FFman-847-460126 Reviews

Marley (2012)

Flawed Documentary of a Great Man

[3/10 · 15 May 2012]

The purpose of a documentary is twofold. First, it must excite people who know nothing or very little on the subject. Second, it must give a little extra to people who are already dedicated to the subject. To the fans of Bob Marley, this documentary is likely a beauty. To everyone else, it is nothing more than a below-average biography filled with a lot of reggae music. Marley failed to intrigue the interest of people who do not already love the musician.

The strange thing about Marley, is that I find his life fascinating. For a musician to become to political and die so young is an incredible and tragic story. The problem with Marley is the manner in which the story is told. The movie starts from the very beginning and spends more than half an hour telling the story of a young Robert Marley. It really isn't that interesting of a story. As the movie carries on, they dedicate a good ten minutes to the father of Bob Marley. It is a mystery how they picked which parts of his life to focus on.

The worst part of the story is its telling. The story is told through the people who were close to Bob Marley. That is not the problem. The problem is that the two people who carry you through the story are so eccentric that it's difficult to understand or focus on what is being said. Several times they even interview fellow Rastafarians that simply can't be understood—even with subtitles. Why such scenes were included in the movie is beyond me.

If editing was one of the bigger problems of Marley, then it led to yet another problem. This movie is nearly two-and-a-half hours long. A documentary should never extend beyond two hours. This one certainly had no reason to. The documentation of his musical career goes into such detail that you are already at two hours by the time the movie starts to wrap up. Even then, the move takes another thirty minutes… then tries to keep you through the credits. All respect that I had for Marley was lost as the movie carried on and on.

The only people who should see Marley are Bob Marley and Reggae fans. If you are not a fan, the movie will come across as flat and incredibly boring. If you are a fan, you will get a lot of information on your favorite reggae musician. Marley is an unfortunate documentary. For a man who lived such a fascinating life, he deserved a much better telling of his story.

reillyreviews.wordpress.com

Dark Shadows (2012)

Terrible Script Destroys Great Idea

[3/10 · 14 May 2012]

When a movie is staffed with some of the best actors of the day, that usually indicates that they liked the script….right? Well, not exactly. Dark Shadows is a great introduction to the dark shadows of Hollywood. Sometimes it doesn't matter what script you think is good and what script you think is bad. Instead, it's about who you owe a favor or what studio you work for. How else could such a plain script attract the likes of Johnny Depp, Michelle Pfeiffer, Helena Carter, and Chloe Moretz?

I have never seen the original television show that sparked this movie. However, to my understanding, it was a dark drama. How did such a television show get turned into a comedy? What's worse is that is got turned into a comedy that didn't make me laugh in the slightest. The movie is filled with awkward lines and out of character moments. The writer—Seth Smith—shows just how much of a amateur he is in the world of film scripts.

The only enjoyable part of the movie was when the actors found a way to work outside of the script. Although Chloe Moretz character was horribly constructed, she still made some of her scenes work. Johnny Depp was able to pull of the strangeness that comes with losing two centuries. Above all others, Helena Carter actually pulled off a believable character. Just a fair warning to all screenwriters out there. If you only successful character is the drunk, you have a big problem.

Tim Burton is the master of "hit or miss." He had directed some incredible movies in Edward Scissorhands and Big Fish. However, he has plenty of terrible movies: Alice in Wonderland, Mars Attacks, Beetlejuice, etc. There is little room for in-between with Tim Burton. I don't consider this a bad thing. He goes all-in when he makes a movie. When it succeeds, you get fantastic results. The only problem is he creates a lot of bad movies in the process. Please, Tim Burton, stop taking mediocre scripts!

The only people who will see this movie are fans of vampire movies and fans of Johnny Depp. The thing is, this movie disgraces both. Johnny Depp had put out come fantastic movies. With such a great acting ability, there is no need for him to be in such a mediocre film. As for the ever-expanding genre of vampires…there are plenty of good alternatives. Go watch Daybreakers while you wait for the release of Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter.

reillyreviews.wordpress.com

The Avengers (2012)

Avengers ushers in new era for Mega-Blockbusters

[7/10 · 6 May 2012]

The Avengers has been years in the making. The budget, cast, director, and storyline show just how much effort has been put into this movie. The graphics are unbeatable. The director was able to bring life to the characters while making the film as fast-passed as it needed to be. To top it off, the cast bill consisted of Samuel L. Jackson, Robert Downey Jr., Mark Ruffalo, Scarlett Johansson, and many more. The storyline was unlike anything I have seen in a superhero movie before (although it did remind me of Chronicle at times).

The only problem with The Avengers is the script that Joss Whedon wrote. He may be a great director, but that does not mean he should also be a screenwriter. With such talented actors, far too many lines were simplified or dropped completely. At times, the dialogue just feels like filler until the action starts again. However, there is one upside to having Joss Whedon do the screenplay: he's quite funny. From a remark about Legalas to plenty of Hulk jokes, he knows how to make a theatre roll with laughter.

One of the fears that comes with making a beloved book/comic book into a movie is that it will be difficult to follow if you are not a fan. I, for one, have never picked up a comic book in my life. Aside from minor aspects (the scene after the credits, the science behind superpowers, etc.), there is almost nothing in The Avengers that will trip you up. There is even enough backstory in the first hour of the movie that you don't need to have seen the five "prequels."

With a $200 million opening weekend, The Avengers will likely go down as one of the highest grossing movies of all time—next to Star Wars IV, Star Wars I, Titanic, The Dark Knight, and Avatar. Although The Avengers fits in well with these movies, it is rather unique. The studio behind this movie—Universal—was able to manufacture this monster of a film by carefully crafting teaser movies over the past several years. It is quite unlike anything the movie industry has ever seen. The Avengers may not be the best movie out there, but it will be known as a game-changer in the movie industry. Expect movie "teaser movies" and "manufactured blockbusters" in the years ahead.

To be perfectly honest, the only people who shouldn't see this movie are those who don't like action movies. The Avengers is nowhere close to being one of the best movies of the year. However, it will go down in history. Not only as a movie that smashed box office records, but as the movie that changed the meaning of blockbuster. Like "Jaws" and "Towering Inferno" of the 1970s, this movie will change the course of Hollywood and how studios vie for the top spot at the box office.

reillyreviews.wordpress.com

The Pirates! Band of Misfits (2012)

Young Children Will Enjoy

[5/10 · 2 May 2012]

I'm still confused about why stop action films are being made. With the advancements of the past two decades in animation, stop action films are utterly outdated. Still, mostly due to foreign movie-goers, this movie will make a good profit. I guess that is all that matters. When it comes down to it, this type of films gives filmmakers another type of medium to present their work. For a movie that is quite difficult and time-consuming to make, I wish the script had been better. The Pirates wasn't bad. It was simply lackluster.

Children's films of the past two decades have stumbled across a key to being fantastic. With movies like Shrek and Wall-E, filmmakers have come to realize you need to make the movie enjoyable for adults and children. It is obvious that the makers of The Pirates tried to do this…and even more obvious that they had no idea how to do it. They added in dialogue about sexuality and alcohol with words that no child would understand. That is pretty much the only way that the filmmakers try to entertain the adult audience.

Luckily, this movie will be entertaining for most children. The pirates' genre has been dried up in recent years. Many parts of this storyline are not unique simple because they are working with the same genre as so many other films. On several other levels, The Pirates is quite unique. The whole premise of "Pirate of the Year" as well as the entire conclusion was enjoyable and unlike anything I have seen. Still, I am disappointed that more wasn't provided for the adult audience.

The Pirates contains the character of Charles Darwin. The more I think about it, the more I wonder if this was the movie's attempt at intriguing the older viewers. As the movie progresses, however, it becomes apparent that the character was added simply because they wanted to add a historical character. The movie presents him as a loner scientist who can't get a girlfriend. It doesn't work. In the end, all the effort of this movie was made for the younger viewers.

This movie is worth seeing for viewers who are 9-10 or younger. Any older and the preteen will think it is a lame kid's movie (which it is). However, if you have a kid in that range, I bet they will like it. The action is entertaining enough and the movie is short enough to hold their attention throughout. Unfortunately, the creator's lack of caring about the older audience means this will be a long 90 minutes for most parents. If you want to enjoy yourself while giving your kid a good time, go see Chimpanzee instead.

reillyreviews.wordpress.com

The Five-Year Engagement (2012)

Jason Segal is the King of Comedy

[7/10 · 1 May 2012]

Anyone who doesn't recognize the continued rise of Jason Segal is in denial. He is the screenwriter and star of several of the best comedies in recent years. Plus, he has one of the most successful television shows on the air—How I Met Your Mother. This man is the younger male version of Tina Fey. In his latest—The Five-Year Engagement—Segal is able to prove why he is one of the best in the business once again.

The Five-Year Engagement is a beautiful comedy that will make you laugh throughout. Almost every element of the movie is methodically planned out. Emily Blunt and Alison Brie were perfectly casted as sisters—both on looks and their ability to banter. If the Elmo-Cookie Monster scene doesn't go down as one of the funniest scenes of the year, I will be quite surprised. Just like this scene, most of the movie will catch you off guard. If you do not find yourself laughing, you do not understand real comedy.

The cast fills out the storyline quite well. I can't think of a single actor that was placed in the wrong role. Even Chris Pratt—who is seeing an incredible rise to fame and is surrounded by more experienced actors— holds his own in The Five-Year Engagement. This would all be for not if the storyline were worthless. Luckily, Jason Segal took care of that. The Five-Year Engagement is an entirely unique movie that is able to get extended laughs because of its pure ingenuity.

The only problem with The Five-Year Engagement ¬stems from its length. The end of the movie speeds up considerably compared to the core of the movie. Although this does work well in certain aspects (namely the very end), it ruins several scenes. After such an amazing first hour on screen, it was unfortunate to see several scenes dropped in like filler. Luckily, the ingenuity of the movie returned in the final few scenes.

The Five-Year Engagement is worth your time and money. It is easily the best comedy of the year, so far. This year has been filled with such awful comedy that The Five-Year Engagement is a very welcome change of pace. Jason Segal and Emily Blunt work surprisingly well together. I eagerly look forward to Jason Segal's next film. Who knows? We may even see Hillary Clinton making her film debut under the genius of Segal.

reillyreviews.wordpress.com

The Raven (I) (2012)

Poe would be Ashamed

[2/10 · 30 April 2012]

Poe would castrate all the men involved in the making of this movie. I may not know much about Edger Allen Poe, but I know that much. The start of the movie's problem is that John Cusack was casted to play a man who is eloquent and drunk throughout. Cusack cannot pull off either. Every time he manages to piece together another "eloquent" sentence, it's difficult not to laugh at the face Cusack makes. It's almost like he is confused at the meaning while simultaneously pleased that he was successful in delivering the line. It kind of reminds me of George W. Bush. The Raven is written by two people who have never written a big-screen flick and directed by someone who has never directed by himself before. The only way this movie ever got funded is because some studio realized that plenty of people would go see a movie about Poe. Unfortunately, the script was so horrible that only the actors who care about money would take it. I assume Cusack got the part because Nicolas Cage was busy. The Raven is built on one of the worst scripts I have ever heard. The story tries to build up a suspenseful mystery. It doesn't work. You will spend most your time trying to figure out all the plot holes. Eventually you will give up and try to enjoy the acting instead. That won't work. If it's not the bad acting, it is the words they are saying. I cringed no fewer than ten times at the absurd dialogue that the screenwriters try to shove down their actor's throats. Luke Evans plays Detective Fields in The Raven. At first, I was confused by his role. Was he simply drunk or depressed in his first scene. As the movie carries on, you will find that there is nothing wrong with his character. The problem is in his acting. He is supposed to be dark in a mysterious way. Instead, he comes across as a pouting 15-year-old girl who goes on a city-wide search for her lost lipstick. Luke Evans deserves a Razzie for this atrocious acting job. Please stop giving him roles. There is no reason to see this movie. If you like Edger Allen Poe, stay far away from this movie. It destroys everything that is Poe by trying to explain the mystery that surrounds his final days. If you don't like Poe and simply want to see a good mystery, go see The Woman in Black instead. This movie is a likely contender for "The Worst Movies of 2012."

Safe (I) (2012)

Jason Statham Needs a New Role

[3/10 · 28 April 2012]

First take an actor who has played the same role for nearly a decade. Next, develop a story about a police-mob conspiracy that has been done so many times I start to wonder why the characters are ever surprised. At last, add in a little girl to play a main role. Make sure the girl can't act. Give her random lines that make her English sound horrible despite her ability to speak perfectly through the rest of the movie. Pile on a few hundred dead bodies and you have Safe.

I respect Jason Statham as an actor. I've enjoyed too many movies with him to dismiss him outright. His problem is how he picks his movies. Movies like Death Race, the Expendables, and Crank 2 should never have been made. Statham has the ability to play dramatic roles. His problem is that he relies too heavily on his ability to play the action hero (or villain). If he recognized his own ability to do a dramatic role, he would not have picked up a script like Safe and thought it was a good idea.

The story of Safe is intriguing at first. The idea of a young girl who can memorize numbers so there is no paper trail is fascinating. But that's where its originality runs dry. If you are going to do a movie about New York City police and mobsters, you have to put a lot of thought into it. Some of the best movies in Hollywood have already perfected this kind of script. By using a hollow shell for a storyline and filling it with bodies, you accomplish nothing.

I must say something about the body count. Only one movie I have ever seen has successfully pulled off the "kill everyone from the footman to the boss." That movie was Taken. It achieved its brilliance through a small body count that felt realistic. By the end of Safe¬—as with too many Statham movies—you will start to wonder if he's killed every bad guy in Manhattan. It was overkill. Add in the fact that the camera gets all shaky during action scenes (which is always), and you have an extremely lackluster movie.

The only reason anyone would see this is if they are Jason Statham addicts (I know there are plenty of you out there). If you do not fall into that category, you will not enjoy this movie. The shaky camera and endless action is tiring. There are far too many good action movies out this year that should hold you over (The Grey and Chronicle). Don't waste your money on this garbage (man).

reillyreviews.wordpress.com

Think Like a Man (2012)

One of the Worst Movies of the year

[2/10 · 22 April 2012]

Talk about overkill. With more than two hours of screen time, this drama looks like it has the potential to buck the Hollywood trend of stuffing too much into a short film. The problem is, they follow the relationships of six friends—from both sides. Trying to show more than ten angles in two hours is simply impossible. Still, they try. In the end, this movie turns into a mess of dialogue that wouldn't have been good even if the storyline was worth it (and it most defiantly wasn't). When you base the entirety of a movie off of stereotypes, the movie should be a comedy. In a drama, stereotypical characters are far too flat for the audience to care about. In the beginning of Think Like A Man, each character is labeled according to how they would be in described in the book. There's "The Player," "Mama's Boy," and much much more. Since there are so many characters on screen, you never get any more depth to these characters. By the end of the movie, you will find yourself hoping that they all end up alone so that movie ends faster. I honestly want to see how long the script is for Think Like a Man. The characters never stop talking—and often talk fast and over each other in order to fit everything in. This might be okay if the screenwriter we decent. Unfortunately, they were nowhere near. I cringed multiple times and found myself in awe that anyone truly believed certain lines would ever actually be uttered by a sane human being. How any of these actors looked at the script and thought it was a good idea is beyond me. This movie is also sellout. Not only is it terrible, but the product placement goes overboard. The men meet in a bar constantly and are always drinking Dos Equis. When they are on the basketball court, they always wear Air Jordan's (They even talk about Air Jordan a couple times as well). They reference a couple Tyler Perry movies for no apparent reason. How do they expect us to care about a movie when it feels like a commercial? Don't see this movie. Please. I laughed once—kind of. The dialogue is bad. The acting is lackluster. Even the idea is terrible. Every few scenes they cut to the author of Act Like A Lady, Think Like A Man so that he can give advice to the women. Every time this happened, I found myself looking around the theatre—simply wondering if anyone else realized that this was a horrible idea. I hope they did. This goes down as one of the worst movies of the year.

Chimpanzee (2011)

Flawed but Enjoyable Documentary

[6/10 · 20 April 2012]

From the people that brought you the fantastic documentary—Earth—comes a documentary cut from an entirely different cloth. Unlike Earth, Chimpanzee is able to weave a storyline by following a specific clan of chimps, giving each one a name, and following a youngster as he learns the rough life of the forest. The personal touch is brilliant and allows for a heartfelt documentary. In the end, the only problems are in the way the movie is edited and narrated.

One of the best things about Chimpanzee is the way in which it elicits empathy from the viewer. The movie focuses on features of chimpanzees that remind of us ourselves—using tools to get food, breastfeeding, and youth playing games while adults try to sleep. By the time the documentary develops a plot, you will honestly care about the characters involved. You will laugh time and time again.

You will not cry. Despite the disturbing and depressing nature of the film, everything is glazed over. This points us directly at the core problem of Chimpanzee—the narration. First off, Tim Allen wasn't the right choice. He doesn't do the inflections correctly and often speaks far too excitedly. The other major problem with the narration is the script. When Tim Allen started speaking for the Chimps, I was amused. When it continued, it became rather annoying. The narration should have been used to support the documentary—not overshadow it.

Chimpanzee was marketed as a children's film. We received the children's preshow and nothing but adolescent trailers. That is what stopped the documentary from being great. By skipping over the scenes that are too hard to watch and not diving into the real reason an Alpha Male would take in a young chimp, the documentary shortchanges itself. Earth was great because it wasn't directed at an adolescent audience. That freed the team up to build the best movie. The same was not the case for Chimpanzee.

If you enjoy documentaries, you will enjoy Chimpanzee. Although the movie does not deliver critical thoughts, it is filled with incredible visuals and an intriguing storyline. If you are not a fan of documentaries, there is no reason to see Chimpanzee. I hope this movie does not show a trend for wide release documentaries. Documentaries are beautiful when they are not dumbed down for our children.

reillyreviews.wordpress.com

The Lucky One (2012)

Expected More From A Nicolas Sparks Adaptation

[6/10 · 20 April 2012]

When you walk into a Nicolas Sparks movie, you expect certain things. The Lucky One follows a storyline similar to most of Nicolas Sparks' other adapted novels. This is neither a good nor a bad thing. So long as the movie can stand on its own feet, it deserves recognition. On that ground, The Lucky One does hold its own. The acting is great and the story held my interest. In the end, specific problems make this movie much worse than it should have been.

The main fallback of the story is the characters. Stereotypes are abound. The mayor-to-be is the same as any story that tries to cover a trapped-in-a-small-town feel. The father is an incredibly flat character that is in no way believable. Even Zac Efron's character is too mysterious for his own good. Although Efron pulled off the role quite well, it was the way the character is presented that is the problem.

The other problem with the film is its climax. I won't give it away, but I have seen the same climax more than once. It was an unfortunate low point in a movie that was incredibly well acted. The rest of the storyline was quite unique and enjoyable. Even the modern setting of PTSD and soldiers who have served too many tours was a fascinating setting for the movie. Unfortunately, the amateur screenwriter dropped the ball.

I must point out an unfortunate fact of this movie. It's only 101 minutes. Since it is so short for a complex drama, it drops the ball on many occasions. In the beginning of the film, Zac Efron's character walks from Colorado to Missouri. This fact is almost addressed at one point, but then dropped and never brought back. Things like this happen throughout the film. These holes could have been filled with 15 to 20 minutes more screen time. Unfortunately, the push to keep films shorter made The Lucky One significantly worse.

If you are a Nicolas Sparks fan, this movie is worth seeing. If you enjoy romantic dramas, I would recommend renting The Notebook, A Walk to Remember, or Dear John. If you don't like romantic dramas, there is no reason for you to see this movie. Nicolas Sparks is one of the few authors who deliver consistently good plots. Unfortunately, his last two films have fallen flat. Maybe it's time for him to stop using the same formula again and again.

reillyreviews.wordpress.com

Lockout (2012)

Lackluster Screenplay Ruins Great Idea

[4/10 · 15 April 2012]

Why is it that a protagonist can always take punches like nothing is happening? Meanwhile, the antagonist is rendered unconscious by a single blow. Its miscues like this that happen again and again throughout Lockout. The fascinating future that runs through Lockout is brought to you by Luc Besson—the genius screenplay writer of Taken, The Fifth Element, and Leon: The Professional. Unfortunately, Besson was not the screenwriter. The writing/directing duo of James Mather and Stephen St. Leger, instead, take the blame for ruining this brilliant idea.

The amateur mistakes of Lockout are covered by some rather intriguing CGI and action sequences. It isn't enough. When a movie bases itself on reality, it is supposed to stay there. In the opening scene, we watch as our protagonist—portrayed by Guy Pearce—falls several stories off a building and isn't injured in the least. I could go on and on about the terrible action writing, but there is no need. It's enough to say that the writing gets in the way of the actors and story time and time again.

I was surprised by the actors in Lockout. Guy Pierce, Maggie Grace, and all the prisoners did a rather fine job with what they were given. I enjoyed Guy Pierces constant sarcasm and Maggie Grace's activist side. In the end, however, they were given a script that was extremely sub- par. It doesn't matter how good your actors are when there is no depth to the film.

I must take a moment to reflect on the future world that this movie constructs. For anyone who has looked through the website FutureTimline, you will see that most of the developments that the characters talk about are realistic. Most. However, on the most important front, the movie fails completely. In sixty years, we will not have orbiting jails or low-orbit police stations. The entire movie is based on these two concepts, and they just don't fit in the near- future premise.

The only way I can recommend this movie is if you are a big fan of Guy Pierce or Maggie Grace. Even then, I have a hard time. I love near- future movies. If you do to, just watch I, Robot or Minority Report again. Lockout does not do the genre justice. If Luc Besson were in charge of this entire project, I suspect it would have been great. Unfortunately, amateurs were left in charge. All the amateur mistakes piled up until it was too much. Lockout is yet another example of a script being approved before it reaches its full potential.

reillyreviews.wordpress.com

The Three Stooges (2012)

Why would you remake the Three Stooges?

[2/10 · 13 April 2012]

I can guarantee you that no one aside from the Farrelly brothers thought that remaking The Three Stooges was a good idea. With money behind them, the cast and crew only showed up for nothing but the paycheck. In the end, the Farrelly brothers decided to be creative and make the movie even worse than it should have been. How did they do that? They incorporated the cultural trash that is Jersey Shore. Quite unexpectedly, Jersey Shore became a key element of the movie—making it far worse than expected.

The Three Stooges—the original—were good because they were pioneers of a new form of comedy. Many decades later, the comedy of banging someone over the head has run dry. You cannot bring back pioneers decades later and expect the same result. Sure, this movie might have been funny back in the right era. But that era is long gone. This kind of humor is dead.

With the humor a dud, the movie had to rely on plot and acting. It didn't even try. The acting is so terrible that it looks like the Farrelly brothers never allowed for there to be a second take on any scene. Then again, they might have. The script was so horribly written and filled with cliché plot points that it would be difficult for any actor to take it seriously—no matter how many takes.

The Three Stooges is part of the studio practice of pumping the minimal dollar amount into a movie, targeting an audience, and pocketing the profit. There are enough people who still love the original Three Stooges to make a profit. Those involved in this movie likely knew that it was a sham and should never have been made. Real actors should never accept a script like this one. It has tainted my perception of a few actors—namely Jane Lynch.

There is no reason to see this movie. Just don't do it. By seeing it, you are encouraging the studios to push more and more garbage on us. If you are a fan of the original Three Stooges, go back and watch the original Three Stooges. In a few months, this move will be released on DVD. At that point, you should steal a copy (Do not buy—they do not deserve your money), gather a bunch of fans of the original Three Stooges, and burn the movie in effigy. That is the only way to return balance to the universe.

reillyreviews.wordpress.com

American Reunion (2012)

A Worthwhile Sequel

[6/10 · 6 April 2012]

I went into American Reunion knowing that the series has been taken over by the Harold and Kumar duo—Jon Hurwitz and Hayden Schlossberg. Whether or not that would be a positive aspect was still up in the air. As the movie started, it appeared to be a bad thing. The first 20-30 minutes of this movie are extremely slow and contain some very bad writing. I even cringed twice at some of the actors forced out horrible lines.

It seems that the writers simply weren't sure how to start the movie. From the half hour mark on, American Reunion is everything is promises to be. The age gap between the characters now and the characters in high school is a constant highlight and source of humor. As a child of the 1980's myself, this humor got me every time. Having the music of my youth referred to as "Classic Rock" really is as crushing as it is hilarious.

Each character brings a fascinating storyline to the table. From sex deprivation to sports newscaster to businessman to world traveler to housewife, the American Pie group has taken on an entirely new—and adult —edge. By bringing back all (and yes—I mean ALL) of the original characters, the movie gives the viewer a chance to reminisce while simultaneously enjoying a new and all too entertaining storyline.

I must confess that the connections outside of the movie do have a strangely enjoyable effect on American Reunion. For one, Alyson Hannigan has become rather famous though How I Met Your Mother. When Neil Patrick Harris makes a guest appearance, I can't help but think, "Suit Up." On the other end of the spectrum, John Cho comes back to the cast after hitting it big with Harold and Kumar. Seeing him yelling "MILF" gave me an instant craving for White Castle.

For those of you who enjoyed the original American Pie, American Reunion is worth you money. If you were not a fan of the original, then you certainly will not enjoy American Reunion. Even though the franchise is under new management, it still has the feel of the old movies. If you have not seen American Pie yet, it is not necessary (but I highly recommend it). Last of all, I must point out that it has become mainstream to leave every single movie open for a sequel. American Reunion is no different. Although this annoys me, I cannot hold it against them. American Reunion is worth seeing.

reillyreviews.wordpress.com

Wrath of the Titans (2012)

Great Visuals, Bad Script

[5/10 · 31 March 2012]

Epic movies have been around for several years now. Simply throwing action and graphics at a movie can no longer make it great. Epics have been pulled down to the level of an average movie. We must care about the characters. The dialogue must be worthwhile. The storyline cannot be linear and bland. Wrath of the Titans, although enjoyable, did not get the memo.

Wrath of the Titans follows a linear storyline. Any person who has any knowledge of Greek mythology with grow bored of the overused story of the labyrinth, Kronos, and how being part human makes you stronger than a God. The storyline has absolutely no originality. It's almost like the screenwriter read Percy Jackson and the Olympians and decided to turn the series into a more adult movie.

Luckily, there are several aspects that save Wrath of the Titans from being horrible. For one, the dialog worked. Mix that with the fantastic graphics and you have a movie that you can sit back and enjoy— so long as you don't think too much. At the heart, the original Greek mythology about Gods overthrowing Titians is quite intriguing. It's just been done far too often

I must note that this movie should have been longer. The opening was far too short. You barely see the town in which Perseus and his son live before it gets ripped apart. With no buildup, it is impossible to care for the characters. This makes the movie little more than Greek Myth brought to life with no depth. It is truly unfortunate. A movie like this has so much potential. It was all wasted with a horrible screenwriter.

If you like Greek Mythology or enjoyed Clash of the Titans, this is a movie you might want to see. If that is not the case, it's not something you will want to see in theatres (or at all). There have been much better action/adventure movies so far this year—The Grey and Chronicle are two. Wrath of the Titians is a movie with potential. Unfortunately, the makers of the movie forgot to turn that potential into gold.

reillyreviews.wordpress.com

Mirror Mirror (I) (2012)

Better than I expected...

[5/10 · 31 March 2012]

When I went to see Mirror, Mirror, my main line of thought wasn't on the movie itself. Instead, I was wondering why two Snow White movies were being released within months of each other. This version—Mirror, Mirror —took on the life of a Disney princess movie. Its competitor—Snow White and the Huntsman—looks like it will take on the action/adventure audience. Luckily, this line of thought disappeared as Mirror, Mirror began with an intriguing animated opening scene that reminded me of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part Two.

The storyline of Mirror, Mirror is actually quite fascinating. This, however, is thanks to a couple of writers a few hundred years ago—The Brothers Grimm. The actual screenwriters for Mirror, Mirror have no talent. The movie endures awkward scene changes, dozens of lines that miss their mark, and a generally unimpressive use of such talented actors.

It is important to note that one of the most surprising aspects of Mirror, Mirror is its visuals. From the opening scene to the mirror world to the puppets to Julia Robert's room, this movie is beautifully pieced together by Director Tarsem Singh. The movie is almost enjoyable with the great storyline and visuals. If only they hadn't brought on an unknown and an action writer to adapt the screenplay.

Lily Collins deserves a bit of praise for Mirror, Mirror. This young actress was picked to play Snow White because she has the voice and face of a Disney princess. While the movie was being advertised, however, Lily Collins was barely showed. Considering she is a main character, I suspected that this was an indication that she was quite awful. That is not the case. Whoever constructed the trailer must have thought Mirror, Mirror would be carried on the shoulders of Julia Roberts. Only the box office will tell.

Mirror, Mirror is enjoyable. It is easily the best children's movie of the year—so far. At times, I did wonder if it would be too scary or intense for a young audience. If you plan on taking a kid to this movie, look up a review that dives into age-appropriateness (Look for the puppet scene). If you are not young, or going with someone young, this movie is probably not for you. Although it can be enjoyable, it is still a kid's movie at heart. If you are itching to see a Snow White movie, it's probably better to wait until June First. That's when the better version—Snow White and the Huntsman—is released.

reillyreviews.wordpress.com

Casa de mi Padre (2012)

Will Ferrell Ruins Another

[1/10 · 25 March 2012]

Will Ferrell has always found the most unique ways to take a film and make it terrible. Casa de mi Padre is different. Will Ferrell doesn't even try in this movie. It's almost as if he is begging for his loving crowd to come to the realization that he cannot act is isn't actually funny. Why else would he learn Spanish simply to make a film even worse? Unfortunately his fan base is still addictive to him—several people in my theatre found some of the most pathetic jokes hilarious.

Casa de mi Padre is technically written by Andrew Steele. I say technically because all Steele had to do was present the skeletal structure of a storyline. The rest would be filled with improv. For example, in the opening scene, one of Will Ferrell's friends says something that isn't funny—and they proceed to laugh for two whole minutes. I hate to call this improv because it insults the people who actually know how to do improv correctly.

As a result, the storyline is irrelevant and annoying. I can only assume that the point of the movie was to laugh at how absurd it was. Instead, it just comes across as insulting. There is a segment in the middle of the movie which promises action but instead cuts to a letter written by one of the cameramen who explains why the action scene cannot be shown. This is supposed to be funny. It is not. It is simply a time filler attempting to cover up the fact that the movie is utter crap.

Several of the scenes take place outdoors. Almost all of them are set against a painted backdrop that is placed only feet behind the actual shot. It is supposed to be absurdly funny, I know. It isn't. When a studio cuts corners to put out a crap film starring a beloved actor, we all know what is happening. Everybody is making bank because the movie is guaranteed to make a good profit. I give you exhibit A on why marijuana should remain illegal (NOTE: Ruining Will Ferrell's career is the only reasonable reason I can think of to not legalize pot).

You know full well that seeing this movie is handing over money that would be better spent getting a vasectomy. The only reason anyone would see this movie is because they are a Will Ferrell fan—in which case you will be exiled from the human race her shortly. Only April 20th, when all of you are stoned off your ass and watching Elf, the Navy Seals will find you and bring you to the North Pole. Once you sober up and realize Elf is fiction, we will all enjoy the Hunger Games-like reality show as you slowly freeze to death in the Artic.

reillyreviews.wordpress.com

The Hunger Games (2012)

Good--But Could Have Been Much Better

[6/10 · 23 March 2012]

Out of the loins of Suzanne Collins comes a movie that bit off more than it could chew. Despite the movie's multiple setbacks, however, the world that Collins created is utterly frightening and eerily familiar. As the hype for this movie increased in recent weeks, the headlines informed non-fans of the basic storyline: kids killing kids. The movie itself—although not shying away from death—allowed it to encompass so much more.

The core of this movie stands on the shoulders of Jennifer Lawrence. I've thought hard and cannot honestly think of a better Katniss Everdeen. Her complicated character has to pull off a "Is this really happening" look for nearly 40 minutes of screen time. She does it beautifully. Behind her—everyone from Donald Sutherland to the girl who plays Primrose—is a cast that holds its own weight (I'm still unsure about Gale—but that will be decided in Catching Fire).

The main problems with this film derive from the Director—Gary Ross. Although this director is talented, he has never taken on a project of this size. That much is obvious. From the very start you will see the amateur mistakes—from very poor editing to unfocused shots. The camera moved so much during the action scenes when a simple wide angle would have had more impact on the audience. Hopefully he'll have a handle on it by the second or third film.

As a fan, I feel a must attest to how the movie plays out compared to the book. I was quite surprised how well the movie followed the book. There were things that had to be cut out—the Mockingjay pin coming from the mayor's daughter or eyes of the creatures at the end. Other than that, few changes were made. One problem the audience (and I) was clearly unhappy about was the symbol of the revolution being used in the first half hour of the first movie.

If you are a fan of the books, you should have seen it at midnight. If you haven't seen it, go see it now. If you are not a fan of the series, I have only one thing to say to you: go read the books. This movie is good, but the books will blow you away. If you are not much of a reader, this movie is still worth your time. It holds its own and will (mostly) make sense. As a fan of the series, I expected more…but was not disappointed.

reillyreviews.wordpress.com

21 Jump Street (2012)

Fantastic Script Helps Remake Work

[6/10 · 19 March 2012]

What is the best way to rejuvenate a rehashed television series from the 1980s? Bring in some writers that have the craft and skill to make fun of their project. This movie is sprinkled with Easter Eggs for the keen observer. From the original show in the background of a gunfight to the Captain complaining about how people don't notice when you give them pretty much the same thing but call it something different.

By being able to make fun of itself, this movie gets off on the right foot. With Channing Tatum and Jonah Hill in the lead, this movie is very entertaining. The development of the storyline shows that the writer has skill—and that the actors do well with what they've been given. Channing Tatum has always felt a little lacking in the acting skills. Although that is still slightly a problem, it is covered up with a good script. Jonah Hill—ever since Moneyball—will never have to prove his value as an actor again.

The shortfalls of this movie are all grouped together in the final half hour. Although I respect Michael Becall as screenwriter, it appears his has neither the skills nor the wherewithal to say no to producers or the studio. Everything good that filled this movie was erased by the typical Hollywood ending. For the love of god—they even alluded to a sequel. Why does the Hollywood ideal of a "happy ending" have to destroy so many movies?

I have to mention the epic cameo by Johnny Depp. Although it is unlikely to beat out the Bill Murray Cameo from Zombieland, it is one of the best that I have seen. Placing Johnny Depp back into a role he hasn't played in two decades is the perfect way to please the fans while adding a strange new element to the movie. 21 Jump Street may be worth the money just for this cameo.

21 Jump Street is absolutely worth the money. You will genuinely enjoy the opening hour and half of this movie. Although it is thoroughly destroyed in the final half hour, it is not enough to take away from the skilled writing and acting that takes place. Your best bet is to go see this movie, then send a letter to Michael Becall to tell him to stand up for his scripts.

reillyreviews.wordpress.com

Tim and Eric's Billion Dollar Movie (2012)

Even Fans Will Hate This One

[1/10 · 19 March 2012]

How a movie like this is made—much less distributed—is beyond me. There are many scales by which we judge movies. Four Stars. Five Star. Out of Ten. Out of 100. Out of all of them, I have found very few movies deserving of the lowest rating. So far this year, I have only given one other movie the lowest rating—Journey 2. When it comes to this movie, however, I feel as though no scale will go low enough. It is one thing to try to make a movie and fail on every level—like with Journey 2. It's another thing altogether to not even try while simultaneously insulting the audience.

Tim and Eric tries to draw humor by making fun of itself. As a result, every single joke is so awful that only someone entirely too stoned would find it funny. In the end, however, I do believe that is the point. By not seeing this movie while intoxicated in some form was wrong of me. The movie was made for that very purpose. Unfortunately, that is not an excuse. No element of this movie will pass as even halfway decent. I am disgusted with the producers and the studio that allowed this to happen.

The worst part of this movie is that the writer/director/star duo—Tim and Eric—held no creativity. The movie was 90 minutes. Of that time, I would say at least a third of it was filler—either a scene that wouldn't end or a cutscene that didn't even relate to the movie. It' one thing to make a movie that barely passes for anything but garbage. To not even try to flesh it out is simply pathetic.

I can't spend any more time reviewing a movie that didn't even try to work. If you see this movie, it is your own loss. Without a doubt, this will be on my "Worst of 2012" list. Whether another movie can beat it out is yet to be seen. It'll be hard to beat.

reillyreviews.wordpress.com

A Thousand Words (I) (2012)

Time for Eddie Murphy to Retire

[2/10 · 11 March 2012]

Let me start by telling you what I liked about A Thousand Words. It won't take long. There is a touching thirty seconds at the end of the movie. I laughed a couple times in the middle of the movie. For the adolescent boys out there, there is a scene where Eddie Murphy's sexy wife is dressed in a dominatrix outfit. That's about it. Aside from destroying the wife's acting career in place for a modeling career, this movie achieved nothing.

The writing was awful. This is the most surprising part of this movie. With the writer of Seinfeld and Saturday Night Live, I expected so much more. When you completely freeze the storyline to go on a rant about the joys of living the furry lifestyle, however, you know you have lost your touch. I know some of the actors in this movie are good. With the word garbage they had to spew, it didn't matter. No actor could have turned this movie into gold….or silver…or bronze.

As for the storyline…no. It's bad enough when you base a movie on a gimmick. But to not do anything interesting with that gimmick is pathetic. The movie is so linear that I was preparing for a nap in the middle of it. The only time that it breaks away from the unrelentingly obvious storyline is the end—where the entirety of the movie falls off a steep cliff to die a most horrible death. I want to go find its corpse so I can throw a gallon of acid on ii so no one ever has to lay eyes on it again.

As for Eddie Murphy. I believe I speak for everyone when I call for his retirement from acting. Just admit it: you can't act. Your early movies propelled you to fame because you were surrounded by great actors. On your own, you are nothing. Take up producing or something else in Hollywood, please. For the good of movies, you must leave. I would love it if you left Hollywood altogether. But please stay in California. The other 49 states don't want you.

It goes without saying that you should not go to this movie. You will either be paying for a very expensive nap or—like me—just enjoy the pain of watching the medium of film being defiled. Eddie Murphy is raping the movie industry. He must be prosecuted and exiled. If our Hollywood elders cannot do this, the people will rise up against him. We will chant as one, "No! We will not eat cake!" Then we shall chase him out of France.

reillyreviews.wordpress.com

John Carter (2012)

Pretty Window Dressing

[5/10 · 11 March 2012]

John Carter is, at its core, a copy and paste remake of several movies. Take a large glob of Avatar. Add in a dressing of Batman Begins. Finally, season it with Diego. Although this movie was enjoyable, it faked its imagination—the one thing it going for it with the director and screenwriter of WALL-E on the case. Add in some lackluster dialogue, and John Carter is pretty much a window dressing. Pretty on the outside. Nothing on the inside.

The window dressing, I must admit, is quite fancy. The animation that created the aliens and the cities on Mars is extremely well done. Putting in strange animations—like the dog—only add to the glamor. It even helps move the storyline forward at times. Just like with Avatar, the scenes between aliens and humans provides for plenty of intrigue.

At the heart of John Carter, however, is a major problem. The main idea is that a human on Mars will have super-human power because of the gravitational change and skeletal structure. Although the idea has merit, it is horribly executed. An earthling may be able to jump a few more feet and throw further. As the movie progresses, however, the awkwardness that John Carter initially experiences is all but forgotten— replaced by an absurd exaggeration of his abilities.

The decision to place this movie in the second half of the 1800s is questionable. I know they had to do it to avoid the whole idea of space exploration and human's realization that there actually isn't life on Mars. When the movie began, this aspect was intriguing. How would they explain that Mars doesn't have life when we send our probes only 100 years later? Well, my question was never answered. On this front, John Carter decided to take a rain check.

John Carter is enjoyable. If you have a kid who wants to go, they will enjoy it. Just don't expect much behind the curtains. You will get a storyline that you have seen before. You will have actors that cannot handle the job they have been given. You will have an idea that could have been great, but fell horribly short. We are still waiting for the first decent children's flick of 2012.

reillyreviews.wordpress.com

Project X (2012)

A New High in Found Footage

[9/10 · 2 March 2012]

"Found footage" movies are entering an incredible era. Chronicle was incredible. Project X reaches heights that no other "found footage" movie has ever reached. The movie is simply pieced together from the beginnings of "just a few friends hanging out" to the most epic party of all time. The slow transition is seamless. By doing this movie is first person, it feels like you are at the party yourself. And you will not want it to end.

While the party itself is the main storyline, Project X is riddled with side story lines. The gnome. The girlfriend. The jackass from school. The neighbor. The midget. Each mini storyline gracefully moves in and out of the party. Nothing feels out of place. You will find yourself laughing hysterically at times. I spent most of the movie wide-eyed trying not to audibly ask, "Are you serious?" Each element of this movie works until you honestly believe you just attended the best party ever thrown.

The drawbacks are completely minor. The movie should have ended about 30 seconds earlier—when the main character indicated "cut." I keep trying to think of other problems with the movie, but I can't honestly find them. Had the movie finished 30 seconds earlier, I would probably have given it full marks. The romance is subtle and pleasant. The party moves along without a hitch. It even cultivates on a beautiful moment between father and son at the end. There isn't much more I could have asked for.

I saw Project X opening night (Friday). I have to note the atmosphere. The audience was pretty much the age of the people attending the party (17-25). They laughed with every twist. At the end, several people jumped up and declared it the best movie they have ever seen. The audience was directed, with police, toward the nearest exit. Part of me believes they feared the movie might actually start a riot. Considering the talk as we left the theatre, I wouldn't be surprised. Everyone was asking where the party was tonight.

Alongside Liam Neeson's The Grey, this movie is the best movie of the year—thus far. With a slew of nobody's in front of and behind the camera, this was an incredible feat. With special effects now status quo in Hollywood, "found footage" movies has become an outlet to create cult classics with absurdly tantalizing stories to tell. Project X is sure to become the cult classic that will hover in the background of every epic party for years to come.

reillyreviews.wordpress.com

The Lorax (2012)

Devito Can't Save This One

[4/10 · 2 March 2012]

For a children's film to work, it usually has to cater to both the children and the adult that brings the children to the film. Movies such as Shrek and Wall-E have perfected the tightrope dance that this requires. The Lorax throws that idea right out the window—and suffers considerably in the process. Instead of finding a way to please both audiences within a single storyline, the creators of The Lorax created two parallel stories—one for the adults; another for the children.

The children's storyline is very much like the Three Stooges. With the wildlife and terrain that Dr. Seuss provided, the slapstick is obviously enjoyable to the children. But it just keeps going. The same slapstick antics are used time and time again. The lack of creativity is a stain on the honor of Dr. Seuss. With everything that he poured into this world, it shouldn't be too difficult to pour some extra effort into the movie. Right?

The adult side of the film is worse. Although the "save the planet" storyline is interesting at first, it quickly loses its appeal. By the time the movie is concluding, you will feel like the creators are slapping you. If I wanted to be preached to about how I was destroying the planet, I would tune into Infowars. In the meantime, the storyline progresses haphazardly. The end is absolutely absurd. I found myself hoping for a quick end. On the plus side, my wish was granted.

There are a few plus sides to the movie. Danny Devito does a good job in his role of the Lorax. Why Taylor Swift was picked, however, is beyond me. Even her voice shows how lacking her acting ability is. The one part of the movie that still has me confused is the singing. The Lorax starts off with a song. I thought I simply hadn't realized it was a musical. But then there's no more singing…until halfway through. This movie can't decide if it should be a musical or just a movie. I must say that the songs are catchy. On the other hand, the song about greed will terrify children.

The Lorax is not a children's film worth seeing. If you want to see a great children's film with subtle political undertones, watch Wall-E. That movie does everything that The Lorax fails at. 2012 has been an awful year for children's films. Journey 2 was even worse than The Lorax. I hope this trend changes soon. Luckily, there is still ten months left in the year to remedy that problem.

reillyreviews.wordpress.com

Wanderlust (2012)

Aniston Ruins a Good Idea

[5/10 · 28 February 2012]

When you walk into a movie by David Wain—the writer/director of Children's Hospital and Role Models—you need to prepare yourself. His humor is directed at a young audience. It also helps to be stoned. I am the right age for a movie like this, but I failed to realize I was supposed to be stoned. As a result, the drawn-out humor of this movie— although funny at first—usually went dry far too quickly.

Wanderlust is not what I expected it to be. The trailer is pretty much the first fifteen minutes of the movie. The actual plot of Wanderlust revolves around a commune that pulls in two city-folk—Jennifer Aniston and Paul Rudd. Paul Rudd has already proved himself to be a great actor is Wain's over-the-top movie with Role Models. Aniston has not. Her lacking acting ability has thrown many a movie into the crap pile. Unfortunately, Wanderlust is her next victim.

There are plenty of good aspects to Wanderlust. I found myself laughing several times. The problem was that the joke would continue on for several more minutes—long past its expiration. I can't help but recall a scene where Paul Rudd stands in front of a mirror talking to himself for almost five minutes. It just kept going…and going…and going.

Alan Alda was the redemptive role that brought this movie to life. As the original founder of the commune back in the 1960's, Alda plays the role of a senile man who lost a good majority of his sanity to acid. His role allows for the rest of the over-the-top script to plant its feet in reality. Where most of this movie is bland humor, Alda's character allows for a storyline to develop.

If you are stoned, this is the movie for you. If you aren't, but enjoy the humor of Adult Swim, this movie will be somewhat enjoyable (still not better than any episode of Futurama). If you aren't stoned and don't know what Adult Swim is, this is not the movie for you. 2012 has been an extremely lacking year for comedy. Hopefully we can see that change next week with Project X.

reillyreviews.wordpress.com

Good Deeds (2012)

Tyler Perry's Best

[7/10 · 27 February 2012]

There is something to be said for movies that are written and directed by the same person. They tend to deliver an honest message. I am not usually a fan of the writer/director also being the star. Those movies usually feel like an ego-trip. In a sense they are. Good Deeds, despite Tyler Perry being the writer, director, and star, will not leave a bad taste in your mouth. This movie is so honest and true to life that—storyline aside—you will respect it.

That in no way means the storyline is lacking. The storyline itself can stand on its own feet. By taking on a unique perspective that few people can identify with (the 1%), this movie starts off with the premise that you will not understand what the main characters are going through. By the time you get to the scene in the elevator, you will realize that—class aside—the characters are going through the exact same thing that the average Joe.

The Characters are probably the best part of the movie. Since the movie concluded, I've tried to find a single character in the lineup that remained flat throughout the film. In Tyler Perry's pursuit of making a movie that is true to life, he created an incredible band of characters that will grow before your very eyes. There is no stereotypical bad man or good man. In allowing his characters to develop in such a way, Tyler Perry created a drama that will make you cry and smile.

The failings of Good Deeds are few. The finale is great up until the very end—where is suspends the realism that drove it. On top of that, the acting ability of one of the main characters—Thandie Newton—was subpar. Considering she was a large part of the movie, this caused a few problems. Luckily her part was written well—which allowed for this oversight not to ruin the movie.

Good Deeds is one of the best dramas of the year (so far). It is rare to get a movie that is so brutally honest. Several of the scenes in the climax and end made me reminisce because I remember moments so similar. Tyler Perry pulled off something special here. I have never been a fan of his movies—but Good Deeds is going to make me reconsider (at least his dramas).

reillyreviews.wordpress.com