other thing I want to address in this movie is that surprisingly I still laughed at this movie just as hard, and definitely harder in one scene, as I did in "21 Jump Street". The comedy is still there, and it's still just as good. So don't think that because the movie feels rehashed that you're not going to laugh because yes you definitely are, regardless.

Now while the first "Jump Street" had some fairly recognizable supporting cast members like Dave Franco and Brie Larson, I have to say this movie's supporting cast was way more unknown. I thought I recognized Jonah Hill's new love interest but clearly she just looks like someone else because she has been no one with real screen time from anything I've seen on her filmography. So it seems like they had to use the budget they would have used on some bigger names, and instead used it to keep up with the cost for all the action scenes. It's just wasted potential, to me and that is a big disappointment.

The acting itself in the movie is very good. There's only three people to care about this time since there's no real supportive cast. Jonah Hill, Channing Tatum, and surprisingly Ice Cube. I wasn't a huge fan of him in the first film (or any movie he's ever been in), so I'm surprised how much I enjoyed him this time around. But first off, I have to talk about our main duo. Tatum and Hill are a great duo because they have a chemistry locked down that so many films try to copy. It's funny to me because I would have never though that a G.I. Joe and that kid from "Superbad" would one day be hilarious as hell together in an action- comedy, yet here we are. They bounce off each other really well, and I'm certain there's plenty of times where their lines are improv and it's completely seamless. They're great together and I hope they do another series or something after the Jump Street movies because they are so brilliant as a duo.

Now Ice Cube was one of the biggest surprises to me in this film because I have never like him as an actor. He played up the angry black captain stereotype in the first film and it did alright for him. But what I realize now is that I didn't care because he just started off angry and never had motive. In this film they give him reason to be the angry black captain and that pushes into hilarity. Now I love his character and would watch a whole movie with him. It's just a good example how character development does add to an audience's enjoyment with a film.

The last thing I think I can say is that the action in this movie is bigger than the last one, and overall better. There are more jokes while the fights are happening and it's all actual realistic conversations I've imagined real people would have if they got into that sort of fight, for example. There's one which makes fun of a really old cliché really well and it was one of the funniest scenes of the whole movie, that's all I'm going to say.

So in the end, was "22 Jump Street" enjoyable? Yes. Was it better than the first? No. Was it a rehash? Definitely. But it did redeem itself a little bit by acknowledging that fact, even the joke got old quick. I'm still going to buy this movie, it's still super entertaining to me. It's best watched with a bunch of friends, like all comedies are. After this I think the inevitable 23 Jump Street could turn out at least good. Let's just hope it'll be more original.

Transformers: Age of Extinction (2014)

By Now, I Think We're All Just Bored With The Rinse-Repeat Nature of These

[16 July 2014]

I've always found simple enjoyment in the "Transformers" films. The first one was great, and whether it's because it was Michael Bay's last good movie or we just thought that this new take on Transformers was fresh, we all enjoyed. The sad atrocity that was "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" gets worse every time I watch it and now I just can't sit the whole thing through anymore. The third instalment and what I thought may be the final, "Dark of the Moon", was extremely fun though and definitely returned the tone to more the first one. It was fun, exciting, and mind-bogglingly gorgeous to look at. I don't expect much from these movies, just to enjoy them on any level. So now with the newest in the series, Age of Extinction, it seems that the Transformers movies have a reverse Star Trek curse on them. Where in Trek, every even numbered movie was good, here every even numbered movie disappoints.

I want to make this very clear: Age of Extinction is not as bad as "Revenge of the Fallen". It's not an abomination and it doesn't completely dishonour the brand's name. But the only word I can use to really describe this movie is: boring. I try to maintain professionalism in these reviews but this movie is so damn boring. Even in "Revenge of the Fallen", some of the action was impressive. But this new instalment feels so rinse-repeat that I think the problem is that audiences are just sick of seeing this same plot every few years. There's always some ancient Cybertronian artifact that can bring about the end of the world, and so now Autobots fight Decepticons with the help of some human who's being hounded by some government jackass. It's literally no different than any of the others. I don't even need to go over the plot now, that's it. Just instead of Shia "I'm not famous anymore" LaBeouf and Megan "Bay is Hitler" Fox, we have Marky Mark and this new funky bunch of a cast who I couldn't care less for. The only person in this movie who I thoroughly enjoyed was Stanley Tucci, and that's only because he is Stanley Tucci. The man could be in a sequel to "Waterworld" and I'd like him.

All I have to say about the acting in this movie is this: it's a Michael Bay film. He always somehow takes actors and makes them extremely awkward and lifeless. The characters are wooden with minimal development and the humour is delivered atrociously. The most wasted actor here is Kelsey Grammar. He plays basically Agent Patriot of the CIA. Every time he's challenged all he talks about is dedication to his country. He has no reason to actually want Mark Whalberg and his group dead, only because someone said that they were a threat. Also, Jack Reynor, who plays the boyfriend of Mark Whalberg's daughter; I know his nationality is actually Irish but I don't think I'm the only one who swears that he was speaking with an American accent like 85 percent of the time. He only sound Irish in a few scenes and it annoyed me because at least Rosie Huntington-Whiteley was able to sound British throughout all of "Dark of the Moon".

I guess we should talk about the Dinobots. The basic motive is this: the Dinobots are there to sell toys. They are in the movie for 10 minutes and then just leave. They come in like three-quarters of the way through the final battle and while they are cool, they have no real purpose. They didn't change anything in the movie and they should have just been left out altogether. Or at least kept a secret from the trailers and posters to actually surprise us in the middle of the movie.

The final thing I want to mention: who is the real villain in this movie? I think the actual answer is Kelsey Grammar which is a little silly when we're dealing with giant robots. So then the question is how does that work? Well Kelsey Grammar is in business with Stanley Tucci, who runs a multi-billion dollar company that builds its own Transformers and they were making one called Galvatron. Anyone who knows anything about the original Transformers series knows where this is going. Galvatron is being designed based off diagnostics and data from Megatron's decapitated head from Dark of the Moon. And since Megatron's a sneaky bastard, he transferred his consciousness into Galvatron. After which, Galvatron woke up and reprogrammed all of Stanley Tucci's Transformers into his minions. But don't confuse it, they are not actual Decepticons. And we also have Lockdown, a Transformer who is an interstellar bounty hunter who works for the Transformers original creators. Neither Lockdown or Galvatron are giving enough time to really become the main villains in the story, they both just leave at certain parts. The only constant is Kelsey Grammar's character. So in that, the movie is completely unfocused on not only it's human characters, but also it has Spider-Man 3 syndrome in having too many villains without enough focus on any of them.

So in the end, "Transformers: Age of Extinction" was an unfocused mess. It didn't develop any of the characters well enough, the action just feels boring at this point, there's no clear indication as to who's the main villain, the acting is wooden and in the end, I just feel so indifferent about its existence that I shouldn't even be complaining as much as I am. I would have rather the series actually went extinct after "Dark of the Moon".

Pompeii (I) (2014)

Pure Popcorn Entertainment. Do Not Expect Anything Original or Intelligent

[6/10 · 5 July 2014]

Disaster films will always have an audience. There's some sick, twisted, part of us that desires to see thousands of people meet the most horrendous of deaths on screen. One of the most untapped resources of this genre though is the volcano movie, and in addition, the historical disaster movie. So to see Pompeii merge them was a very exciting thought for me. I had always wanted to see a live-action depiction of the event (which wasn't a short 45 minute episode of Doctor Who). The only thing that made me hesitant was the project's director: Paul W.S. Anderson. Anderson is a mixed bag for me; I love the original Mortal Kombat, Alien vs. Predator was fun, the remake of Death Race was cool enough, and Resident Evil 1 - Afterlife are guilty pleasures for me. But his last two films, 2011's The Three Musketeers and Resident Evil: Retribution left such bad tastes in my mouth that I had totally given up on Anderson making enjoyable movies ever again. However, my hope has been restored to believe that the director still has some at least watchable films left in his system.

Pompeii is the story of Milo, a young gladiator played by Game of Thrones' Kit Harrington (a.k.a. Jon Snow), who is sworn to vengeance upon Senator Corvus (played by Kiefer Sutherland), a former member of Rome's army who slaughtered Milo's village years ago when he was just a boy. Now, Milo is a man brought to Pompeii to fight in the cities gladiatorial games, but falls for a noble young woman named Cassia. Together, they try to defeat the odds and free themselves from their respective slaveries, all while the ominous volcano prepares to reign down inevitable doom upon the forsaken city. So basically, imagine if Titanic had a kid with Dante's Peak and spliced in some DNA from Spartacus: Blood and Sand, and you have this movie. The plot is interesting enough to make you want to watch it, so I guess I can't complain on that front. It just always feels like it needs something a little more, though.

Kit Harrington as Milo is what I guess you could say is the best part of the movie, but it's not saying a bunch. His character is bland with completely cliché motives and no true emotion. And I don't think it's Harrington's fault. Anyone who has seen Game of Thrones knows he can act very well. But the script he's given to deal with is what weighs him down, and it sometimes looks like he's in pain saying these lines. Kiefer Sutherland is basically the only other character worth talking about in the film. Corvus is the most basic villain I've seen on screen in a good long while, but Sutherland somehow finds a way to make him at least the tiniest bit intriguing. And Sutherland does try to take full command of the role, giving it his all. Although his odd accent leaves a lot to be desired. The same with all the other actors, they all have the same problem: they were given such a bland script it seems like it was the first draft. There is no excitement in dialogue, the characters are given the most one-dimensional archetypes and even the action seems like it's missing something. Like there needed to be one more sequence or something to make the film more interesting. I actually tuned out of the movie for a good ten minutes because I got so bored. No movie should do that, especially one about a volcano eruption.

One final complaint with this movie: I find in any movie or show about gladiators, there's always one of them who befriends the main character who happens to be black. We've seen it in Gladiator and Spartacus: Blood and Sand. Atticus, the seemingly required African-American warrior in this film, is played by Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje. But his role, I swear to god, was written for Djimon Hounson. And that wouldn't be bad, if he played Atticus. But would it have been so bad to go back and try to change his character just a bit and make him somewhat unique? Oenomaus from Spartacus had his personality and character arcs. I just wish they had dug Atticus' character out from the "Djimon Hounson was supposed to play him" stereotype that I see several African-American actors deal with.

So after all that, it would seem that I hated Pompeii. But surprisingly I didn't. The reason I have been saying most of the negatives this whole time is because the positive is simply this: it's a movie where you shut off your brain, lean back and enjoy the disaster. Everything else is fluff that is bearable to watch through, but if your hoping for something as tragically epic as Titanic or Gladiator, then this isn't the movie for you.

Skyfall (2012)

A Fantastic Milestone That Takes The Bond Series To Brave New Frontiers and Is Definitely One of the Best of them All

[5/10 · 4 December 2012]

I was hesitant about getting too excited about "Skyfall". I had gotten so hyped over "Quantum of Solace" before its release, and then been so disappointed, that I tried to ignore the buzz and wait to judge the film for myself. All I hoped was that "Skyfall" would either match or exceed "Casino Royale". I didn't see it opening night and all I heard was that critics loved the hell out of it and that it was being called "The Best Bond Ever". Does it deserve that graceful title though?

The film opens up with a chase scene. This opening really got mixed feelings from me. The chase was cool but at the same time I think it really lacked the punch that "Casino Royale" did. But this is where one of the main plot points stems from. Bond is accidentally shot by his fellow agent and is declared dead by MI6. He goes into exile for months and drinks his face off and slums into a pretty pathetic life. But when a bomb attack at MI6 reveals a conspiracy against M, Bond returns to London to protect his mentor and help find whoever is threatening her life. The initial premise of "Skyfall" is kind of boring, but it works perfectly because the film focuses on the themes that the story involves, and it seems like its natural and not just put in for character development.

And character development is one of the movie's strongest points. Daniel Craig returns in his third outing as Bond. For me, Daniel Craig defined the role as 007 in "Casino Royale", surpassing Sean Connery. He was cold, ruthless, and it took Vesper to show him love and that he could stop his job and live a normal life. When Vesper was killed though, he lost the reason to have that normal life and so went back to being cold and learnt to not trust anyone. I felt in "Quantum of Solace", nothing new was brought to Bond. However, in "Skyfall", Bond is taken to new levels that have never before been touched by the series. You can see when he's exiled that he doesn't enjoy it at all and he's living in his equivalent of hell. When you remember how he feels that he lost that chance at a normal life when Vesper died, it really makes sense why he's so unhappy with his existence and longs for his old life in the line of fire. When Bond comes back to MI6 though, he's lost his touch and can't even fire a gun properly. He feels old and out of date, not fitting in with the new world of technology. This is one of the main themes of "Skyfall". The whole film circles around Bond trying to reclaim his pride and prove himself again. This type of theme was touched upon in "Die Another Day", but here it's done with much more style and competence.

Javier Bardem plays Silva, the villain. His performance is mesmerizing; anytime he's on screen you can't your eyes off him. His entrance is probably done with the most class of any Bond villains in history. Silva is an ex-MI6 agent who was a favorite of M. However, Silva was captured on a mission in China and left to be tortured. Again, this is another type of theme that was touched on in "Die Another Day". After failing to kill himself with a cyanide tooth, Silva swore vengeance on M for leaving him to die. He's probably the best Bond villain in history, other than Ernst Stavro Blofeld. And while he longs to kill M, he still cares for her and is a great parallel to Bond.

Judi Dench returns as M. M had been a major character in the previous Craig films, but now she's finally given the spotlight she deserves. M feels responsible for the deaths of all the people who have gotten caught between her and Silva and turns to Bond to help her. Even when Bond fails his service test, she allows him to go and investigate because of the trust she has for him. There's a brilliant unspoken bond between James and M, and it's one of the best things the Craig films have had in them. However, their connection is explored much more in depth in "Skyfall" and brings them closer together than ever. Typically in Bond films, there's a girl that Bond needs to save and it usually goes that he ends up sleeping with her. The brilliant part in "Skyfall" is that M ends up being this film's Bond girl, but she breaks the mold so much because instead of being the typical damsel in distress, she's a strong, independent woman who can match Bond's cold heart and ruthless nature. It's less of a cliché "love" story and more a tale of friendship between mentor and student.

Ben Wishaw makes his debut as the new Q, taking over from John Cleese. He and Bond instantly form that close but whimsical relationship all us fans have grown to know and love. Q himself really adds to the theme of Bond feeling out of date. He's young and amazing with technology, clashing with the old-school intelligence and gunplay style Bond reflects. Ben Wishaw's performance is perfect. It's smooth and confident, and he doesn't seem pressured by the shoes he's filling at all. I'm highly looking forward to seeing him in future installments.

Overall, I thought "Skyfall" was amazing. I found the first half a little boring, but all together I thought the film was an amazing way to mark the 50 year mark for the franchise and it finally brought Bond to new levels that I had been waiting to see for years. I would definitely get this film for full price on Blu-Ray. It's worth every dollar and is a milestone for the franchise, and I can't wait to see where they take the series from here.

Men in Black³ (2012)

Decent as a Popcorn Flick, But a Poor Entry for THIS Franchise

[7/10 · 4 December 2012]

I was never too intrigued to see "Men in Black 3". After hearing about all the problems during the production of the film, I wasn't too hopeful about how the final product would come out. So I skipped watching it in the theatre, and had no real plans of seeing it in the foreseeable future. The only reason I did end up seeing it was because my mom spontaneously bought it. And should I have given this movie more credit? Yes. But maybe not as much as I've heard other people give it.

The whole plot of this movie is that an alien criminal named Boris escapes from prison and time travels back to 1969 to kill Agent K (Tommy Lee Jones), before the Young Version of K (Josh Brolin) can shoot off 1969 Boris' arm. So J (Will Smith) travels back as well to save Young K's life and stop Old K from disappearing from the timeline. There's a whole mess of a lot more but since it's time travel, it's hard to talk about it without spoiling a lot of stuff. I know from just that it sounds very cliché and boring, but trust me it's much more interesting than just that.

Now as far as acting goes, it's a sci-fi action/comedy, don't expect Oscar performances. Will Smith headlines, as always, and I don't think I can say a lot about him except its Will Smith being Will Smith. Now, Will Smith can deliver amazing performances like in "The Pursuit of Happiness", but when he's in a mainstream comedic action blockbuster, you know what you're going to get from him.

Now Josh Brolin plays the young Agent K. All I can say is that Josh Brolin as young Tommy Lee Jones is the equivalent of Joseph-Gordon Levitt as young Bruce Willis in "Looper". If imitation is a form of flattery, then Tommy Lee Jones is the most complimented guy in the world. Brolin not only nails Jones as K, but Jones overall, throughout his entire acting career. He reflects Jones back in like the 90's where he was taking serious, but not too serious roles where he could be occasionally really funny and Brolin revisits that. It's so cool that even though Tommy Lee Jones is in this one for a total of about 8 minutes, you feel like he's still there the whole time and you're not mad he got cut.

The special effects are a little bit more polished than the previous movies, but they still end up looking pretty bad and cheesy. Now some of it works because of the 1969 setting and I'm willing to just fool myself into thinking they're trying to pull the whole nostalgic throwback that "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" did with its alien and the 1950's setting. I know that's not at all what 'MiB 3' was going for, but I'll convince myself that they were so that I don't just write the effects off.

Now while it's not as apparent as I thought it would be, you can still see the slapdash way it was reported that the script was put together. Throughout this movie you watch all the characters go to a ton of places and through so many situations, it feels like they came up with a bunch of random scenes and just said "Ok, take these 12 and make a movie out of it". It doesn't feel like there's any reason for some of these except to remind you it takes place in 1969 and the pace of the story once they get to 1969 feels so weird, there just doesn't feel like there's much cohesiveness. It feels so cut and paste, it honestly detracted a lot of the fun from the movie. While some of these scenes are funny, their reasons for being in this film feel non-existent.

Now the tone of this film is so, (forgive the pun), alien to this franchise that it feels like a brand new movie. The first two films have a steady tone, but this one feels like it's trying too hard to fit into a new generation, it's almost like the film has forgotten its fan base. I didn't feel like I was watching a new "Men in Black" movie, I felt like I was watching some awkward reboot with the same actors being used just to bring the fans of the original to see this new one while the filmmakers seemed to want the fans to forget the old movies. This movie's target audience is not the fans of the original movies, it's just the mass general public, and that really bugs me with franchises that have had a certain fanbase in the past.

Overall, "Men in Black 3" is very enjoyable with an imitation performance that matches Joseph-Gordon Levitt's in "Looper", some fun moments and classic time travel mind games, but it's definitely not the strongest in the franchise. It's sadly obvious that the script was slapped together, the tone is completely off from the old movies, and it abandons its fans and tries way too hard to appeal to the general public. I'd say it's worth a rental and if you do like it, don't buy it for more than $10 on DVD. Paying the extra few dollars for the Blu-Ray is not worth it. Trust me; you will not be missing out.

The Killer Inside Me (2010)

Casey Affleck Is The Only Thing That Makes This Movie Worth Your Time

[5/10 · 4 October 2012]

I had seen a trailer for "The Killer Inside Me" and it had immediately grabbed my attention. Voice-overs, a serial killer protagonist, Jessica Alba; it had a good combination of things I loved. I wasn't sure what I expected; I was just hoping it would be a good movie. Did I get what I wished for? Not exactly.

"The Killer Inside Me" takes place in 1952 in the fictional town of Central City. The local Deputy Sheriff Lou Ford (played by Casey Affleck) is well loved by the people and is overall a nice guy. But beneath his likable façade is a vicious, sadomasochistic serial killer with violent sexual tastes. When he's sent over to drive a local prostitute out of town by the name of Joyce Lakeland (played by Jessica Alba), he brutally beats her. He realizes though that Joyce likes it rough, and the two begin a passionate affair. However, when Lou's dark passenger surfaces and kills Joyce and one of her local clients, (making it look like a murder/suicide), the town grows suspicious of Lou and some suspect he is the killer. Now Lou has to try to fool everyone into believing he's innocent. The plot is somewhat interesting, however cliché it may be, but having watched the Showtime series "Dexter", I can't help but feel that most of the plot just feels like the whole premise of "Dexter". I know "The Killer Inside Me" was a 1952 novel and came a long time before "Dexter", but due to the order I watched these in, that's just how it feels to me.

The acting in this movie is bland. Everyone just feels super dull and uninspired with almost no emotion put in. Casey Affleck puts the most into the film as Lou. He's mesmerizing in his role, seeming very comfortable and believable. He's a cocky, funny, and lovably unpredictable guy. Every scene he's in, you can't take your eyes off him. The thing I love about him is that Casey Affleck has always looked so young and child-like, to me, and now I see him as a brutal murderer. It's great casting at its finest as you would never suspect this guy in real life. The only other person I feel brings anything to the film is Jessica Alba as Joyce. You can easily say her acting sucks, and I agree, but the way Lou describes her makes you fall in love with her as he does. You truly do care for her by the time she meets her sad end and it is, in its own twisted way, an odd, heart-warming love story.

Speaking of Joyce's murder, the killing scenes in this film are incredibly graphic. In horror films, you go to see people die and the gore doesn't bother you, but I always find it incredibly shocking when a film like this with such a calm, tame atmosphere becomes a brutal bloodbath. The entire scene where Lou beats Joyce to death made me nauseated, one of the only times I have ever felt that way during a film. It's so cruel and disturbing, yet the wonderful thing is that Lou calmly assures Joyce that he loves her and she seems to completely understand why he's doing it, and she's OK with it. It's sickening, yet lovely.

After the first half hour though, the movie slows down immensely. It's just another hour and ten minutes of turtle-slow pacing and events you really don't care about. I found myself asking to see another terrible beating in the film just so I could feel like something's going on. There are more murders, but none are as vicious and are incredibly tame in comparison to the first kill in the film. The only thing that keeps you remotely interested in the whole movie is Casey Affleck. If I were ever to pick a film to showcase how great an actor he is, I would pick this one. But I'd also follow up that statement by saying "You're not going to care about anything else in this movie".

Later on in the movie, I lost track of what was happening. Sometimes do to the heavy Texan accents, or lack of explanation, and apparently important plot point would happen and I didn't even know what was going on. The movie is a mess after the half hour mark, but picks back up with about 15 minutes left to go. The final scene is very enjoyable and I think a wonderful closing to the story, but it still doesn't master the artistry I feel the beginning of the film had.

"The Killer Inside Me" had a lot of potential, but the script was a mess other than the end and the beginning. The supporting characters are dull, the dialogue is generic and boring, the plot is confusing and hard to follow sometimes, and the acting is half-assed by everyone except Casey Affleck, who really is the only reason to see the movie. If you're going to watch this, make sure you do it for free like through Netflix or the internet. Don't waste $5 to rent it through Bell on Demand. I'd only pick it up if I saw it for about $3 in a bargain bin and I just wanted to see re-watch some sex scenes and psycho-Affleck Jr. If you skip it, you're not missing much.

G.I. Jane (1997)

Good, Enjoyable Entertainment with Demi Moore Showing Off Her Badass Side

[8/10 · 9 August 2012]

"G.I. Jane" is the story of Lieutenant Jordan O'Neill, a Naval Intelligence officer who gets chosen by a senator to be the test dummy for woman's acceptance into Military Combat. She gets put into training for the Navy SEALS, the most elite and toughest training. Now, O'Neill must prove she has what it takes to be among the best of the boys. Directed by Ridley Scott and co-written by the creator of the "Chronicles of Riddick" series, I wasn't sure what to expect. Ridley Scott is an amazing director but I didn't like "Pitch Black" that much, so I didn't know if I ended up liking this movie. But you know what? I highly enjoyed it.

Demi Moore plays Lieutenant O'Neill, a tough, no-nonsense girl who just wants to get in on the action. Out of all the roles I've seen Demi Moore in, this is my favourite one yet. She's strong-willed, determined, and as the film goes on, she becomes a giant badass. If there was ever a woman's version of "The Expendables", Demi Moore would definitely be in it. She's a great character and you really want to see her succeed and kick all the guy's asses. She also gets into the best shape of her life. Even when she shaves her head, forms abs and gets totally ripped, she is still incredibly hot.

Viggo Mortensen plays John, the Master Chief. No, not the one from Halo. The moment he steps on screen, you know this guy is hardcore. He's brutal, mean, and is really a dick towards O'Neill. Of course towards the end they become allies but the stuff he does to O'Neill is just terrible. You do not like this guy at all, but that just shows that Viggo Mortensen did a good job as Master Chief. Only way he could be any more badass is with an energy sword.

The atmosphere in this movie is awesome. You're watching all these guys and O'Neill go through boot camp and you're just sitting there going "Yeah, I couldn't do that. That's just gross". Like there's one part where they have five minutes to eat dinner and do they get fresh food? No. They get the scraps from their lunch. So their eating like half eaten corn and weird goop that been sitting there for half a day. I have to be honest, I wouldn't survive 1 day at that place.

The last 20 minutes are my least favourite part of the film. It's kind of like "Full Metal Jacket" in the way that once they leave bootcamp, the movie goes downhill. But unlike "Full Metal Jacket", the movie only goes downhill a bit. It was kind of just an excuse to make stuff blow up and have a gunfight but I'm not complaining. Got to say, Demi Moore grenading Iraqis and Aragorn sniping people is pretty cool.

Overall, I highly enjoyed "G.I. Jane". I thought it was a great entertainment and Demi Moore was excellent. It's a badass military film that shows that girls really can kick ass, and I would watch this any day. Definitely a buy on Blu-Ray.

Phone Booth (2002)

A Unique Thriller That Would've Fallen Into Mediocrity Had It Not Been for Collin Farrel and Kiefer Sutherland

[8/10 · 30 July 2012]

I had been told that "Phone Booth" was a movie I just had to see. It had been shoved down my throat so much, I almost didn't want to see it for a while. But when I finally saw a copy for rent, I didn't hesitate to grab it and finally see what I had been missing out on. And I have definitely been missing out.

"Phone Booth" is about Stu Sheppard, a Public Relations agent who is the smoothest in his business. He knows exactly how to pull everyone's strings and how to work his way around everything. But everything comes crashing down on him one day when he picks the wrong phone booth, and now he's being held captive inside the booth by a sniper who want's Stu to be punished. Now, Stu must find a way out of this crazy hostage situation without getting himself or his loved ones killed. It's a simple and also very clever premise, and those are always some of the smarter ones in my opinion.

Collin Farrell headlines as Stu, the suave businessman who knows all the tricks. Within five minutes, we know this character and you're laughing along with how well this guy can play people. He's a master of lies and you love to watch him work his art. The only thing that sucks is that it's confined to the first five minutes of the movie. After that, he becomes a nervous and frantic wreck. Collin Farrell completely knew how to do this character, and this is my favorite performance I've seen him do yet, aside from Bullseye in "Daredevil". But this truly is Collin's film and he carries the entire thing. He really gets to shine, and I find it kind of sad that he hasn't gotten the status I think he deserves until now, with him starring in the remake of "Total Recall".

Kiefer Sutherland plays the anonymous sniper holding Stu captive. He talks to Stu through the phone the whole movie, and he has such a smooth and villainous voice. He's one of those classy, intelligent villains that have thought of every scenario and are completely in charge. Those are the villains that I find really intimidating and intriguing. Another great thing about the sniper is you don't know his motivation for doing this. It gives him a good level of mystery that really makes you think during the film.

Katie Holmes and Forest Whitaker are also in this movie. Katie Holmes plays Kim, a client of Stu's, who Stu wants to sleep with. Her character could've been played by anyone else, because she only gets about three minutes of screen time, but I guess the studio figured they needed more big names in the movie. And that's also where Forest Whitaker comes in. He plays a police captain. Nothing special here at all. Shallow, uninteresting, and I really don't care about him at all. There's also a younger Richard T. Jones in the movie as a cop. I will never forget him as Agent Ellison from "Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles". Just a funny little side note.

"Phone Booth" is a great thriller. While some audiences may think that the whole thing being confined to one space is a negative, in my opinion, it's the most wonderful thing about the film and really helps the film have it's unique place in cinema history. The film is well paced and well-acted, with a sinister villain and a great lead. It's not even an hour and a half, but I don't think the writer could have put anything more into the film than there is without making it feel like there's too much going on. The film is a great time and I will definitely be buying it.

Rear Window (1954)

One of the Most Intriguing, Unique, and Well Done Murder-Mysteries Ever

[9/10 · 30 July 2012]

"Rear Window" is a film I had heard of for a long time. It seemed that life kept pressing me to see this movie. I'd see a poster for this film in the bedrooms of main characters in many other films, just pushing that I had to see it. I saw the semi-remake "Disturbia" first and really enjoyed it, but was concerned that I may not like the original because I may just compare it to the Shia LaBeouf version. And finally by luck, I found a copy, so I rented it. And now I see why it's held as such a masterpiece.

I can honestly say, from the second I threw on "Rear Window", I completely forgot about "Disturbia"'s existence. The plots are the same in about two aspects, everything else is completely changed. "Rear Window" is about Jeffery, who has been confined to a wheelchair for the past several weeks in his apartment. Because of this, he passes his time by watching his neighbours out his window. And after observing a married couple through many fights and the sudden disappearance, Jeffery becomes convinced that the husband murdered his wife. Now, Jeffery must the authority of the crime before the husband can disappear without consequence. It's a very unique premise in which the villain is completely unaware of the hero, with there being no previous personal or political conflict between them, but simply a series of observations that has brought them against each other.

The acting in this film is great. Jimmy Stewart leads the film as Jeffery. He is the everyday common man. You believe this guy completely and his performance never seems forced or written. It feels 100% natural and he pulls it off with such class. It's the little things in his character that make him relatable. Like him staring at his hot neighbour despite having a beautiful girlfriend, and making judgements and nicknames for his neighbours who he's never talked to. These little character traits make him likable to everyone and make you care for him.

Grace Kelly plays Lisa, Jeffery's girlfriend. She and Jeffery are polar opposites. Jeffery considers Lisa to be too perfect for him and is into adventure, while she likes shopping and fashion. They're on the verge of breaking up, but as she helps Jeffery try to solve this mystery, her adventurous side comes out and they wind up closer than ever. Funny how that always seems to happen it movies, isn't it? She doesn't seem as natural as Jimmy Stewart, but that doesn't mean she's bad. She still does a good job, and it's fun to watch her go from buying dresses and eating expensive meals to breaking into houses and solving this crime.

No one can talk about this film without mentioning the camera-work. This movie is filled with wonderful cinematography. Long, panning shots across Jeffery's neighbourhood that show all the neighbours activities makes you feel like it's actually full of people, and not just a bunch of shots of small sets cut together to give the illusion of scope. The set was designed in a brilliant way. It's a relatively small set, with all the houses being in apartments connected to each other, and the neighbours always interacting in one way or another. We get familiar with these neighbours quickly, with all them having nicknames based on their personalities and activities.

The last thing I have to say about this movie is the finale. It's no wonder there's a last conflict between Jeffery and the killer. The killer breaks into Jeffery's apartment and is walking up to Jeffery, when Jeffery blinds the killer with a camera flash multiple times. And every time, the killer stops dead in his tracks, takes a second to adjust his eyes back, and takes another step or two and gets blinded. The idiot doesn't even cover his eyes after the second time, he just keeps looking straight into the flash like a dumbass. This really undermines how threatening the villain is, in my opinion, when he's too stupid to cover his damn eyes.

Overall though, "Rear Window" is a brilliantly paced, shot, edited, acted, directed and just really well-done film. But I could easily see modern viewers being turned off by its age and its very different concept. Regardless, I highly recommend giving it a watch.

Black Swan (2010)

An Incredibly Beautiful and Epic Tale That Is Perfect in Every Sense of the Word

[10/10 · 11 July 2012]

"Black Swan" was a film I had on my must see list for a long time. Natalie Portman was enough to draw me in, but I had heard nothing but good things about this. Add the fact that Natalie Portman finally got the recognition I always knew she deserved by getting an Oscar for this, and you have my interest. And after finally seeing it, I understand why everyone loves this movie. And I agree with them.

So the story of "Black Swan" is about Nina, a very fragile but lovable ballerina who is given the role of her life when she is cast as the Swan Queen in her ballet studio's production of Swan Lake. But the catch is that she has to play both the Swan Queen and the Black Swan, who is the evil and polar opposite twin sister of the Swan Queen. Everyone knows that Nina is perfect for the Swan Queen, but she has to really push herself to become the Black Swan which totally goes against her nature. Meanwhile she also is having a mental breakdown so there's a lot of freaky stuff going on in her mind. The cool thing that you realize at one point is that the story of the film is a real life parallel to the story of Swan Lake. All the characters, situations, and plot points reflect the ballet but it doesn't feel cheesy. It feels brilliant and beautiful.

Now the acting in this movie is terrific. Did Natalie Portman deserve her Oscar? Absolutely without a doubt. I'm gonna be honest, ever since I was six and saw her in "Star Wars: Episode I: The Phantom Menace", I knew Natalie Portman was destined to be an incredible actress. That and I have an insane celebrity crush on her, but that's beside the point. She is perfectly natural, believable, and lovable as Nina and you instantly fall in love with her character. While she's having her mental breakdown though you are really worried what's going to happen. Nina is so sweet and innocent you don't want to see a shred of harm come to this girl. That is true character connection and it was done amazingly in "Black Swan".

Mila Kunis plays Lily, who is basically the real life equivalent of the Black Swan. She's the exact opposite of Nina. She's fun, secure, she goes out and parties. She is basically every 20 something year old hot chick on "Jersey Shore". But she has this very evil sense about her and you're always thinking in the back of your mind "She could just flip and kill Nina at any time". There's this one scene where Nina and Lily go to a bar and you can really see how opposite they become. But you also see how Lily slowly corrupts Nina and it's just a genius character dynamic. That is good writing and equally strong acting right there.

There is only one more performance I think I need to mention and that's Barbara Hershey as Nina's mother. Nina's mom is just like Mrs. White from "Carrie". She is obsessive, controlling, psychotic, and just evil. You really hate her and it takes you a while to realize it but eventually you have an epiphany where you go "Oh my god, Nina is like a hostage in her own home". She's 27 but she still lives with her mother because her mom is so insane. Nina's mom puts off the same evil sense as Lily in that you feel she could snap and murder Nina in like a second if she was pushed even a little bit. It's a very scary character and Barbara Hershey portrayed it perfectly.

I do want to mention that anytime the "Swan Lake" music played, I could not help but think of "Dracula". I don't know if you know this, but the original 1931 'Dracula' movie with Bela Lugosi used the "Swan Lake" song for its opening credits. And so anytime I heard that music, I got tingles. The music in this movie, especially in the finally is tense and exciting and does exactly what a good soundtrack should do. It gets you really anxious and nervous and I'm not lying when I say I felt my heartbeat while the climax of this movie happened and it was racing. There is so much emotional weight at the end "Black Swan", I could not believe I was so invested in a film about ballet.

This movie is perfect, and I have zero complaints. The acting was terrific, the pacing was perfect. The emotional weight and the themes were handled with exquisite and expert care. I do not think I can stress how beautiful this film is. It's rare that I call a movie beautiful but it is the only word I can think of that describes this movie. It is perfect.

The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)

A Very Enjoyable Superhero Film, But Several Major Things Handled Terribly Detract From It

[5/10 · 5 July 2012]

"The Amazing Spider-Man" had many people skeptical from day one. A reboot of a franchise that'd only been absent five years, redoing the origin story, and just a way for Sony to keep the rights to the character from reverting back to Marvel. But as more and more news came in about the project, I became more and more hopeful. I was hoping that with the excellence of recent superhero films like "Iron Man", that "The Amazing Spider-Man" would join the list of critically-acclaimed and commercially phenomenal adaptations that fans and mainstream audiences would love. Sadly, we got our hopes too high.

"The Amazing Spider-Man" is a retelling of the origin story. Peter Parker's parents mysteriously vanished when he was just a boy. Now, Peter is a teenager and while looking into his parents past is bitten by an experimental spider, giving him newfound abilities. Peter also meets Dr. Curt Connors, an ex-partner of Peter's father who is trying to regrow his arm by splicing the DNA of lizards into other animals. When Connors loses his patience, he injects himself with an untested serum and becomes the the Lizard. Now, Peter must stop what he is partially responsible for and become the hero he is destined to be. If I went into every little detail about just the first hour of story in this movie, the whole review could be taken up by just the synopsis. When you're watching the movie though, they go through all of this really fast and it doesn't feel rushed, it's just expertly written.

One of the reasons I did not enjoy certain aspects of this movie is first of all, the two main plot lines the marketing for this film pushed to be the molding of Peter Parker into a hero are dropped. After about 45 minutes, Peter stops looking for clues into his parents past. And about 20 minutes after Peter becomes Spider-Man, he stops looking for Uncle Ben's killer. Both of these plot lines have potential for strong emotion and character development, but they're forgotten and hardly mentioned ever again. Just like in "Spider-Man 3", it feels like there were several sub-plots thought of for this movie, and instead of picking just one, the writers threw them all in. That's not to say that like "Spider-Man 3", it feels like there's too much going on in this movie. It never feels like there is too much, but just the right amount of other things going on besides just Spider-Man vs. the Lizard. What I mean is that all the sub-plots were used fine, but two of them were just dropped suddenly. And that really bothered me.

Now the acting in this film was great. Looking back, I now see how poor a casting choice Toby Maguire was in the Sam Raimi trilogy. I grew up watching the Raimi trilogy, and as a kid I never questioned it. But now looking at Andrew Garfield's Spider-Man in comparison to Toby Maguire's Spider-Man is pointless. They're just completely different. And not just with Spider-Man, but with Peter Parker too. Toby Maguire's Peter Parker was very cliché in that he's ridiculously smart, he's awkward, and he wears nice shirts and glasses. Whereas Andrew Garfield's Peter Parker was very modern. He rides a skateboard, he dresses like a hipster, he wears contacts, but he's deceivingly brilliant. He's just like that quiet smart kid that hardly talks and sits in the back of your class. He's extremely likable and funny and you relate to the guy so much. Everything his character does is what a normal teenager would do if given the powers that Peter has. I could never relate to Maguire's Peter Parker, but now we have Andrew Garfield's Peter Parker, and he is awesome.

Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy was nothing more than Emma Stone's usual amazing performance. She's very natural, very funny, but can also carry herself emotionally. You can't help but love her character and you care for her. When I love an actress that much, that means that she never lets me down when she portrays a character and I always love that character. Emma Stone does that. That's something that no matter how hard they tried, I couldn't do with Mary Jane in the Raimi films. Whenever she was captured, I just always thought "well here goes Spidey to save cliché superhero girlfriend #25". Thankfully, someone else thought that too.

Rhys Ifans as Dr. Curt Connors was so cliché in my opinion, it was ridiculous. I never felt sorry for his character and I never cared whether he lived or died. He is such a stereotype scientist it drives me insane. The Lizard talks, which I didn't expect. And you could've blamed all his actions up to this point on the Lizard like a Jekyll/Hyde scenario, but once he talks, you realize that Connors is actually in control and has just turned evil for no reason. Towards the end of the movie, his evil plot is to morph the entire city of New York into Lizard people. And you're really wondering how a guy with an insane IQ like Connors thinks that turning everyone into monstrous killing machines will fix humanity. It doesn't make sense to me at all, especially since Connors is in control as the Lizard and he can still utilize his intelligence.

You probably think I hate this movie. I didn't at all, actually it was really enjoyable. But I can't help nitpick this movie because I was really excited to see it. Whether or not I'm to blame for setting my expectations too high, or the writers are for not paying attention to certain aspects, I would still buy "The Amazing Spider-Man" on Blu-Ray for $15 maximum. It's a good movie, and I'm sure on repeated viewings I'd enjoy it a lot more, but as it stands right now, it didn't satisfy what I was looking for.

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (2011)

Everything That Worked in it's Predecessor is Thrown Out and Made More Generic

[6/10 · 26 June 2012]

I was really excited to see "Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows". I highly enjoyed the first film, and with Guy Ritchie returning to direct, and the addition of Jared Harris playing Professor James Moriarty joining the stellar cast, I had little doubt that 'Game of Shadows' would blow me away as much as the first film had. And then the trailer came out, and the doubt started to form. Robert Downey Jr. creepily cross dressing, giant gun fights, and recycled jokes made me worriful that the movie may fall where the first film excelled. Sadly, I was right.

Watson has now moved out of 221B Baker Street, and Sherlock has become obsessed with linking evidence to the infinite web of crimes Moriarty is behind. Now, when a single clue reveals itself to Holmes, he embarks on a determined endeavour to take down his arch-nemesis once and for all. It's hard to explain the plot because some of the main plot points happen for no reason, so it's difficult to even write a proper synopsis. Seriously, things happen at random in this movie. Like within the first 5 minutes the most enraging, lame, and downright stupidest move the writers made happens for almost no reason.

All main cast members return from the first film. Robert Downey Jr. is back as Sherlock Holmes, and as before, he's great. He is completely into this role and you believe him. What is really great in this movie is Sherlock vs. Moriarty, and this is really where Robert Downey Jr.'s acting in this movie flourishes. He gets really confident and serious, and you're just thinking "it's going down".

Jude Law is perfect as Watson. I think I prefer Jude Law's Watson to Martin Freeman's Watson. But the two adaptations are set in different time periods, so I think Jude Law is the perfect Watson for the 1800's, and Martin Freeman is the perfect Watson for the 21'st Century. But Jude Law's Watson is perfect with the smart-ass remarks. He is totally Sherlock's backup and he hates it, but he accepts that and he deals with it, and it makes for some great comedy.

Jared Harris is good as Moriarty. His first appearance on the screen, you know that he is in control. He's very calm, very smart, and menacing. The only thing I wish had been different about him is the actor. While Jared Harris is pretty good, I really wanted someone younger than or as old as Sherlock. That would be a great parallel for Holmes to deal with, but instead he's like sixty years old. This really sucks because I loved the Moriarty in the first "Sherlock Holmes". He was young, skinny, very threatening, and had this seriously scary voice. But now he's just this normal, heavy-set, old guy.

The fights in this movie suck. You may remember in the first "Sherlock Holmes", a lot of the fighting was hand to hand, and I loved that aspect. In this movie, we get like two fisticuff scenes and then the rest is gunplay. I hated that; don't make the action just generic slow motion bullet fests. That's my main gripe with this movie is it feels like someone wrote an 18th Century action film and just added in Sherlock Holmes at the last minute. I know that's not what happened, but that's what it feels like.

The major thing that sucks about the Guy Ritchie movies is that after watching BBC's "Sherlock" series, everything else seems second place. Everything that is done in the Guy Ritchie films, the BBC series does better, which makes enjoying the Ritchie films difficult because you're constantly comparing to something much better.

I will personally not be buying this movie. I'd only get this movie if it was like a $5 movie in the bargain bin. I heard a lot of other people say they liked it, so I'm not saying everyone will hate it, but I did. And isn't that the point of a review, to state your opinion? So I did not like "Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows", but you might so at least rent it or borrow it off a buddy. Who knows how you'll feel?

John Carter (2012)

Disney's Next Forced Franchise Follows in the Wake of It's Predecessors... It's Bad

[5/10 · 13 June 2012]

From the moment I first heard about "John Carter of Mars", (because that's what it should have been called and what the logo they designed implied), I already knew this movie was going to disappoint. Disney has been pushing for a new franchise since "Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End", because none of their live-action films other than "National Treasure" have been able to generate box-office or critical acclaim. So they're really desperate. "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" was only OK, "Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time" was a giant letdown, and "Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides" just raped its franchise harder than anyone thought the two before it had. So with the whole sci-fi setting, a 250 million dollar budget, and given Disney's recent live-action situation, I was like "Ok, I am not seeing "John Carter of Mars" in theatres. I am gonna rent this". And I did just that. And I'm glad I did.

"John Carter of Mars" is about John Carter, an ex-military man in 1879 who gets transported to Mars, or as the natives know it, Barsoom. The natives 'aquire' Carter to be their champion and so through various plot points that I don't care to explain, John Carter must now save the princess from marrying an evil tyrant named Sab Than, so that the entire planet of Barsoom isn't taken over by the tyrant and his army. When I was watching this movie I was seriously saying to myself 'there is way too much going on'. As you watch it, the plot gets so stupidly complex and convoluted, it makes your head hurt. This movie is kiddie entertainment, and I can easily imagine a kid looking up at his dad and asking what's going on every 10 minutes because he doesn't understand this stupid complex plot.

Taylor Kitsch plays John Carter. He is the most boring character of this movie, which is really terrible because it's HIS movie, he's the titular hero. He's just an asshole, really. The whole movie he just wants to get back to earth because he found a cave of gold. And then he goes through a character arc that's really cliché and stupid, and he becomes the hero he's supposed to be. I didn't care for him the entire movie though. He was a good Gambit in "X-Men Origins: Wolverine", no one can argue that. But I really don't see this guy as A-list action hero material, which is what Hollywood seems to be pushing him as, with movies like "Battleship" and "Savages". If he's half as bad as he was in "John Carter of Mars", I am not going to like those two other movies.

Mark Strong plays Matai Shang, the real lead villain. They push Sab Than as the main villain, but I get a total sense of control from Mark Strong's character. He just seems like he knows everything. It seems like Mark Strong has become the new main villain actor in all movies lately. "Sherlock Holmes", "Kick-Ass", "Green Lantern", and now this. It really sucks because he's not even interesting. It's just Mark Strong.

Willem Dafoe as Tars Tarkas, the only part of the movie I had any hope for, get's pushed aside like 50 minutes into the film and comes back for the last fight, in which he doesn't hardly do any fighting. It really sucks, because Willem Dafoe is one of the most unsung amazing actors ever. He can play almost anything and I will believe him. But in this movie it seems like Andrew Stanton just wanted a big name to voice an alien in this movie so he got Willem Dafoe because let's face it, Dafoe isn't doing much these days.

A lot of people say that the visuals in this film rival "Avatar". And to that I say bullshit. It seems like the 250 million dollar budget was only used so they could make the scope wide, but the attention to detail just wasn't at all there for me. I didn't see any incredible motion capture or really detailed textures on the aliens at all. This movie might have looked impressive in 2007, in my opinion. The visuals weren't charming either. There was nothing that I saw and went "that's pretty cool". It just feels like Andrew Stanton took visual elements from "Firefly", "The Chronicles of Riddick", and "Treasure Planet" and blended them together to try to create something visually unique. And it wasn't.

That's a way I could summarize this whole review. This movie feels like something you've seen plenty of times, and has been done way better. The film would have looked impressive in 2007, but would've probably been good and we might actually treasure it, if it came out in 1979. It's campy, it's silly, it's annoyingly simple popcorn entertainment, and it's only worth like $5 on DVD. Unless you see it for that price, do not bother picking up "John Carter of Mars".

Piranha 3DD (2012)

Gore, Nudity, and Hasselhoff... Need I Say More?

[7/10 · 13 June 2012]

Ever since it was announced, I was looking forward to "Piranha 3DD". The first one, I enjoyed because it was campy, had loads of awesome gore and death, and a lot of pointless and beautiful nudity. So any more of that had me signed up. But it seems like the producers lost sight of what made the first movie so great, because it shows in "Piranha 3DD".

So the plot of "Piranha 3DD" is as simple as its predecessor. It's been a year since the first movie, everyone knows now that there are a species of prehistoric piranhas running lose, and now they've invaded a water park. From there, we have our movie. Or at least the last half an hour. Aside from a few great moments, until the piranhas get into the water park, nothing really happens in the movie. It's just a few good one-liners and one or two hilarious deaths.

There are only three characters worth mentioning in this entire film. The first of which is Christopher Lloyd as Dr. Goodman. He is just great. In the first movie, I was really disappointed he had such a boring role, but now, he is developed into comic gold. The whole scene he's in, you can't help but be transfixed on him. You're gonna be laughing through all the plot points in this scene, but let's be honest, you didn't watch this movie for the plot.

Ving Rhames is also back as Deputy Fallon. I don't care what your movie is about, if you need a badass black actor, just get Ving Rhames to swear and shoot and he immediately makes your movie awesome. Again, his one scene is just great. You will die laughing to see what Fallon has been reduced to in this movie, and then as you saw in the trailer, shogun legs. Enough said.

And finally, David Hasselhoff, my favourite aspect of this movie. He plays himself in this movie, and it seems like he meant this to apply to real life, but there's a scene where he goes to the water park's grand opening and he says to himself "So this is rock bottom". And right there I was like, "well at least he can admit it, unlike some people". Hasselhoff has some of the most priceless lines in this movie. If for nothing else, I say watch this movie just for him. He makes it.

The only negative about this movie is that it seems they tried to mainstream the film into a horror, with only a few comedic moments, whereas in the first movie, there were tons of comedic elements sprinkled throughout. It just felt like they were actually going for scares this time instead of mocking the scares.

It's not as good as the first one, but "Piranha 3DD" is still a really fun time. I personally watched it with three chicks, at their request, and had a great time. Because I'm that awesome. I say get this movie for Hasselhoff alone, but don't buy it for more than $15 max. Gore, Boobs, and Hilarity. Always a good time

Chronicle (2012)

An Incredibly Unique Genre Film With a Lot More Than You'd Think...

[8/10 · 8 June 2012]

"Chronicle" was a film I was excited to see from the minute I heard the premise. I'm a big fan of the found footage craze, and when I heard this was going to be a superhero film rather than a typical cinema-verite horror film, I was psyched. But what I didn't know was what a well-made movie I was going to watch.

The story of "Chronicle" is about an 18 year old guy named Andrew Detmer. He doesn't have the best of lives. His mom's dying due to cancer, his father is abusive, and he has no friends at school other than his cousin Matt. One night, Matt, Andrew and on of Matt's friends, Steve, discover a cave. Inside, they find a strange object that gives them telekinetic powers. They use these powers for fun at first, but eventually, tensions rise and the three boys friendships are put to the test. For such a simple premise, you're going to find a lot of character development in "Chronicle".

As soon as the movie starts, you already sympathize with Andrew. He has no human connections, really, so he starts filming everything in his life. I think it's a thing we've all thought about. Maybe not filming our whole lives, but at least a day or two, and playing off that I think was really smart. We all like to think our lives would make good stories, so given Andrew's sudden decision to do this, don't find it weird if you have the desire to start filming your life suddenly.

Dane DeHaan did a great job of portraying Andrew. You really love this guy, you can feel his frustrations, and while the things he does toward the end of the movie are just brutal, you can still understand his reasons. I don't think it's a spoiler that he goes psycho. You can tell that just from the trailer. But when it happens, you're so involved in his character, you feel something; a connection to him. No matter how many terrible things he does, you really want to see him turn good again.

There's a scene where Andrew is in the hospital, and his father goes on a monologue about how Andrew's mom just died because his father was out looking for him. He blames Andrew for her death, and is literally about to hit him, when Andrew wakes up. You know at this moment, things are about to get serious. It feels a lot like Anakin Skywalker; how he lost his mother, and then turned evil. But this connection you feel to Andrew really gives you mixed emotions. You know you're supposed to be routing against him, but you've grown to love this character, and even though it's wrong, you don't want Andrew to be stopped, because you're just hoping he'll come to his senses. That's what you call deep and thought-provoking writing.

That's another thing I have to mention. The writing is great. Max Landis and Josh Trank did a great job at making likable characters, great comedy, and tension. Max Landis is the son of John Landis, the director of "The Blues Brothers". I have to say, I'm very happy to see such a different style of writing come from this lineage. This movie feels like something you and your college buddies thought up of one night at 2:00 in the morning. It's such a simple concept, but it evolves into a great film.

I should probably talk about the other characters. Michael B. Jordan plays Steve, a very popular, well-loved kid from school. After gaining their powers, he becomes very close friends with Matt and Andrew. Besides Andrew, he's my favourite character. He's very positive, always in a good mood, and he's really funny. There isn't a whole lot to say about him, but you love him from start to finish.

Then there's Matt, played by Alex Russell. Here's where the cliché hero comes into the film. Matt is a boring, uninteresting character who you don't give two cares about. It feels like Russell was trying to do his best Superman. He's the upstanding, always do right guy who just drags down the teen fun of this film. There are parts where you like him, but especially towards the end, you're going to be so sick of him.

The action in this film is jaw-dropping. The whole film builds up to the final battle with Andrew and Matt fighting one another, with all of Seattle as their battlefield. They wreck everything: buildings, signs, cars, helicopters. It's complete and total mayhem at the hands of one kid, and you're going to be exclaiming from awe every 10 seconds. For a film with such a relatively small budget, I found the action in this to blow my mind and excite me more than in most Hollywood blockbusters.

In the end, I loved "Chronicle". I can easily see this becoming a cult movie that fanboys will still be watching in 20 years.It's one of the most original and unique films I've seen in a while. I like the simple premise, I love the characters, I love the style and story. I just enjoyed every aspect of it. I definitely say watch it. If you enjoy any of the elements of film that I've described, you are probably going to have a lot of fun with "Chronicle".

Attack the Block (2011)

In the vein of "Shaun of the Dead", "Attack the Block" joins the ranks of British Comedies that Americans Will Love

[8/10 · 31 May 2012]

"Attack the Block" was a movie I heard about solely because I love Edgar Wright. He directed my second favourite movie ever, "Scott Pilgrim vs. the World", which I've seen hundreds of times. Anything Wright does is unique, extremely funny and smart, and has a flare that is completely his. So when I heard he was producing this new British alien invasion movie, I immediately decided I had to see it.

"Attack the Block" is about a local street gang of teenagers in London. When a meteor comes down baring an alien, the gang's leader, Moses, decides to kill it. Soon enough, a wave of extraterrestrials hell-bent on the death of the gang invade Paris, and it becomes a fight for survival. The plot is very standard, but it's all you really need. One thing I always liked about Edgar Wright's movies is that the premise is always very simple. This movie is a lot like his film, "Shaun of the Dead". It's never explained what caused the zombies, and it doesn't matter. The same thing applies to the aliens in this movie. Doesn't matter what world they came from, they're just here.

The cast is really the films strong point. John Boyega plays Moses. He does a good job. At first, you don't like this guy. He's ruthless, selfish, and hardly cares about anyone but himself. Over the film though, his character is well developed, and by the end, you're routing for him. It's a great example of how to make a character arc. But even still, while you do care for Moses, I don' find Boyega's acting that impressive. It's a weird thing, I care for Moses, the character, but Boyega is so bland He speaks pretty much in monotone, and he never gets rid of that stone face. I know he's a newcomer, but still. The only thing that makes me care for him is his dialogue and the situational aspects of his character; his hardships at home and his slave-like position to the gangs. There's maybe one scene where a sliver of acting comes from Boyega, but it's over a phone, so you can't see his face, and it kills his shining moment.

Then there are the other members of the gang. Pest is my favourite. He's hilarious because he's like the weakest of the group. He's one of those great toques with the tassels, and he uses fireworks to fight the aliens. Then there's Sam, played by Jodie Whittaker. She's a woman who the gang mugged earlier the same night of the invasion. Needless to say, she's resentful to help the gang survive. One of the funniest character interactions is when Pest is hitting on her. It's hilarious. She looks a lot like Gemma Arterton to me. There's not really much to say about her character, but shes good none the less. Then there's Ron, played by Nick Frost. He just steals every scene he's in. He's very likable and funny, in a very simple way. He doesn't need to do much to make you laugh. You look at his haircut alone and chuckle. The final characters I have to mention are the two kids, Probs and Mayhem. They're a couple of like, nine year olds trying to be a part of the gang, and they're awesome. They get to kick some alien ass themselves, and their dialogue is priceless. I wish we could get like a 10 minute short film of just them fighting the aliens. It'd be a great bonus feature.

The effects in this movie are wonderful. It's all practical effects. The aliens are just guys in suits, and it's something I've really missed in movies. It's rare to see good old prosthetics and animatronics used to create a creature these days, instead of just making some CGI. Don't get me wrong, CGI can be fantastic, but it doesn't have the same effect as something actually being on the screen, fighting someone.

"Attack the Block" is a fantastic film. It's hilarious, brilliantly written, great practical effects, and has very likable characters. If you're looking for a good way to waste an hour and a half, give it a watch. It's well worth it.

Across the Universe (2007)

If You Like The Beatles, Beautiful Visuals, Musicals, or Love Stories, Then This Is A Movie You Must See

[7/10 · 12 May 2012]

"Across the Universe" is a film I had heard of for years, but had never taken the time to sit down and watch. I knew it was a rock opera with Beatles songs, that it was a love story, and that I heard nothing bad about it. But after about three years of being in limbo on how this movie was, I decided to finally sit down and give it a watch. And I wish I had done so sooner.

"Across the Universe" is about Jude, a young man from Liverpool who decides to go to America to find his father. While what he finds is a disappointment, he meets his friend Max and his sister, Lucy, who Jude falls in love with. The three of them move to New York, where they meet Prudence, Satie, and JoJo, and soon they are all swept up in the 1960's world of music, war, and love. You could possibly look at this film and completely label it a hippy throwback, but while you're watching it, the word hippy never comes to mind. It's more of a story of a group of people's self-discovery and the hardships they go through.

There are no big-name actors in this film, at all. It's all unknowns. I love it when big films give young actors a chance to shine, and with this film, it'll probably be the roles they're all remembered for. Jim Sturgess plays Jude. He looks like he came right out of 1960's England. If you could go back in time and put him into the Beatles, you wouldn't know a difference at all. He was the perfect person to play Jude. Not just for looks, but for his performance too. He's instantly likable, you just look at him and grin because you probably know a guy exactly like him.

Evan Rachel Wood plays Lucy. She gives a good performance, and Lucy's a likable character. She's obviously a polar opposite to Jude, so it gives them a good character dynamic, but honestly, the exact same kind of dynamic was in "Grease", so it gives it a bit of a recycled feel, especially for a musical.

Visually, this film will trip you out to no end. In several of the musical numbers, you'll just be wondering, "who the hell just turned the psychedelic switch to 11"? It'll be a perfectly normal scene, and then it's like you just dived head first into an acid trip. Some of the scenes are disturbing and a bit off putting, like "I Want You (She's So Heavy)", but there are others that are really beautiful like "Dear Prudence". It's a mixed bag, but you can't deny, it's a gorgeous film to look at.

The songs in this film are all used to perfect effect. You'll realize it later, because you won't be able to listen to the Beatles afterwards and not think of the scenes in the film that go along with the film. Now usually, I'm completely against covers in films, but several of the songs used in the film I think are better in certain ways. "Something" is the one I think is probably used to the best effect. It seems like the song is sung in the exact situation the Beatles imagined when they wrote the song. It works so beautifully, that you might find that the original version doesn't work as good if you visualize it being played to the scene.

The other musical numbers that really stand out to me in this movie are "With A Little Help from My Friends", "Hey Jude", and "All You Need is Love", which epitomizes everything the film builds up towards. Don't be surprised to find yourself singing along to these songs. Throughout the film, you've grown to love these characters, and these songs lift you up and warm your heart in a way that not a lot of films these days can do.

In conclusion, "Across the Universe" is a great film. It seems the team behind this film were able to find a story that after viewing this film, you feel like it wasn't forced, but more like it was there all along. And now that you've seen it unfold, you'll never be able to forget it.

Lucky Number Slevin (2006)

Not At All What You're Expecting, "Lucky Number Slevin" is a Modern Classic

[8/10 · 12 May 2012]

"Lucky Number Slevin" is a film I'd only known about in name for years. I'd wanted to see it for years, but because I had no idea what it was about, I never took the time to see it. Besides Bruce Willis being in it, I had no background information to go off of when I rented it.

The film is about Slevin, a normal everyday guy who goes to visit his friend Nick Fisher in New York. When Slevin is mistaken for Nick by two rival gangsters, the Boss and the Rabbi, he has a double ultimatum issued: to get $33,000 dollars for the Rabbi, and to kill the Rabbi's son for the Boss. With the help of Nick's neighbour Lindsay, her and Slevin try to figure out what all is happening and how to get Slevin out of his predicaments. That's about as far as I can get into the plot without spoiling the hell out of this movie. Believe me, this is one of those flicks where if I spoiled it, you'd hate me forever.

Josh Hartnett plays Slevin. You instantly like this guy. He's a relatable, funny, wise ass, down-on-his-luck guy. Everything he says is either funny or very intelligent. One of my favorite tidbits is when Slevin questions how the Rabbi can be a religious man and a gangster, without conflicting his religion. It's little bits like this that really make you like his character.

The rest of the cast is also great. Morgan Freeman plays the Boss. I don't even know what to say, it's Morgan Freeman being awesome, what more do you want? Ben Kingsley plays the Rabbi. I've never been a big fan of Kinsley, especially of late, but I thought he was great in this film. He does the Jewish accent perfectly and it sets him apart from practically every other part he's ever played, where I always think of him as "that British guy". As for Lucy Liu, she's kind of just there, but her character is still very likable. When she starts talking Bond trivia, that's when I was in nerd heaven. Seriously, if I ever meet a chick who knows every actor who ever played Ernst Stavro Blofeld, I'll marry her on the spot.

"Lucky Number Slevin" is a film that was obviously inspired by Quentin Tarantino's work, mainly "Pulp Fiction". It has all the makings of a Tarantino film: complicated, intelligent and fast dialogue used to discuss such simple topics, constant references to classic cinema, non-linearism, and characters overlapping into each other's stories. It's a great formula that I wished was used a bit more often, but I'm glad it's saved for films that really deserve to use it.

"Lucky Number Slevin" is a great film. With some Tarantino-esque flare and some great characters, you'll definitely enjoy this, especially if "Pulp Fiction" is up on your list of 'Best Crime Films Ever', in which case, this movie will probably join that list.

Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer (2007)

Not One of the Best Superhero Flicks Ever, But Cheesy Fun

[1 May 2012]

So when I was a kid, I went through multiple phases of who my favorite super hero was. For quite a bit of time, it was a shared spot by all members of The Fantastic 4. When I saw the first movie, I thought it was awesome. And then in the middle of my FF phase, "Fantastic 4: Rise of the Silver Surfer" came out. But what I got, wasn't quite what I had expected.

Set about a year or two after the previous film, Reed Richards and Susan Storm are about to be married. But on their big day, things take a turn for the worst as a mysterious being shows up who is digging giant holes in the planet to the earth's core. The U.S. army task the Fantastic 4 with stopping the Silver Surfer before he destroys the planet. At the same time, Victor Von Doom, aka Doctor Doom, has been resurrected and after encountering the Surfer, goes to the army to help Reed, Johnny, Ben, and Susan stop the Surfer. It is revealed that the Surfer is actually a herald for a greater threat, known as Galactus, an entity that devours planets for energy. Victor steals the Surfer's board and now the Fantastic Four have to save the world from the combined threat of Doctor Doom and Galactus before either one control the planet.

As far as acting goes, superhero movies from the 80's to the late 2000's are pretty generic with their acting skills. There are exceptions like Christopher Nolan's Batman films and Bryan Singer's X-Men films, but for the majority of it, the acting is never something the films thrive on. 'Rise of the Silver Surfer' is one of those movies. The performances are bland and as good-evil as Hollywood gets. The only one in these films who I think played their character to a T is Chris Evans as Johnny Storm. He embodies the Human Torch much more than Captain America in my opinion.

The action in this film is pretty good for as far as super hero films used to go. With one's like "The Dark Knight" and "The Avengers" these days, where the action is really insane or thrilling, it's amazing. But in the 2000's, anyone will remember that nothing really mind blowing happened in super hero films until 2008. For a summer popcorn flick, 'Rise of the Silver Surfer' has good action. The problem is it's done all too fast and feels really rushed. I don't think there's a better example than the fight in the forest with the Silver Surfer. When Surf is flying around and smacking missiles away like they're nothing, that was awesome. But it all ends in like one minute when Susan turns on some device and it's like… "Well, that was short".

For one thing, I always thought bringing back Doctor Doom was a stupid move by the writers. They should have stuck with it like the "Spider-Man" films. Kill the villain, he's done for good. But in a logic defying move, Fox somehow bribed Julian McMahon to come back. This is my least favorite part of this film. I though Victor was a good villain in the first "Fantastic Four", but here, he takes a back seat so the Surfer can have the spotlight. Understandably, but still, it feels like Doom was added last minute just so they had an excuse to bring back a familiar face. It certainly feels that way with his relevance in the film. When Victor once again becomes Doctor Doom, he has a dumb new silver cape, which I always though looked stupid. I mean, it's always been green. Don't mess with tradition.

Now the whole movie, Johnny's powers have been in flux. After the Surfer attacked him, Johnny can temporarily trade powers with the other members of the team. But when the final fight happens with Doom, it's not the Fantastic Four teaming up. Instead, Johnny goes solo absorbing all the Four's powers and just beats the crap out of Doom. Then Ben takes a crane and home-runs Doom into the ocean and they act like everything's fine. He survived being burned and flash frozen; you don't think he could survive taking a swim? It was obvious that the writers were suggesting that Doom would return in a third Fantastic Four film, but I'm glad that never happened.

Honestly, the Silver Surfer sucks in the movie. Aside from the Surfer's powers,there's nothing really cool about him. He's a cardboard cut-out of a character. In the finale of the film, the Surfer sacrifices himself to destroy Galactus. That's right, the Fantastic Four don't stop Galactus, the Surfer blows himself up using the board's power. I think this was a really cheap move by the writers. It's like, instead of really thinking of a cool way for the Four to even fight Galactus, they took the lazy way out and were like "Well how about the Surfer stops him?" and they slacked their way from there.

My final gripe about this film. Galactus. Anyone who has read the comics, or played Marvel Ultimate Alliance knows who Galactus is, what he looks like, and how unstoppable he is. Instead of the purple colossus of doom that Galactus has always been, the writers turned him into a space cloud. It looks like something out of a Roland Emmerich film, not an intergalactic super-villain.

I know I've gone on a long bitch-fest about this flick and you probably think I hate it. Well, you're half right. I used to hate it, but after re-watching it the other night I found myself highly enjoying it. Despite the things I hate about it, I found that it's very good, cheesy fun.

Colombiana (2011)

What Will Undoubtedly Become An Underrated Besson Classic

[7/10 · 1 May 2012]

I remember when I first heard about "Colombiana", I was like, "Zoe Saldana kicking ass in a movie written and produced by Luc Besson? I'm already sold". So for those of you who don't know, Luc Besson is the guy who brought us "Taken", "The Transporter" trilogy, "Leon: The Professional" and "Nikita". So this guy has a pretty damn good resume. So there's no reason to not trust him. And this is a film I'm going to add to his list of awesomeness So "Colombiana" is the story of Catelaya, a girl whose parents were murdered in front of her when she was nine years old. 15 years have passed, she's become a master assassin, and now she's on a quest of revenge to kill the gangster who ordered the hit on her parents. Everyone says this and I have to point it out too; Luc Besson basically ripped off his own creation (Nikita), but it on a new hot actress, and now we have our movie. But I have to say, I don't mind him doing this one little bit. Why? Because it's his own thing he's ripping off, and the new chick playing said role is really hot.

Zoe Saldana plays Cataleya. Most people these days will know her either as Lieutenant Uhura in J.J. Abram's 2009 reboot of "Star Trek", or as Neytiri in "Avatar". This girl is one of my favorite new actresses in Hollywood, and it's nice to finally see her kick some ass. Cataleya is a precise and calculating killing machine. When she's got a weapon, you're just screwed.

The action in "Colombiana" is great. The very first action scene happens within 10 minutes. Nine year old Cataleya is being chased by Columbian gangsters and you're just thinking "Does everyone in Columbia practise free-running and parkour"? And when you throw free-running and parkour into an action flick, you get my seal of approval. Then the final action scene is just a pure bullet-fest. There is nothing more enjoyable then seeing a beautiful mansion be destroyed by grenades and mountains of bullets.

So overall, I enjoyed "Columbiana". It's a good action film, and anyone who liked "Taken" should enjoy this. It might not be Luc Besson's best action film, but I think it's a new one of his underrated classics, and I'll definitely buy this.

Hanna (2011)

A Decent Film, But Not My Cup of Tea...

[7/10 · 21 April 2012]

Going into "Hanna", I wasn't really sure what to expect. I had seen the trailers, but didn't really remember them. All I knew was it was an action flick about a girl who for some reason is being chased by the Government. And it turns out, that's about all the motivation for the plot you're going to get when you watch "Hanna".

Hanna is a teenage girl who's been raised by her father in the woods of Finland. She's spent her whole life living like an Inuit; hunting for her own food, making clothes out of pelts, and living in a wood shack. Her father, Erik Heller, has been training Hanna her whole life for the day when they would try to escape back into society. Hanna decides that that day has finally come, and thus starts the real movie. I say real movie loosely because I enjoyed the beginning of Hanna more than I did the rest of it.

Hanna runs across Europe trying to get to Berlin to meet up with her father. Along the way, she tags along with a travelling family from England, and Hanna connects with their teenage daughter, Sophie. I really enjoyed this part of the film because it's a way to show how new everything in the world seems to Hanna, and in that it's very effective. There's a hilarious seen where a guy goes to kiss her and she Kung-Fu flips him onto his back. Stuff like this are the things I loved about this movie.

Now the rest of the film, with the spies and the espionage is boring. Cate Blanchett plays Marissa the main spy chasing Hanna and her father. I hated her character. She has this annoying southern accent, she's really not threatening at all, and overall she's a villain you really don't care about.

Now, Saoirse Ronan, on the other hand, as Hanna, was stellar. I thought she did a fantastic job. I believed her character completely and I loved how Hanna was developed. I really saw a strong resemblance to Katniss Everdeen in "The Hunger Games". For one, they both hunt with a bow and arrow. That just already connected them. Both characters are from very low standards of life. And both characters, by choice, leave the comforts of their home to go to this new world that they have no knowledge about, and the whole time it's a pleasure to watch them discover things about these worlds. Another thing both characters have going for them is how the actresses who played these roles were able to pull off a double-sided character. They were able to play both the charming teenage girl side and the bad-ass killer side. And when an actress is able to do that, she is incredible in my books. Just a funny little connection I saw.

Eric Bana is supposed to be the main star-power in this film, but he doesn't get enough screen time. At least, not for his character to develop. He has two action sequences, and in both of them I couldn't help but make some type of verbalization like "Ooh", or "Damn! That must have hurt". That's one thing I did enjoy about "Hanna" was the action sequences. When they do happen, it's awesome. My only gripe with them is they end too quickly. There's one action scene that I think filled out its whole potential, while the rest leave you wishing for something more.

Overall, I thought "Hanna" was a good film, but honestly it just wasn't for me. I'm not denying that "Ya, this is a good film", I mean it's directed well, the writing is good, the acting is good, but I just didn't like the final package it was all delivered in. It felt like the script needed another working before going into production. I can easily understand why someone would love this film, but it just wasn't what I wanted or was hoping for. I say check it out, but you're either going to love "Hanna", or be disappointed.