Movie Review | Heretical Jargon

Archive for the ‘Movie Review’ Category

Iron Man 3 Review

Posted: May 6, 2013 in Iron Man 3, Movie Review
Tags: Iron Man 3, Marvel Comics, Movie Review, Robert Downey Jr.

Release Date: May 2, 2013 (9 pm, 3D/2D theaters and IMAX)
Studio: Walt Disney Pictures, Marvel Studios
Director: Shane Black
Screenwriter: Drew Pearce, Shane Black
Starring: Robert Downey Jr., Gwyneth Paltrow, Don Cheadle, Guy Pearce, Rebecca Hall, Stephanie Szostak, James Badge Dale, Jon Favreau, Ben Kingsley, Wang Xuequi
Genre: Action, Adventure
MPAA Rating: PG-13 (for sequences of intense sci-fi action and violence throughout, and brief suggestive content)
Official Website: Marvel.com/IronMan3 | Facebook | Twitter

I wouldn’t call Iron Man 3 a complete throw-back to action-comedy, yet you’ll certainly find yourself chuckling during the most epic moments. And there lies the saving grace of this third Iron installment, and if it weren’t for the laughs and witty dialogue, Iron Man 3 wouldn’t be much to write home about. I still enjoyed it, but substantially this film falls very short of being anything but a typical summer action movie that thrives on giving asshole characters a seemingly “gentle” and “heartfelt” persona. It’s better than films 1 and 2, but 3 still plays out the same.

There’s a flash back. The story is set up. We come back to the present. Tony gets flirty with Pepper Potts. There’s more character development, and then a threat is made. Stuff blows up. Tony gets placed in a situation where he has to reexamine himself, and the light bulb switches on! Then (as predictable as it was) the twist happens. Tony gets shooken up a bit, composes himself, fights back, uses a few chiche “save-the-day” type of phrases, defeats evil, makes-out with pepper and all is well in America.

Iron-Man-3-4

I guess I’m not the best American when a lot of what I see within Iron Man 3 is an exploitation terror and its affects on American pride. I love a good story about the bad guys getting their just desserts as much as the next person, and I’m in no way supporting terrorism, but there’s a clear trend going on within America’s movies that are “makin’ bank” on the exploitation of September 11 and how it affected this country. It’s something that many director’s keep hidden in their tool kit as a way of making money.

But enough of my tangent. Iron Man 3 takes time to explore the man within the metal rather than show off the multiple suits Stark’s invented – until the end of course. To it’s credit, Iron Man 3 does have a better story than the previous 2 two films. Director Shane Black does a good job at bringing in his past movie making expertise – Lethal Weapon was a hilarious franchise – brilliantly combining action and humor as one cohesive unit. Even in the face of terrible danger, Black is able to weed in a good number of laughs that don’t detract from the moments of death defying acrobatics and technological overdosing.

One of the film’s multiple failings include the numerous plot lines intermingled throughout its duration, as well as creating an unclear motivation for the main villain. While Iron Man attempts solving the mystery of the Mandarin, we, the audience, try to figure out if these terroristic actions are protesting American ignorance, arrogance, or policy. Maybe it’s a combination of all three, but we also have to deal with a few other side plots involving War Machine, Pepper Potts, and his security Chief , all of which cause major distractions from the heart of the film. So much is going on that it’s difficult to know why certain things are important to the story, which is probably why the movie is a half hour too long.

The Mandarin’s motivation is never clear except that he was a pissed off young scientist who felt the world was against him. But how it all played out was so very familiar to the League of Shadow’s Ra’s Al Ghul – keeping behind the the scenes while someone else takes the blame for his evil doings. Amongst all of the ramblings and confessions, we never truly understand why he’s doing all of this, but at least Iron Man has something to hit right?

A few eye-rolling troupes occur – An all-to-cliche ending where multiple Iron Man suits swoop in to save the day? It was all cool to look at, and I’m sure Black had a ton of fun giving shout-outs to the multiple versions of the Iron Man suit which have made appearances in the comics, but it all seemed more like a cop-out ending rather than an epic conclusion. Almost as if Disney had some say in the film-making process. (oh, wait) Creating a band of super-powered evil humans is all well and good, but towards the end it got a bit heavy handed, especially when Pepper Potts brings in a final blow as one of the infected. To top it off, an adolescent sidekick who knows it ins and outs of robot making and scientific theory is a bit too much.

Robert Downey Jr. is great. It’s almost as if the role of Iron Man was tailored-made for him. Likewise Guy Pierce, Ben Kingsley, Gwyneth Paltrow, and Don Cheadle play their parts well as friend/foe. But the character of Iron Man has never sat well with me, even before movie number 1 nailed the box office. There’s something not very appealing about a hero who let’s the world know who he really is, struts around in a pompus way, who’s witty dialog only works for him because he’s rich and famous, therefore doesn’t HAVE to care about what people think of him. This third film gives Tony moments of fighting battles without his suit, which is a redeeming quality, but he’s still an asshole who’s moral compass is nowhere near that of Bruce Wayne’s.

I’m hating on this movie a lot, but to be honest it’s not all bad; there are some spectacular special effects, the music is well placed to help build up any tension that occurs, and as stated above, the story is much more substantial than it’s cinematic predecessors. While all of the twists and turns the movie takes are excruciatingly predictable, this story is much easier to stomach and enjoy. With all of the humor and well placed battle scenes, I was able to enjoy myself to a point of not being completely bored. Yet I do sympathize with Doctor Banner and feel his pain, there were moments I wanted to dose off. I wonder if we’ll see and Iron Man movie that tries to be unique and different rather than playing it safe and giving audiences that same ol’ stuff we typically see from summer action movies. Is it too much to ask that an action movie at least TRIES to be substantial and unpredictable? Oh well, explosions are fun.

5 out of 10 stars

Oz The Great And Powerful Movie Review

Posted: March 30, 2013 in Movie Review, Oz The Great And Powerful

Release Date: March 8, 2013 (3D/2D theaters and IMAX 3D)
Studio: Walt Disney Pictures
Director: Sam Raimi
Screenwriter: Mitchell Kapner, David Lindsay-Abaire
Starring: James Franco, Mila Kunis, Rachel Weisz, Michelle Williams, Zach Braff, Joey King, Bruce Campbell
Genre: Adventure, Fantasy
MPAA Rating: PG (for sequences of action and scary images, and brief mild language)
Official Website: Disney.com/TheWizard | Facebook

Waiting until the last minute to become something comprehensible, Oz seems to be lost in the debacle of it’s own creativity. Sam Raimi, the same director who brought us the spectacularly cheesy Spider-man franchise, is Disney’s latest directorial hire bringing the famous story back to life on the big screen. With the success of their reinterpretation of Alice in Wonderland, Disney hopes to reinvent L. Frank Baum’s Oz novel series with a familiarly unfamiliar tale, focusing on the enigma of the Oz storyline, – Oz himself. Except in this story, he’s known as Oscar Diggs.

In this late review, almost three weeks after the film’s release, The point where asking you to listen to my opinions in order to persuade you to see the film has past. Everyone’s already read the reviews and heard the opinions of the peers, and now you either seen the movie or decided against it. Where we are now, with the film being out not quite a month, is a time of discussion and comparison – and that, in many cases, is even more enjoyable than seeing the movie itself.

It’s not an unfamiliar tale. Oscar Diggs is a show boat out looking to be a great man, maybe even one of the greatest in history. It’s a very typical way to start a tale of fantasy. After declaring he hasn’t accomplished anything in his life, the protagonist is thrown into the portal disguised as a twister. He and his hot air balloon land and is quickly introduced to a world filled with color, talking animals, witches, munchkins, and all other sort of strange people and creatures. Thrown into the plot is a prophecy, one that’s well known to us all. A chosen one to bring order back to the kingdom that’s ruled by a wicked witch. We’ve all seen the classic Wizard of Oz movie, so we partially have an idea of where this prequel leads. However, Oz is much broader than the original film would have us to believe.

The challenge for Raimi is not in this ambitious cinematic adventure, but rather lies with the legal ramifications that remain with Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. Yes, the ruby slippers which were a defining feature of the 1939 film are not allowed outside the MGM walls. Rumor even has it that the legal rights to certain parts of 1939′s Wizard of Oz are more limiting than a simple pair of slippers. Would you believe that the shade of Green used for the Wicked Witch of the West’s skin is under copyright? I wouldn’t be surprised. The fact is Raimi was forced to do things he may or may not have wanted to do in pursuing this film.

Challenges set aside, Oz is an amazing movie to look at. With the help of CGI technology, Raimi was able to present Oz in the strange way it was meant to be presented, with a creative story to back it all up. However, as creative as the story is, it’s a little unfocused and rushed. Raimi is, of course, known for his horror films (Army of Darkness) and his action films (the already mention Spider-Man). Oz the Great and Powerful contains many of the same tonal aspects that marked the director’s career, and that may or may not have been the best choice.

The story is paced so quickly that, almost at the beginning, you wonder if your brain is having trouble keeping up. The plot progressing moments seem forced fitting awkwardly into the story, the strangest being the green apple and the origin of the witch we all know too well. It’s hard to accept, especially when you believe Evanora to be the Wicked Witch, which she is. She wears green clothing and her spells bare a chartreuse tint, giving the illusion that she is, in fact, the green-skinned sorceress. But then you hear the name Theodora being worn by another character, making you wonder what’s going on, who’s who, and why they felt the need to shout out to Snow White? And the love story between Theodora and Oscar – or the one-sided love story where Theodora blindly believes in a prophecy without thinking – is almost as convincing as the one between Edward and Bella.

The film isn’t sure of itself and continually advances in ways that it never should have. However, there’s a stellar cast of characters that fits right into Raimi’s corny film making style. James Franco as Oscar Diggs is quite convincing, playing up the irritating and hungry-for-fame persona of a man going nowhere. The witch trifecta of Mila Kunis, Rachel Weisz and Michelle Williams was superb, and Bill Cobbs and Joey King’s voice acting talents were perfect. It doesn’t help that the script wasn’t very well thought out, making it seem like the players were giving us poor performances. No doubt however, the list of characters in this Oz story are just as compelling and fun as the Lion, Tin-Man, and Scarecrow were.

As we get to the end, the film becomes stronger and more likable. Things start to make sense despite the the chaos prior to, and we begin to see a clear definition of the characters roles in the story and how they connect to everything that’s much more familiar to us. With the knowledge of Disney’s plan to make multiple OZ films, as well as Raimi’s plan to create a story that resembles the classic series of novels on a very minimal scale, the creativity of this initial film could make way for an interesting franchise for an entirely new generation of film viewers to enjoy.

Overall it’s a fun movie. One I would highly recommend to anyone who likes adaptations and retellings where a director takes a risk in doing something different with a classic story. However, don’t expect this to hold true to the source material or the 1939 film that’s said to be one of the country’s most watched movies. It is, without a doubt, an entity in and of itself. It’s good, it’s fun, and that’s it really.

7 out of 10 stars

Warm Bodies Movie Review

Posted: March 7, 2013 in Movie Review, Warm Bodies
Tags: Movie Review, Warm Bodies

Release Date: February 1, 2013
Studio: Summit Entertainment
Director: Jonathan Levine
Screenwriter: Jonathan Levine
Starring: Nicholas Hoult, Teresa Palmer, Rob Corddry, John Malkovich, Analeigh Tipton, Dave Franco, Cory Hardrict
Genre: Comedy
MPAA Rating: PG-13 (for zombie violence and some language)
Official Website: WarmBodiesmovie.com | Facebook | Twitter

The zombie mythos is a hard tale to tell when starting from scratch. The Walking Dead put the focus on the angsty personalities of the human characters, which is why it’s been as successful as it has. However, a typical zombie story involves the same kind of troupes and cheesy nature. The zombie story we’ve yet to see is the one from the perspective of the zombie itself. Warm Bodies takes the risk in telling that story.

R is the name of the zombie who tells his story – pondering on what he feels is a meaningless existence while not really caring about it at the same time. Much like Wall-E did in his post-apocalyptic tale, R collects trinkets that were once owned by people prior to the obvious apocalypse in hopes of calling upon his human characteristics. Apparently zombie’s brain capacity extends further than simply pointing them in the direction of food. Their memories are gone, but the eating of brains infuses a splash of memories and emotions of the brain’s former owner into a zombie, in turn giving the one who eats it a momentary feeling of emotion, whether good or bad.

The difference between R and the rest of the zombie pack is how powerful his urge to feel is, and to what extents he’ll go to become like the people he eats. Enter the female love interest, Julie, who starts off hating R, to simply fearing him, to being curious and feeling compelled to helping him, to eventually falling in love. Intertwined within all of this is a predictable love story progression which combines the horrific tellings of a zombie take-over and a love-at-first-sight type of tale. It’s twisted, weird, and a clever take on two very opposite genres.

For those who get easily fed up with fads, you may think to yourself “ugh, ANOTHER zombie movie?” Which is a fair complaint. Superheroes, vampires, and zombies seem to have flood the theaters and TV screens within the last decade. And to be honest, you won’t find anything new beyond the film’s creative concept. It’s a very predictable story and doesn’t take any brain power to process the happenings and plot progressing material. In fact, the most memorable moments of the film can be found in its trailer – M running the baggage wagon over the skeletal zombies, the transitional periods of R regaining his color and becoming more human, John Malkovich giving us his typical bad-assery, and those moments geared into making us smile that also typically spoil any “surprises” the movie might contain.

For someone who enjoys the zombie genre A LOT, I was very intrigued by the idea behind Warm Bodies but didn’t walk into it with high expectations. What I did behold was a two hour long film that contained an equal amount of fun and boring moments. Being a zombie flick, you’d expect a certain amount of gore and eating of flesh, but the suspense in Warm Bodies is virtually non existent, relying heavily on the “Twilight-Factor” - teenage angst with deep roots in making the boys gothically pretty, and the infatuated with the undead. However, to quote the annoying Meme trolling Facebook, Warm Bodies is still a better love story than Twilight.

The relationships are believable, with exception to Julia and her father who’s distant demeanor dissipates into a loving relationship without a smooth transition from the latter to the former. Nicholas Hoult and Teresa Palmer play their parts very well despite R feeling a little TOO human at times before the full transformation. John Malkovich is always fun to watch, especially when he has a gun in his hand, but at times I wondered if his role in the story was placed on the back burner and then addressed only a few days before the film went to print. (Is that the correct terminology?)

The ending is a bit of a let-down. It’s all very convenient and too good to be true, which falls into the typical love story category. Don’t be mistaken by any reviewers who claim this to be a Romeo and Juliet type of story. No doubt, it’s far from it. It’s extremely touchy feely and designed to pull at the heart strings of teenage girls who love the idea of falling head over heals for a male trying desperately to get in touch with his emotions. It’s always the male demons and beasts that seem to care the most about their humanity rather than the humans themselves. The message being sent across in dark love stories such as this are that girls have a deeper connection to their emotions while men are emotionally lost, and it’s the women’s job to show males how to express themselves through their emotions and not be afraid to embrace it; Beauty and the Beast, Twilight, The Incredible Hulk, etc etc, it’s all a message of women taming the beast within, and Warm Bodies is a perfect representation of that sentiment. And it’s annoying!

I did enjoy the movie, don’t get me wrong, but this is a zombie film designed for teenagers more than for the pure, unadulterated zombie fan. This is what Twilight has started – the allowance of dark literature to become something teen-boppy rather than substantial. Conceptually, Warm-Bodies it’s fascinating, but in execution it’s really no different than anything else the teen-scene is pumping out into theaters. Enjoy it for what it’s worth, but don’t expect much more than that.

6 out of 10 stars

Jack the Giant Slayer Movie Review

Posted: March 3, 2013 in Jack The Giant Slayer, Movie Review
Tags: Jack the Giant Slayer, Movie Review

Release Date: March 1, 2013 (3D/2D theaters and IMAX 3D)
Studio: New Line Cinema (Warner Bros.)
Director: Bryan Singer
Screenwriter: Darren Lemke, Christopher McQuarrie, Dan Studney
Starring: Nicholas Hoult, Eleanor Tomlinson, Stanley Tucci, Ian McShane, Bill Nighy, Ewan McGregor
Genre: Action, Adventure
MPAA Rating: PG-13 (for intense scenes of fantasy action violence, some frightening images and brief language)
Official Website: JacktheGiantSlayer.com | Facebook

Once upon a time there was a boy named Jack. Jack lived with his mother and they were very poor. One morning, Jack’s mother told him to take their cow to the town and sell her. On the way, Jack met a man who gave him a batch of extraordinary magic beans in payment for the cow. When Jack’s mother saw the beans, she was very angry and threw the beans out of the window! The next morning Jack was amazed to look outside and find a magic beanstalk reaching up past the clouds! Intrigued, Jack climbed the beanstalk. At the top of the beanstalk Jack saw a castle and went inside.

And then there was a chicken that laid golden eggs and a golden harp that put you to sleep and blah blah blah. What a boring and ridiculous story right? Let’s try something else shall we?

Once upon a time there was a group of monks that wished to reach the Heavens and see God. Enchanting a batch of beans that would grow a beanstalk that could reach such a height, gave a race of giants easy access to the land below the clouds and began reaking havoc on all who lived there. Using the heart and blood from the body of a giant, the same monks were able to craft a magic crown who’s wearer could control the giants, sending them back to their island in the sky, bringing peace back to the kingdom. The king was buried with his magic crown to ensure it’s safety were it wouldn’t fall into the wrong hands. But evil intentions always find a way. Thank goodness for unlikely heroes like Jack.

Bryan Singer’s return to the director’s chair since his 2008 film “Valkyrie,” is a welcome one. Singer’s directing stamp includes his influence on the superhero genre, proving that classic outlandish science-fiction stories can be taken seriously, giving them a boost of substantial material and story telling that is equal to or better than most fantasy movies out in theaters. His take on the Jack and the Beanstalk tale is a wonderful interpretation of a classic children’s story that leaves any of the recent “fairy tale” cinematic retellings in the dust.

We’ve seen a fair share of them haven’t we? Cinderella, Hansel and Gretel, Snow White (and she’s had three retellings) and a truck load more have tried to give the tales we heard as children a darker and more substantial edge to them. Using inspirations from Jack the Giant Killer, this film takes a little from both worlds – the children’s story, and the more modern overly consumed need to create overly angsty story lines that just don’t know when to end. The difference between Singer’s endeavors and the rest of the fairy tale movie pack is…Singer actually made a good fairy tale reinterpretation.

Some moments to remember include the healthy relationship (in movie terms) that develops noticeably well given the two hour time block the movie fights against, the visually masterful location shots of the floating island in the sky, the hilarity of the giant’s savage ways juxtaposed with their clever militaristic attitudes, an incredible cast of characters that know how to kick the enemy’s ass, a plethora of grotesque actions that involve snot, skin growths, verbiage, eating habits, and death, and Ewan McGregor sharing his blanket with two pigs. Just wait until you see how this story’s villain kicks the bucket! You may think twice about eating sunflower seeds from here on out.

In an industry where photo-realistic CGI are becoming (if not already) the norm, tied-in with gritty action-dramas, Jack the Giant Slayer is no different from every other predictable fantasy-action movie plastered in every theater. Even with all of that however, Jack is still a nice change of pace; it’s predictable, almost too easy to follow, and contains all of the typical tropes Hollywood bestows on their films. Yet I was able to forgive it’s cliche approach. There seems to exist an acknowledgment of the ridiculous nature that comes along with a fabled tale of adventure as ambitious as Jack and the Beanstalk. There’s nothing about this movie that transcends boundaries in fairy take cinema, but that’s ok.

What’s missing from the story are the resolutions to the film’s implied set-ups. The story behind the giants and the humans was made out to be deeply substantial, as if there could have been a twist on who the REAL bad guys were – supporting the theory that history is made by those who create it. Could it be that the giants are the victims and have reason to hate the humans? As an audience member, I had a small amount of sympathy for the giants without knowing anything about them apart from what the traditional story tells us. But that was set aside and almost forgotten, much to my dismay. Due to this, a sense of disappointment in the story’s ending lingered inside of me, making me ponder on the earlier story set up. Why was all of it there? What purpose did it serve? And it makes you wonder if the earlier drafts of the film went down to tube for the sake of keeping the film simple and not overly dramatic and angsty.

There’s also a bit of muddiness in the dialog itself. Apart from the obvious point-A-to-point-B progression, the dialog seems to support a movie that was trying to be one thing, while wanting to become something else entirely. In which case, as stated in the previous paragraph, we get a film that wasn’t quite sure what it wanted to be. We even see this inconsistency at the beginning. CGI animation is great, and however purposeful it was, the video game resemblance of the flash back opener as compared to the very realistic animated approach for the remainder of the film is also a questionable part of the movie’s presence.

The film’s characters are a delight to watch regardless. Nicholas Hoult (Jack) and Eleanor Tomlinson (Isabelle) take us down a believable journey where their relationship develops in a captivating series of events and adventures. Ewan McGregor (Elmont) plays a fantastic sword handling captain of the guard and Stanley Tucci (Roderick) hams it up as the villain of the story. (Don’t worry, there’s no twist here. You’ll figure out he’s the villain from the start.) And Bill Nighy as the Giant General Fallon uses his amazing voice acting skills to lead the giant race into a battle against the kingdom of man with flare and gusto.

No illusions given by this reviewer to Jack the Giant Slayer being this mind blowing film, but it’s fun regardless. The actors have fun, and a lot of work went into making this cinematic journey through the impossible wonderful to behold. It’s rating is as cliche as the film itself, being right in the middle. You’ll be glad you saw it, laughing and clenching the arms of your chair while fully accepting the movie for what it is.

6 out of 10 stars

Django Unchained Movie Review

Posted: January 7, 2013 in Django Unchained, Movie Review

Release Date: December 25, 2012
Studio: The Weinstein Company
Director: Quentin Tarantino
Screenwriter: Quentin Tarantino
Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Jamie Foxx, Christoph Waltz, Samuel L. Jackson, Gerald McRaney, Dennis Christopher, Laura Cayouette, M.C. Gainey, Don Johnson, Kerry Washington, Anthony LaPaglia, RZA, Tom Wopat, James Remar, James Russo, Todd Allen, Jonah Hill
Genre: Action, Western
MPAA Rating: R (for strong graphic violence throughout, a vicious fight, language and some nudity)
Official Website: Unchainedmovie.com

Who better to take a brutal time in history and give it a laughable twist? Quentin Tarantino’s highly successful Inglorious Basterds was an example of his brilliance with historical interpretive film making. The antebellum south was pushed through Tarantino’s typical film making montage, throwing in humor that you’re forced to laugh at due to it’s sheer irony, and the whole time you sit there both horrified and joyful. Never for a moment, however, does Tarantino’s film making tropes allow you forget the brutality of this period in history which lies between the War of 1812 and our own American Civil War.

Tarantino seems set on defending the historical accuracy of certain parts of Django while having no illusions to do so with Inglorious Basterds. Several commentators, mostly online, Have struggled with this very concept. Historical accuracy of this film, however, seems to be the least of its significance. It’s so similar in theme to Inglorious Basterds and has so much carryover from the earlier film that I don’t see how people who loved the first can be so angry about this. Tarantino is allowed to make films built on the histories of other countries and no one complains at all. But when it comes to American history, the complaints run wild.

The “D” is silent

So many aren’t a fan of Tarantino since, in all of his films, he transgresses too often for reasons that are hard to comprehend within the moment. Can we say he taunts the audience? That’s one way to look at it. Tarantino’s take on the antebellum south is dirty, bloody, and incredibly real. Of course everything was exaggerated, as it always is with any one of his films. Django was so very different from the original 1966 version yet very much a homage to the Spaghetti Western. Django Unchained “gets” the Black experience in America, with cinematic liberties taken of course, yet something exists that transgresses it. There are no words to describe it, yet it’s all there as plain as day. The emasculation scene was “perfect” and yet so violent that the very though of it is hard to bear. So many slave narratives detail out this exact act of violence, and it’s difficult to conceive. What exactly is this transgression? Was it the humor? Was it the brutality? It’s hard to pin point. But amongst all of this, it does have it’s appeal, which is enormous.

Tarantino has a knack for making great revenge films, yet we seen revenge films all the time; V for Vendetta, The Count of Monte Cristo, etc etc. What makes Tarantino’s revenge focused films different from everyone else’s is his fearless approach. The director doesn’t care what the rest of the world wants to see, he gives them exactly what they need to see. For people like me, we left the theater a little disturbed, yet happy for what Django represented. For everyone else, being disturb by everything that happened is a response I’m sure Tarantino was going for. Amongst all the laughs and mockery, it’s still a wonderful movie with metaphors all around that tell a story of something awful, and a hero who comes to make it right. Django gets at a very deep rooted sentiment that so many people have often rooted for – revenge stories that “right” the wrong of a small terrible piece of history is an exceptionally attractive idea.

Dicaprio’s best performance ever!

Inglorious Basterds took it to the Nazis – scalping and burning them alive. Something so many of us secretly wish would have happened. Equipped with guns and metaphors, (something Tarantino is known for) Jaime Fox, (Django) Christoph Waltz, (Dr. King Schultz) and Leonardo DiCaprio (Calvin Candie) mark the battleground of this slavery induced period, addressing issues we rarely hear of in the most grotesque ways – Mandingo Fighters, Black Slavers, it’s all given to us in its ugliest form, yet produced quite “beautifully.” No doubt this is Tarantino’s finest cinematic achievement to date.

The film opens up with the majority of the credits reeling us into the story, which is why the credits are so short by the film’s end. I knew that the feature presentation had begun, but there was a part of me wondering if this wasn’t a remake of an older film, but actually the original Django itself. A nice tone for the the remaining three hours is set, and quickly we’re greeted by laughs of a pleasant Austrian who hates slavery, but loves killing for money. He frees Django from his life of servitude and asks him for assistance in the bounty hunting lifestyle. With the promise of saving of his wife included in the deal, Django agrees. Through a series of events, which are hilarious and bloody, They come to Candie Land, owned by Calvin Candie. And this is where Django’s wife is kept.

All performances from every actor/actress is fantastic and I couldn’t have asked for better. They eat up the cheesiness of the script and play their parts without flaw. I must admit that DiCaprio gave a performance worthy of an Oscar nomination for best supporting actor. Samuel L. Jackson, as always, never disappoints with his over-acting abilities and certainly compliments the part well. Christoph Waltz plays up a role much different from his one from Inglorious Basterds superbly, and protagonist Jaime Fox did as good of a job as I expected in the part of Django.

One should be warned, however, that if you have weak constitutions, it would be well advised to caution yourself going into this film. I’m not talking about the exaggerated explosions of blood coming from the heads, knees, legs, stomachs, and arms of people and how sudden it all is, but rather I speak of the sounds. The sounds of bones breaking, ribs crunching, blood splattering, and flesh being ripped apart by animals. It’s certainly hard to listen to and it goes on longer than you’d expect. Clearly planned out, it’s a fantastic display of how brutal the hidden parts of this time period actually were, even if a little over-the-top.

These cloths were the funniest part of the whole film!

There’s a lot of talking going on in this film, and it’s delightful! Multiple scenes of intense dialog and plot details all focused in a slow-moving camera circle, introductory moments that where built to make you smile more than introduce, and griping moments of intimidating and scary dialog that will make you wonder what’s going to happen next. In it’s substance and brilliance, no doubt, it’s one of the best films of the year.

10 out of 10 stars

Les Misérables Movie Review

Posted: January 2, 2013 in Les Misérables, Movie Review
Tags: Anne Hathaway, Hugh Jackman, Les Misérables, Movie Review, Russell Crowe

Release Date: December 25, 2012 (2D theaters and IMAX)
Studio: Universal Pictures
Director: Tom Hooper
Screenwriter: William Nicholson, Alain Boublil, Claude-Michel Schönberg, Herbert Kretzmer
Starring: Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe, Anne Hathaway, Amanda Seyfried, Eddie Redmayne, Aaron Tveit, Samantha Barks, Helena Bonham Carter, Sacha Baron Cohen
Genre: Musical Epic
MPAA Rating: PG-13 (for suggestive and sexual material, violence and thematic elements)
Official Website: LesMiserablesfilm.com

Gripes and complaints are flooding the internet – fans have no idea how Russell Crowe landed a part that requires some actual musical talent, nor could they comprehend why Hugh Jackman would dare utter a note. It’s difficult for die hard “Les Miz” fans to set their preconceived ideas and notions aside to enjoy a cinematic presentation of the classic Victor Hugo novel gone musical, which is understandable. However, as always, preconceived notions of any film adaptation typically dictates how a viewer perceives it. In the case of Les Miserables, the raw, unpolished nature of Hooper’s take of the story is what was missed.

To set the story for you, a series of terrible trials force Jean Valjean (Jackman) to lead a life devoted to goodwill. In order to lead this clean-slated new lifestyle, he had to break parole and change his name, ten years later finding himself as a successful industrialist within the heart of France, concealing himself from the ruthless inspector Javert. (Crowe) However, Valjean is compelled to assist a dying mother whose child, Cosette, are in the hands of a pair of seedy innkeepers and vows to rescue and protect the girl from harm, providing her with a good and happy life.

Instead of going for exceptional Broadway thespians with voices like angels, director Tom Hooper decides a more realistic approach will serve the story better. As I’m sure everyone already realizes, singing was done on the spot giving the film an rougher edge over all of the other movie-musicals that have come before. The lack of mixing and mastering the vocal flaws that each actor had allowed for a much more emotional presentation of those big ticket musical numbers. Hugh Jackman extricated himself from his more popularly known Wolverine persona with his massive “coming-to-terms-with-Jesus” number. You can tell he has no intention of making a career out of his vocal abilities, especially with how muscled his singing of “Bring Him Home” was. But that was just what this film needed. And Russell Crowe’s voice is nothing to get excited about, however he does seem to have a pitch perfect memory.

The gem of the big name actors came in the form of Anne Hathaway as Fantine. Hathaway has gone from being nothing more than a teen actress playing roles that suited the best of the worst cinematic thespians, to a woman who has the potential of becoming one of the greatest actresses of our time. With the knowledge of this “on-the-spot” singing, and hearing how gorgeous Hathaway effortlessly flows with the music, all this reviewer could do was wonder how anyone in the film could top this performance.

Sure enough, here rolls in the younger branch of actors who seem to be much more versed in their stage voices. Without a doubt Aaron Tveit stole the screen with his powerful and effortless vocal production, as well as his confident and commanding presence among the France mid-1800′s rubble and debris. Eddie Redmayne, while daunting at first, bolstered out with his unique blend of tone, resonance, and seemingly uncontrollable vibrato. Amanda Seyfried, while pitch perfect and quite rangy in her voice, was a bit thin. Still pleasant to listen to, but not outstanding. Samantha Barks was outstanding, but it seems her talents were a bit wasted on the part of Eponine. I have a feeling she would have been much better served as in the role of Cosette.

Within the plot synopsis above, you’ll find the basics of the story, and this all comes out within the first half of the film. Afterwards, the movie is flooded with a love story between two 22 year-olds who can barely control their emotions after seeing each other literally for a moment. It’s a Romeo and Juliet story recaptured in Les Miz, and it’s just as annoying. I can understand the Walking-On-Sunshine feeling of finding someone to be with, seeing as how I was 22 years old at one point too, but having grown up and gone through these motions, I simply barf inside and roll my eyes at kids in the early 20′s allowing their testosterone to dictate their “feelings.” This is a motif that carries throughout the remainder of the film, and it’s an aspect that I simply don’t enjoy.

Everything said, the performances by each cast member was exquisite, and I feel myself lucky having not seen the stage production before the film. It’s hard to move past what you love about a book or stage production and see it altered on the big screen. But I felt I was able to go into this movie with a fairly neutral perspective – quite familiar with the songs, yet exceptionally unfamiliar with the storyline. That being said, after careful thought before writing this review, I do remember having this feeling of impatience during the “in-between” scenes of each big ticket number. It’s as if the story was simply filling in the gaps until the next blow out familiar song. Of course this may be dictated by the fact that I only know the more memorable songs, and not the smaller, story-developing ones. In any case, I did feel a lag during the second half of the film.

The opening scene showcases CGI mastery with the hundreds of slaves hauling in by rope the gigantic ship of which, I can only assume, they sailed in on. At that moment, I could sense the excitement radiating within the theater. Who needs 3D when this level of digital technology can make you feel more in the story better than any film James Cameron’s tried to do? The quality, though not as exciting as the opening ship scene, continued to impress me with the level of detail and perfection. The infamous “One Day More” musical number came at me with disappointment, but seeing the entire cast rising up during “Do You Hear The People Sing” was an inspiring moment of revolution and rebellion.

A few complaints, but nothing to dictate a poor overall quality of this masterful film. A few times, like a bag of trail mix, I had to pick out what I liked and what I didn’t like, and the negative parts were a bit heavy handed. The neatest part of this film was how Hooper spared no expense in creating this sung-through musical and altering very little as far as the plot development goes. It’s only the raw approach which makes this film unique and epic. Overall, this is a movie worth seeing. Expect to see this cinematic power house in the Oscar line-ups!

9 out of 10 stars

Hitchcock Movie Review

Posted: December 26, 2012 in Anthony Hopkins, Hitchcock, Movie Review
Tags: Hitchcock, Movie Review

Release Date: November 23, 2012 (limited)
Studio: Fox Searchlight Pictures
Director: Sacha Gervasi
Screenwriter: John McLaughlin
Starring: Anthony Hopkins, Helen Mirren, Scarlett Johansson, Danny Huston, Toni Collette, Jessica Biel, Michael Stuhlbarg, James D’Arcy, Michael Wincott, Richard Portnow, Kurtwood Smith
Genre: Drama
MPAA Rating: PG-13 (for some violent images, sexual content and thematic material)
Official Website: Hitchcockthemovie.com

Expectations will be high, with fans walking into Director Sacha Gervasi’s biographical film about the iconic director’s time creating his most popular film, Psycho, looking for thrills, chills, and dark storytelling like every good hitchcock film delivers. What fans expect, however, isn’t exactly what Gervasi gives away. It’ll take your eyes and mind time to adjust to this unique take on Hitchcock’s life that’s filled with laughs, fun, and joy.

Yes, I said it – laughs, fun and joy! Certainly, you’ll find it’s fair share of angst, dark moments, and times where your bones will be inclined to jump from your skin, but overall this film is about the quirky lifestyle of a minor megalomaniac who’s a wee bit on the whiny side, and a wife who’s supported him the whole way through.

The film is, more or less, a love story. Fear not, however, for this isn’t a love story filled with smooching or heart warming bits of public oratory. Rather, “Hitchcock” takes time to show a much more mature look at a longstanding relationship between an elderly couple who have endured the test of time. However, standing back in the shadow of Alfred Hitchcock’s greatness has taken its toll on his wife Alma (Helen Mirren) who’s loved her husband enough to allow his fame to flourish into what it’s become up to this point in time – even in the face of his fantasies with leading ladies and his megalomania, she always reminded herself that she loves him.

The story isn’t so much about Psycho. Rather it uses the famous film to tell another story of which I’ve described above. This is beginning to become a trend in modern films – “Lincoln” did the same thing in using an historic event to tell a much larger story involving the protagonist and the people surrounding him. However. instead of being overly inspirational and unnecessarily AWARE if it’s historical implications and influence, “Hitchcock” provides a much more intelligent and fun bit of cinema that doesn’t take its potential audience for granted, but also doesn’t sacrifice the story for the sake of a few cliche phrases and scenes mixed in with everything else.

Be warned, however, for screenwriter John McLaughlin takes a few few liberties on the historical front – making it seem as though Whitfield Cook was a no-talent hack that simply got all of his inspiration from the luring of women into his “secret cabin” on the beach, and the changed emotional implications between Hitchcock and the making of his film. There’s enough documentation to support an argument which depicts Hitchcock as a leach when it comes to his leading ladies, but there’s also enough evidence to depict him not as such too. To the point, this film is not meant to be completely historically accurate, but that’s not the point of the story now is it?

You can trust the film to get the majority of historical information right, but like any film based on a historical event, liberties will always be taken. The emotional state of mind in both Hitchcock and his wife is what drives this story forward. As he starts to wonder and doubt the loyalty of his wife (both in bed and out) we see the famous shower scene that reflects his anger and anxiety of everyone he feels is working against him. One would think a director as unstable as that would scare off any actor and actress. But, as Scarlett Johansson said through her role as Janet Leigh, “He’s no Orson Wells.”

Going back to taking liberties, Anthony Hopkins is as convincing as anyone could be with his overly pompous portrayal of Hitchcock, but even he couldn’t deliver a completely convincing Hitchcock when it comes to the visual and the audible. Key elements are what makes his performance believable, taking the character to an emotional depth that allowed me to perceive the director in a brand new light. Of course, none of this would have been possible without the brilliance of Helen Mirren. I don’t know if I’ve ever said this before when it comes to the rest of the cast in any movie Hopkins stars in, but Mirren was BETTER than Hopkins. Of course, everyone was phenomenal, including Scarlett Johansson and Jessica Biel who played their parts as perfectly stereotypical leading ladies quite well. However, I’ll echo my wife when she stated Helen Mirren might just be the best cinematic thespian right now. No disagreement there. And to say that when she’s surrounded by actors and actresses playing recognizable characters is a feat in and of itself!

The opening scene is enough, starting off like an episode of Hitchcock Presents, but the film as a whole is as good as anything else that’s come out this year. This isn’t just your typical biographical film, but rather a substantial story that extends past the man of Hitchcock and tells a tale of angst, sarcasm, light-hearted humor, and silly (and epic) shout-outs to Hitchcock’s trademarked character.

10 out of 10 stars

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey Movie Review

Posted: December 15, 2012 in Ian McKellen, Martin Freeman, Movie Review, Peter Jackson, The Hobbit

Release Date: December 14, 2012 (3D/2D theaters and IMAX 3D)
Studio: New Line Cinema (Warner Bros. Pictures)
Director: Peter Jackson
Screenwriter: Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, Guillermo del Toro, Peter Jackson
Starring: Ian McKellen, Martin Freeman, Cate Blanchett, Orlando Bloom, Ian Holm, Christopher Lee, Hugo Weaving, Elijah Wood, Evangeline Lilly, Andy Serkis, Richard Armitage, John Bell, Jed Brophy, Adam Brown, John Callen, Luke Evans, Stephen Fry, Ryan Gage, Mark Hadlow, Peter Hambleton, Barry Humphries, Stephen Hunter, William Kircher, Sylvester McCoy, Bret McKenzie, Graham McTavish, Mike Mizrahi, James Nesbitt, Dean O’Gorman, Lee Pace, Mikael Persbrandt, Conan Stevens, Ken Stott, Jeffrey Thomas, Aidan Turner, Billy Connolly
Genre: Adventure, Fantasy
MPAA Rating: PG-13 (for extended sequences of intense fantasy action violence, and frightening images)

A gas leak, forcing a theater wide evacuation set my nerdish sensibilities on edge. “Where can we go now to see the Hobbit?? It’s already 9:30, and anywhere else is an hour out – meaning it will be sold out by the time we get there!” My heart was racing and my blood boiling, jealous of all my other friends from around the country who WERE getting to see the film, and not I. And as we left the Best Buy next door after figuring out what to do next, we saw that the theater, in fact, reopened, admitting anyone wishing for a cinematic excursion. My friend and I dashed back to the theater, complete with our elvish cloaks, Latmus bread, and pipeweed, ready for a three hour adventure in a theater that was barely full.

Originally a children’s story, “The Hobbit” was no longer a simple tale of adventure. The film evolved the story into an epic thrill ride that was not only humorous, but dark and sinister too. It jumps back and forth from being silly and comical to serious and epic, and does as well as any film could attempting to achieve that same dynamic. Having never read the Simarillion, 50% of the film was unfamiliar to me, making me wonder how much of it comes from the Simarillion and how much of it was made up by the Mr. Jackson himself. Regardless of the answer, everything new and old works well together.

The film itself plays out like an episodic tale with the same set up as a TV drama that’s been contracted out for eight seasons. First published in 1937, the Hobbit is a lighthearted tale of a little man who’d prefer to stay at home in his Hobbit hole rather than go on a silly adventure. Lord of the Rings, however, written during World War II, was a darker tale that, while humorous, had not the same joyous feeling contained in Bilbo’s story. Jackson spills much of his playful side into the film’s more comedic aspects, like with the trolls who resemble a certain slapstick trio from before film had any notion of color. However, the film lets loose and reveals itself to be an over-the-top epic tale that plods on and on, not even making it half way through the book by the movie’s end.

At first glance, the story is as familiar as it can be. But once the film starts, you’ll realize that this isn’t the same Hobbit found on your bookshelf or in bookstores. Certainly the battles with trolls, goblins, and Orcs can be seen, but how the company of 14 gets to these points is far from the same. Don’t be surprised if you see [spoiler alert] rocky mountain people battling it out for an unknown reason while the Dwarves and Hobbit desperately hang on for dear life atop of the knees. The only TRULY familiar points in the film come after the introduction, when the Dwarves honor their uninvited invitation into Mr. Baggins’ home, and during the most interesting riddles in the dark chapter of the story where Bilbo riddles his way to freedom against the sinister and masterfully animated Gollum. But even in these familiar moments, Jackson bleeds in his own take, making them seem somehow fresh and new - emphasizing the tattered soul of Gollum, the apocalyptic comings that threaten Middle-Earth, and Bilbo’s place within it all.

Had I seen this film in 3D, I might not have enjoyed myself as much. However, that being said, I can see anyone who embraces the return of the 3D craze soaking in every last eye popping moment that jumps right out at you during the actions sequences. Buckle your seat belts because this is going to be one big cinematic theme-park ride of your life. For me, personally, the fight scenes tended to get a tad bit silly. I understand that this film was tailor made to meet the expectations of both the lover’s of 3D and the ones who could care less, but I would have preferred to watch fight scenes that didn’t feel so kiddish and immature. Was it just me, or did the Orcs, Goblins, and Dwarves seem to have a bit more skill than what was displayed in the “Rings” trilogy”? What with their jumping and flailing about. I guess that’s just me and my need for story continuity to be consistent within anything I read or watch.

My complaints about the skill levels of each culture of creature aside, the mystic feelings of Middle-Earth stay in tact, allowing for speech and dialog to occur within the monsters and creatures not resembling any likeness with humans. Although (and this is the nerd in me) I was a tad bit disappointed that the Eagles didn’t speak. But their rescue of the company during the fantastic fight scene between them and the Warg-riding Orcs was a wondrous sight of the beauty of New Zealand and it’s mountainous terrain above the clouds. Jackson’s “Rings” films are nothing if not gorgeous to look at, making anyone wish to travel overseas to the green of New Zealand.

As expected, the casting is superb with returning performances by Ian McKellen and Andy Serkis as the wizard and the creeping Hobbit gone evil from the wear and tear of the ring. Martin Freeman’s comedic timing and performance as a Hobbit is unmatched by any of the preceding Hobbit thespians. Voice acting is remarkable by those whose presence was not seen, but heard thanks to the wonders of recording technology.

No doubt, talks of book to film comparisons will begin this weekend and there will be those who, like me, loved the film and hope to see it again before the weekend is up, and those who will curse the name of Peter Jackson for not sticking straight to the source material, page for page. However, if you’re ready for a wondrous and inventive adventure from the mind of Peter Jackson and his team of writers, Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, and former Hobbit director Guillermo del Toro, then you shouldn’t waste anymore time. Close your computer, get up out of your seat, and go watch An Unexpected Journey that is truly unexpected.

9 out of 10 stars

Lincoln Movie Review

Posted: November 20, 2012 in Lincoln, Movie Review, Steven Spielberg

Release Date: November 9, 2012
Studio: DreamWorks Pictures
Director: Steven Spielberg
Screenwriter: Tony Kushner
Starring: Daniel Day-Lewis, Sally Field, David Strathairn, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, James Spader, Hal Holbrook, Tommy Lee Jones
Genre: Biography, Drama
MPAA Rating: PG-13 (for an intense scene of war violence, some images of carnage and brief strong language)

Like most of Spielberg’s historic movies, Lincoln presents a canvas of historic implications and let’s the audience know just HOW important the life of Lincoln is, almost TOO much. More importantly, the film (as well as Daniel Day-Lewis) makes certain to paint a very familiar picture of Lincoln as being a folksy and luminous eye-on-the-prize type of man. Stated in many different ways, the idea that “this is important because it’s history” was thrown out to the 21st century audience I sat amongst like Halloween candy. And LIKE Halloween candy, I had to be exceptionally careful in what I consumed, and what I threw away.

Based on Doris Kearns Goodwin’s book, “Team of Rivals,” The film focuses on the last four months of the 16th president’s life as he desperately tries to pass his 13th amendment to the constitution, which would abolish slavery. Sweat and blood are spilled in getting the amendment to pass, and Lincoln maintains a posture unlike any man with multiple bits of family related baggage to deal with as well.

Lincoln is Spielberg’s $50 million history lesson since it was filmed in the heart of of it all, Virginia. The iconic figure has never been portrayed accurately enough for History’s sake, nor emotionally enough to tug at the heart strings of Lincoln fans. Spielberg had to meet expectations since no film in history has given Lincoln a proper portrayal. Luckily Day-Lewis was born at the right time as he looks the part and has the theatrical talents neccesary to pull off such a role. The film is ambitious and presents Lincoln in a way that’s never been seen before and is probably the most honest portrayal of the president anyone could ever hope for.

Film’s that are dialog driven are rare treats in this day and age, and it’s also the sign of cinematic maturity. It’s a shining example of what films were like in the golden era of cinema. Spielberg’s made some real gems, but he only delivers a truly inspiring film once every ten years. (When did Catch Me If You Can come out again?) We can always expect quality from Spielberg, but it’s rare to see him bring something to the big screen worth remembering. At times “Lincoln” will pleasantly remind you of 12 Angry Men, where a room full of politicians throw insults at each other in pure parliamentary style, and other times you’ll chuckle on the inside wondering if this film was tailor made to ensure Day-Lewis’ spot in the Oscar race.

Trailers and ads made the film out to be a complete historical epic, but that’s far from the truth. While there’s a good amount of historical accuracy involved with the making of this film, there was also an equal share of liberties taken for the sake of drama. How many of us actually believe that, on the day of the amendment vote, women and blacks were allowed into the halls to bear witness to the historic event? This was a boy’s club for cryin’ out loud! I’m not one to complain out historical inaccuracies, but I do wonder at what point taking liberties with history in America’s movies starts to desensitize the respect we have FOR history. When does sacrificing historical fact become a tainted mark in the history books for the sake of dramatizing political ideas, intellectual courage, and the burden of leadership. You can eat up the emotional shower that radiates off of “Lincoln,” but how many of us accept this film as 100% factual? Probably more than you’d think.

Other aspects of the film, such as the cloths and speeches, are as period appropriate as can be. My wife went nuts over the costumes and how gorgeous they were. I, myself, was blown away by Lincoln’s suits and the suits worn by all the major characters.

It was actually quite nice to hear Lincoln throw out a few swear words here and there and become a little weary over all that was happening around him. The way he spoke to his wife about her mental condition showed that Lincoln may not have been the saint we’ve tried to make him out to be. Despite all of that, however, he was still a good man.

Amongst all of the rhetorical jargon and typical Hollywood film making techniques, Lincoln is still an entertaining show that will keep your attention the whole way through. I’m not sure it’s one of the best films of the year, but it’s definitely worth seeing. But one thing’s for certain, I’m going to get hit with a storm of people disagreeing with me in ranking this movie lower than Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter.

8 out of 10 Stars

Wreck-It Ralph Movie Review

Posted: November 4, 2012 in Disney, Movie Review, Pixar, Walt Disney, Wreck-It Ralph
Tags: MovieReview, Wreck-itRalph

Release Date: November 2, 2012 (3D/2D theaters)
Studio: Walt Disney Pictures
Director: Rich Moore
Screenwriter: Jennifer Lee, Phil Johnston
Starring: John C. Reilly, Sarah Silverman, Jack McBrayer, Jane Lynch, Alan Tudyk, Ed O’Neill, Mindy Kaling, Adam Carolla, Horatio Sanz, Dennis Haysbert, Edie McClurg, Roger Craig Smith, Gerald C Rivers, Rachael Harris, Stefanie Scott, Reuben Langdon, Kyle Hebert
Genre: Animation, Comedy
MPAA Rating: PG (for some rude humor and mild action/violence)
Official Website: Disney.com/WreckItRalph

Disney owns so many companies that it’s becoming difficult to pin point the name brands they DON’T own. The one staple that Disney’s yet to fully claim is the highly successful Pixar Animation studio, and handing over the bulk of the animation duties to the said company has given Disney more time to focus on other things, which may or may not be a good thing.

Now Walt Disney Animation has resurfaced, re-imagining the classic late 80′s/90′s motif into a digital, computer animated wonder. First there was Bolt, not as successful as their second film, The Princess and the Frog, which was closely followed by their rendition of the Rapunzel story, Tangled. While most animated films, regardless of how good or bad they are, will do well in at the box office, Disney’s attempts at reviving their animation trademark has left most fans in a state of wanting, unsure if they’ll ever bring back the type of quality they did with the Little Mermaid and so on. Disney Execs had to make a decision. They had to do something that would bring life back into their animation efforts and no longer resemble more of a Dreamworks story telling lackluster.

Thus was born Wreck-it Ralph, (John C. Reilly) a story with more substance and likability than Disney’s previous three animated films. Wreck-it Ralph is a villain in a video game in which he never receives the appreciation that the hero does, Fix-It Felix. (Jack McBrayer) Wanting to be a hero so badly, Ralph leaves his own game and visits other ones for a chance to receive what every hero craves…a medal. But in crossing over into other games, he runs into people that delay his progress, making friends with an adorable little glitch name Vanellope (Sarah Silverman) in a race car game called Sugar Rush, as well as pissing off a duty-bound alien fighting soldier called Calhoun. (Jane Lynch) Of course, there are other forces at bay which have placed Vanellope in danger, and Ralph has to make a decision – save his new found friend from being decoded and remain the villain, or go back to his own game where he’ll finally become a hero.

From childhood to now, I’ve been a joystick fanatic! Having grown up with the 8-bit era of video gaming; Mario, Mega Man, Pac-Man, etc etc, Wreck-It Ralph brings all of the video games I grew up with to the big screen for the Wii and Xbox 360 generations to enjoy. This is a fan film at its core, no doubt, with more gaming references and shout-outs than I can count on two hands and two feet. In a video game villain support group, we get glimpses of General Bison, Bowser, Clyde, Dr. Eggman and many other villains that the veteran gamers will instantly recognize.

Likewise, some of the heroes from popular games make cameos too – Sonic leads a model lifestyle, sending out service messages to the rest of the arcade, Frogger’s found hopping around from time to time, Space Invader Aliens do their best to take a break from the monotony of blasters, Pac-Man is found enjoying a party over in Fit-It Felix’s homestead, and good ol’ Mr. Ben Tapper gives advice to the protagonist in fine bar tending style.

The film pays very close attention to what makes the different video game eras so unique, playing up the pixelated 8 to 16 bit games quite humorously, as well as serving up a nice dish of the more recent first person shooter games in excellent quality.

In a Tron and Toy Story fashion, Wreck-It Ralph presents a story where the video game characters go about their normal lives when the kids have left the arcade to go home. But this isn’t simply a movie where fans can laugh at the subtle hints and jokes that reference old video games, there’s much more substance than that. The story comments on the ways the technological and gaming aspects of life have redefined the ways in which humans interact with one another. Ralph himself feels very isolated, which can be a very significant byproduct of video gaming. There’s also the idea that winners and losers are mutually exclusive, and the two can never have anything to do with one another.

Take Ralph’s game for example – Ralph is a big guy who’s defined by his wrecking skills, and Felix by his ability to fix things. The working class style video game depicts two very different people who allow their self worth to be determined by how successful they are in their given situations. In Ralph’s case, he always looses and is looked down upon despite the fact that he had no choice in his natural order within the game. There’s a certain amount of truth to this in real life – people’s situations and cultural surroundings are often factors in how the “upper class” judges them. “You’re a villain, and villains don’t get medals,” as if to assume that Ralph’s purpose in life is of no use to the rest of the world.

The film focuses around three different gaming styles, all playing up their particular eras and cultural subtexts. The first is Ralph’s own game, which as mentioned above, is more of a working class style game, very pixelated, but old and unsure of it’s place in the world. It’s rather funny how the game’s supporting cast moves in the way we would expect from a game resembling Donkey Kong. The second actually jumps forward in time to the present where first person shooter games are kings of the gaming world. Jane Lynch plays up her signature role as a complete and utter bad ass and leads the charge against an alien bug infestation, and assists Ralph and Felix in keeping the bugs from infecting the rest of the arcade. This hard-bodied game called Hero’s Duty, a combination of Halo and Call to Duty, brings out the most focused set of characters who could care less about medals and more about achieving the end goal, which is to keep the gamer on task and without dying. And the third travels back in time to the age where race car games, anime, and cutsey style characters for girls reigned supreme. Sarah Silverman gives the voice performance of her life and milks her character Vanellope for all she’s worth. All three gaming aspects have their own visual style and very specific cultural influences that signify why they became the games they are.

Nothing about this film was poorly done – so much attention to detail, different gaming styles, substantial plot lines …it makes me wonder if this film was, in fact, a Disney film. Sure, the famous castle logo that Disney’s been so proud of for so long starts this film off in glamorous style, but this is so different from anything Disney’s done in the past. And with John Lasseter helming as Executive producer, (Toy Story…and much more) and Rich Moore in the director’s chair (Simpsons, Futurama, you get the picture) I have a funny feeling that this is a Disney animated movie that should have been a Pixar film.

I’m not knocking Disney’s attempt at bringing new material to the screen, but the substance carried along in this film is so much greater and likeable than anything Disney’s done in the last ten years. Me thinks that Lasseter and Pixar have made a much bigger impact on the animation world in both the visual and the writing aspect than Disney cared to acknowledge. Now we’re seeing the fruits of Pixar’s labor. No more princesses, kings, swash buckling, ect etc to drive a good story. Simply put a good writer and director behind everything, and an animated film can be just as morally influential and substantial as anything else on the big screen.

9 out of 10 stars

Dredd Movie Review

Posted: October 23, 2012 in Dredd, Movie Review
Tags: Dredd, MovieReview

Release Date: September 21, 2012 (3D/2D theaters)
Studio: Lionsgate
Director: Pete Travis
Screenwriter: Alex Garland
Starring: Karl Urban, Olivia Thirlby, Lena Headey
Genre: Action, Adventure, Sci-Fi
MPAA Rating: R (for strong bloody violence, language, drug use and some sexual content)
Official Website: Dreddthemovie.com

September is a month for films that aren’t quite sure if they belong in the summer release pot, or the Christmas season regime of films. Not to say that the September born films are bad, it’s just the month is typically filled with movies expected to do poorly at the box office. Granted, September helmed a lot of fantastic indie films, but it also beheld nothing truly spectacular on the cinematic side of things. And with the failed 1995 version of Judge Dredd, the money doesn’t plead for a remake for the sake of saving a British comic franchise.

Director Pete Travis, however, dares to be bold and attempt at saving a franchise that should never have been attempted in the first place. Like most post-apocalyptic movies, Mega City is a high technologically savvy society, yet primitive in appearance, dirty, and psychotic all at the same time. Gang activity and terrorism is at an all time high led by a lunatic crime lord, Ma-Ma. All that keeps civility continuous in the city are the Street Judges – acting as judge, jury, and executioner, with Dredd being one of the most feared judges of them all.

Mutant newbie, Anderson, who failed the judges test, is able to pass through into the field with Dredd guiding her through. Apparently being a psychic gives you privileges above the other students. Along with Anderson, Dredd walks into a massive housing complex called Peachtree where a trail of a newly developed, illegal narcotics is being made. Ma-Ma discovers the two judges walking about her base of operations and locks the entire building down, inviting (over the intercom) the 75,000 residents to kill both the veteran and the rookie if they ever wish to set foot outside of the walls again.

The positive aspects of the film are small yet significant enough to give the movie a tangible plot line that isn’t muddled up too much by the film’s cinematic gunk. As mentioned, Dredd is given a rookie who desperately hopes to become a judge in order to “make a difference.” Not quite passing the exam is overlooked due to her psychic abilities; a resulted mutation thanks to living in the slums flooded with radiation. Through Dredd’s unrelenting and merciless demeanor, we see a glimmer of hope in Anderson’s future as a judge. It’s one of the only redeeming qualities the film possesses.

The film also decides to take a different approach and not fall prey to servicing the fans more than servicing the story, which may have been a wrong move, but it’s nice to see a director attempting a risk. It’s “day-in-the-life-of” motif was a nice change to the typical movie plot progression when it comes to comic book films. The conflict, while a little over the top, still resembled a simple gang war involving illegal drugs and narcotics. There were no giant robots, mythological science monsters, or massive mutants shooting lasers out of there eyes. It was just a regular day on the job, and I can appreciate that.

The problem occurs when, almost right at the beginning, every explosion, gun shot, and other random acts of mindless violence reek of a lifeless and dull set of goings-on that are simply there for the sake of being there. Pete Travis seems to have set out on a mission – being overly artsy with multiple slow-mo sequences which are justified by the explanation of narcotics which makes the users feel like time has slowed to an utter crawl. I can appreciate a good slow motion sequence, but it can get a little overdrawn and boring if not handled right. Much of what comes out on the screen was so gross and laughable (at best) that I couldn’t decide if I should throw up or laugh out of embarrassment for being there.

The darkness of the film is a little overbearing. Even more so was the dirty look of the scenery and landscapes. I love end-of-the-world and apocalyptic films as much as the next guy (zombies are great!) but the look of a film such as this shouldn’t destroy a story’s potential. Star Wars maintain this type of feel – everything is wiped out, yet there’s a sense of hope. Dredd bares little resemblance of anything hopeful and ends in a way that provides nothing interesting or fun to remember.

The characters themselves were somewhat boring. Karl Urban, as fantastic of an actor as he is, couldn’t make the overly stoic and stiff character of Dredd pop out as anything interesting. Olivia Thrilby makes it hard to like her character since she seems uncertain about, well…anything. Yet she’s good at her job? Lena Headey takes center stage as the only actor who takes control of her character, but there’s still major issues with it since Ma-Ma isn’t necessarily a good villain to begin with.

Comic/Movie Comparison

Now it’s quite possible that my negativity is dictated by my disdain for the comic in general. I like my comics to have more substance than blood spill after blood spill, and Dredd is the epitome of blood baths. And if that’s what Director Travis was going for, then this film accomplished exactly what it intended. It’s just not my cup O’ tea.

2 out of 10 stars

How The Dark Knight Rises Should Have Ended….

Posted: August 24, 2012 in Batman, DC Comics, Movie Review, The Dark Knight Rises

Now THIS is funny!

Total Recall Movie Review

Posted: August 10, 2012 in Movie Review, Total Recall

Release Date: August 3, 2012
Studio: Columbia Pictures (Sony)
Director: Len Wiseman
Screenwriter: Kurt Wimmer, Mark Bomback
Starring: Colin Farrell, Kate Beckinsale, Jessica Biel, Bryan Cranston, John Cho, Bill Nighy
Genre: Action, Thriller
MPAA Rating: PG-13 (for intense sequences of sci-fi violence and action, some sexual content, brief nudity, and language)
Official Website: TotalRecall-movie.com

Douglas Quaid is a factory worker who dreams of a much more worthy life than his current one provides. Despite the fact that he has a beautiful wife, he finds himself needing a escape from his surroundings. Which is what draws him to Rekall, a company which prides itself in turning your dreams into real memories. For someone who dreams of a life that’s “meaningful,” might as well give it a shot right?

However, the procedure goes horribly wrong and Quaid, in an instant, becomes a wanted man. In the course of just an hour, he’s being hunted by a secret organization, his wife turns out to be an agent of this company, hunting him in turn as well, and discovers the life he’s known isn’t real. What a mind twister eh? Should be good…

You’d think that, but in reality, Total Recall is instantly forgettable. Based on the short story, “We Can Remember It for You Wholesale,” where a clerk dreams of going to Mars, but can’t, receives new memories of a venture to the planet implanted in his brain. Arnold Schwarzenegger starred in the 90′s film where Mars was actually included and the story was much closer to the book.

This “remake” plots everything on Earth where a group of undesirables commute from Australia (The Colony) to the United Federation of Britain to do work the more “important” people don’t want to do. Nothing wrong with it in and of itself, but the originality of the story is severely lacking.

Much like with film versions of Stephen King’s stories, Phillip K. Dick’s books have not proven themselves worthy as a screenplay. With this most recent release, Total Recall lacks the excitement within book and instead is muddled with a plethora of long chase scenes, explosions, and a script that belongs in a poorly written comic book. Even Colin Farrell is unable to make his lines pop with excitement.

Once the movie started, and as it progressed, I kept thinking to myself I should have brought my Xbox controller as I was hankering to partake in the video game likeness of the film. I can see Total Recall making TONS of money as a video game, but not as a film. Its approach, style, and look reminded me of a top selling first person shooter game, which compelled me to take multiple breaks…sad thing was, there wasn’t a pause button.

The biggest jolt to me, however, was the poor plot planning. The Northern Hemisphere was completed decimated by a toxic apocalypse, yet spared Great Britain? And one tiny location in all of London found itself able to support life after pollution and waste consume everywhere else? And of course, humans putting robots together when they could simply have robots building the robots seems like the better choice.

How were the rebels being mistreated? Did they have reason to rebel? Why were the Colony and the Federation at odds? No clues were given and the mystery was left unsolved.

I got very confused at the beginning since, at first glance, Kate Beckinsale and Jessica Biel look amazing similar. I’ll be surprised if many of you don’t do a double take in certain scenes throughout the film.

For this reviewer, there’s not that many redeeming qualities to Total Recall. I actually had to go back and read a synopsis to remember what it was I actually saw. If you enjoy a mindless film where nothing really happens except for people running around like chickens with their legs cut off, then this film might be for you. But for me, I have higher expectations when it comes to summer blockbuster action films.

Beasts of the Southern Wild Movie Review

Posted: August 5, 2012 in Beasts of the Southern Wild, Benh Zeitlin, Dwight Henry, Fox Searchlight Pictures, Movie Review, Quvenzhané Wallis

Release Date: June 27, 2012 (NY, LA; expands: July 6)
Studio: Fox Searchlight Pictures
Director: Benh Zeitlin
Screenwriter: Lucy Alibar, Benh Zeitlin
Starring: Quvenzhané Wallis, Dwight Henry
Genre: Drama
MPAA Rating: PG-13 (for thematic material including child imperilment, some disturbing images, language and brief sensuality)
Official Website: WelcometotheBathtub.com

Hushpuppy, a 6 year old girl who’s imagination is bigger than the world around her, claims a sense of precognition – promising that scientists and historians 1,000 years into future will study her life and base the world on her example. Her big eyes will soak every ounce of your attention and command your smiles and laughter. Her displays of public oratory decorate the entire film with a cute Louisiana drawl that will both bring happiness to your soul, and tears trickling down your cheeks. Hushpuppy can charm the sea creatures with her smile, and scowl at even the most fiercest of beasts. She’s a small girl who knows just how big and powerful she really is.

However, as an audience member, my perspective on reality is a bit different. Living on a small, seemingly worthless piece of swampy territory, separated by a levee from a disgustingly industrial area, Hushpuppy lives with her dad amongst many other poor and down-on-their-luck civilians. Named “The Bathtub,” this swampy area breeds a horde of self-sufficient people who do almost nothing but fish, hunt, and teach their children the realities of life, refusing to butter it up into something it’s not.

The six year old protagonist, in the eyes of the movie goer, may be vulnerable, but is beyond helpless. With a multitude of troubles and trials being thrown at her left and right, she finds ways of overcoming the odds and being as free as her daddy taught her to be.

Hushpuppy is an interesting character. In the same glorious and triumphant tradition of other brave, wild, and imaginative storybook children, she mirrors the child heroes of old – Huck Finn, Scout Finch, and many others like them while the world fails to meet her own expectations, not allowing it to drive her into the ground. What she dreams of is nothing like the reality of the world, and it causes her to grow stronger, fighting against the oncoming storm.

Of course the storm, in the physical, realistic sense, is a hurricane which decimates the community and most of those living within it. For Hushpuppy, however, the storm she faces is on a much more personal level involving her mamma and daddy – her mother ran off with no trace to be followed, and her daddy fights a mysteriously fatal blood disease which is progressively killing him. There’s also the fear of being forcibly evacuated from her home and taken away from her father who, soon, will be unable to care for her.

The Independent film maker, Benh Zeitlin, created this story through an eye of cultural awareness for those the world has forgotten or never knew existed in the first place. Depicting the industrial world as ugly and dirty, and the “uncivilized” world as beautiful, we get an entirely new perspective on what a person/family needs and desires in order to be happy, and what they must fight for to achieve that goal.

A question comes to mind, is it always a good thing for a well intentioned governing body to assume control over a people who SEEM to be without happiness? In the Bathtub, we see a community of people ready to hold onto their traditions and values, even in the face of death. When is the line of ethical and unethical behavior crossed when it comes to cultural values? Who’s to say what’s best for people if those people disagree with the majority?

This film is an absolute joy even amongst all of the terrible tragedies that our big eyed heroine and company must face. One of the most heart warming moments comes at the discovery of a woman who resembles much of what Hushpuppy believed her mother to look like. “Is this the woman who gave birth to me?” isn’t a question she considers. Rather, she simply accepts that the woman is, and in turn, the woman holds Hushpuppy as if she were her own child. We never learn the truth, and it’s all for the better, because Hushpuppy is stronger for it and goes back to take care of her daddy, and immerse herself back into the community she knows and loves.

The moral implications are not really spoon fed to us, but rather presented in a series of wholesome, yet tear jerking moments that will spark your critical thinking skills to emerging. Performances by all are flawless and riveting, and the musical score is just as desirable (if not more) as any from the Hollywood blockbusters. I know I favor the independent films, and I recognized that more often than not, indies are never THE BEST films made in cinematic history. But I think we can all agree that this story, in all its forms, can contend with the best of the best.

This film will compel you to cheer for Hushpuppy and cry along with her at the same time. You’ll leave the theater wanting to be like her, have her strength and endurance of character. This is a film for all ages, balanced with the right amount of wonder, excitement, drama, and heart that any one of us can ask for in a film. This truly is a film that should be seen by everyone.

Moonrise Kingdom Movie Review

Posted: August 1, 2012 in Bill Murray, Bruce Willis, Focus Features, Frances McDormand, Jared Gilman, Kara Hayward, Movie Review, Roman Coppola, Wes Anderson

Release Date: May 25, 2012 (NY, LA; wide release: June 29)
Studio: Focus Features
Director: Wes Anderson
Screenwriter: Wes Anderson, Roman Coppola
Starring: Bruce Willis, Edward Norton, Bill Murray, Frances McDormand, Tilda Swinton, Jason Schwartzman, Jared Gilman, Kara Hayward
Genre: Comedy, Romance
MPAA Rating: PG-13 (for sexual content and smoking)
Official Website: MoonriseKingdom.com

Making a secret pact a year prior to actually venturing on a journey together, two twelve year olds, Suzy and Sam, fall in love and run away together into the woods off of the coast of New England in the summer 1965. As numerous authority figures, parents, and legal guardians hunt them down, an oncoming storm approaches the island community with both physical and subliminal implications.

the mid-60′s was an interesting time, and I’ve always wondered what it might have felt like sitting in a movie theater during my mom and dad’s childhood. In Moorise Kingdom, not only do I get a sense of what my parents grew up with, I also see a sliver of the implications troubled children grew up with in the 60′s.

It’s a love story, an adventure, a comedy, and biblical allegory, all wonderfully combined into a poetic film with very little to dislike. From start to finish, the visual display was in a yellowish tint with a faded aura, complete with high-riding boy scout shorts and mustard kerchiefs that made me wonder how the heck my dad didn’t play a party in the story! The film’s list of items also included a wonderful array of things that any collector or pawn shop owner would drool over – a portable record player, glimmering vintage shoes, and hard back novels that I remember seeing on my parents bookshelf that were read to me as bed time stories. This film is nostalgia at its best!

However, what stuck out to me the most was the poetic nature of the story. This was a film highly driven by its script and period appropriateness, with careful attention being paid to the dialog and interactions that each character maintained and partook in. The sense of reality and fiction were fuse together into a flawless set of twisted, yet thought provoking elements that won’t spoon feed you the implications and their meanings. Rather, you’ll leave the theater with a smile on your face and conversations spewing from your mouth – focusing on what Moonrise Kingdom was about and why it was a joy to behold.

Artificial worlds is one of Director Wes Anderson’s best known trademarks, which also has been one of his many downfalls. This reviewers own personal opinions set aside, the rest of the country has never favored his independent flavor of film making. Anderson is truly a visionary in his field, but hasn’t always been met with positive feedback.

However, with Moonrise Kingdom, Anderson takes his style in new strides, creating a film audiences can relate to while remaining bewildered by his twisted sense of humor and storytelling. The world in which Anderson creates in Moonrise Kingdom is obviously based in reality, yet he seeps random acts of fiction into the story that seem, juxtaposed with everything else, hilariously odd and out of place; the by-the-book Scout Master Ward, (Edward Norton) leaping away from an exploding hut over a stream , Captain Sharp (Bruce Willis) making a plethora of silly comments while working his law enforcement role on an island severely lacking in criminal activity, And Suzy’s rather demented parents, played excellently by Bill Murray and Frances McDormand, all added to the overall scheme of the film.

Suzy (Kara Hayward) and Sam (Jared Gilman) are two young adults on the verge of discovering who they really are. They decide to get married and run away to freedom. And while they only knew each other very slightly, their quirkiness and profound intellectual approach (term used loosely) to anything they encountered proved the two had a connection that most married couples never develop in a life time.

This film leaks out a new level of poetry that we don’t see in modern films anymore. Within its script is contained a simple story, with simple characters, in a simple world, and simple problems that everyone can encounter. Yet amongst all the simplicity, we see a story as complex as any found in the backyard of Hollywood without the need of overspending an unnecessary amount on special effects. The camera does all the work, and that’s clearly enough.

However, given the story and everything that was odd and out of place about it, one would think Moonrise Kingdom wouldn’t have worked. But as Sam stated, “Poems don’t always have to rhyme, you know. They’re just supposed to be creative.” Anderson lives up to this statement completely by providing a real story with dream like qualities about it, making it the most poetic and heart felt film of the year.

The Amazing Spider-Man Movie Review

Posted: July 8, 2012 in Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Martin Sheen, Marvel Comics, Marvel Studios, Movie Review, Rhys Ifans, The Amazing Spider-Man

Release Date: July 3, 2012 (3D/2D theaters and IMAX 3D)
Studio: Columbia Pictures (Sony)
Director: Marc Webb
Screenwriter: James Vanderbilt
Starring: Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Rhys Ifans, Denis Leary, Campbell Scott, Irrfan Khan, Martin Sheen, Sally Field
Genre: Action, Adventure
MPAA Rating: PG-13 (for sequences of action and violence)
Official Website: TheAmazingSpiderMan.com

Are we skeptical? Of course we are! Tobey McGuire was last seen swinging amongst the buildings of New York City not five years ago. How many of you are, deep down inside, a little upset about how soon our friendly neighborhood Spider-Man was rebooted? Not being a Marvel reader, you’d think I could care less about Spidey and the treatment he gets from the movie studios…I do care.

Even not being a fan of Spider-Man, I was still one of the thousands of little boys who grew up with his presence – whether it be on TV, comics, or costumes, he was there. For me, the greatest presence he’s had in my life was due to the magic of Sam Raimi and Golden Age writing skills of Stan Lee. Sure, I grew up with the terribly animated Hanna-Barbera cartoon, but the films are what made Spider-Man fun for me.

Now we come to a new era, with the trailers of the new web-slinging franchise feeling a but more like Twilight – complete with the messy, greased hair look and emo-like sensibilities, and darker undertones. One might think that this is a cheap move and will only end up in failure.

To be honest, that’s far from the truth, and in many ways, this Spidey film is better than Raimi’s.

Andrew Garfield is about the same age that Tobey Maguire was when he first put on the red and blue suit. Maguire, no doubt, will maintain the label of being Spider-Man, (and one of the best at that) but Garfield might just have him beat in one very significant area. How convincing can someone be as a teenager? When Spider-Man came out in 2002, even then I was laughing (on the inside) at how poorly Maguire played the part of a typical teenager. Once I saw Garfield’s portrayal of such, I relaxed and knew that, finally, Peter Parker was going to be treated right.

This Peter Parker is a skateboarder, and not very good with Science. Which is interesting since athleticism was originally not a defining characteristic of Stan Lee’s Peter Parker who loved science and the inner workings of life. Of course, he’s still somewhat of a techie, knowing how to build contraptions and gadgets, but knows very little about the inner workings of science – all of his ideas come from eavesdropping on his fellow classmates who geek-out during their public displays of nerd talk. He seemed very much like a typical teenager that any one of us could relate to while maintaining some of the geeky characteristics that make him stick out as a protagonist.

Garfield and Emma Stone work exceptionally well together. (I’m sorry Kirsten, but you and Tobey had some issues as a couple.) Of course the script helped with that connectivity, but the two were able to bring that believability to the screen. Stone also stands on her own well and delivers the original love interest of Spidey with such flare and confidence – and not so over acted as Dunst’s MJ.

Mark Webb presents a new cast that we can take much more seriously than the Raimi cast. Sally Fields and Martin Sheen star as Aunt May and Uncle Ben, who give the characters a much more realistic role that doesn’t make you giggle every time you see their faces. Likewise Rhys Ifans delivers a truly convincing Dr. Conners, despite the strange and abrupt development the character makes.

In the film, Dr. Conners, one arm and all, comes off as genuinely good, wanting to do his best at providing humanity with all their hopes and dreams of being more than what they are. But once the Lizard came into play, all of the sudden he changed his viewpoint from loving humanity, to hating it – compelling him to change everyone into a “higher state of evolution” – a world of lizard people! It was a weird transition from nice guy to lunatic, and I didn’t buy into as much as Webb wanted, I’m sure.

There were many dull moments as well that could have been handled differently. The overall color scheme of the film gave it an ever stagnate feel. The film never grew in cinematography – keeping the outside scenes dark and during the night, and the inside scene bright and happy. But maybe that’s what Webb was going for and I need to stop worrying about the small details right?

Spidey fans will love how Webb goes back to the roots of Spider-Man with the web-shooter and Gwen Stacey being Pete’s first love. But some new surprises also come along with this rebooted Spider-Man installment – we get to meet Parker’s parents and discover a new mystery that takes Pete’s family to a whole new level of angst! There’s also an intriguing connection between Parker’s origin as Spider-Man and Dr. Conner’s quest to fuse Human and animal DNA. It was a nice way to open up this origin story as the connections to Oscorp and the science of Parker’s dilemma make for a truly invigorating story.

While it’s never articulated in these exact words, the phrase “with great power comes great responsibility” comes out as strongly as it did with Raimi’s rendition. This film, in many ways, portrays the notion even better with Peter Parker believing in what his uncle taught more and more as the film pushes forward. Even though it’s still annoying that they decided to reboot the series so soon, I can, without a doubt, tell you all that the Amazing Spider-Man is an entertaining film with qualities that surpass the original intent of Spider-Man without bastardizing the character. It’s a wonderful story that’s polished for audiences new and old.

Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter Movie Review

Posted: June 26, 2012 in 20th Century Fox, Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, Movie Review, Seth Grahame-Smith, Timur Bakmambetov

Release Date: June 22, 2012
Studio: 20th Century Fox
Director: Timur Bekmambetov
Screenwriter: Seth Grahame-Smith
Starring: Benjamin Walker, Dominic Cooper, Anthony Mackie, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Jimmi Simpson, Robin McLeavy, Alan Tudyk, Rufus Sewell
Genre: Horror, Supernatural Thriller
MPAA Rating: R (for violence throughout and brief sexuality)

Academia has been in an uproar ever since it was announced that Seth Grahame-Smith’s wonderfully odd vampire novel was coming to the big screen. True, the story itself verges on dishonoring a man so revered and respected in the eyes of Americans that wish to rid this country anything that slanders his name and the fight for the freedom of blacks. Yet I wonder if it justifies the outrage and mutterings from historians and Lincoln fans.

Of course, that’s the point, is it not? How often do we see a historical figure used in fiction to such an odd degree? Only in Men in Black would we expect to see Abraham Lincoln as an alien, or some other form of creature that we aren’t familiar with. Of course, in a movie like Men in Black, it would be acceptable. In this film, however, Grahame-Smith writes honest Abe’s “new” story as if it were actual history. Knowing, of course, that it isn’t REAL history, it makes the interest in the story (at least for me) build up that much more.

Known for his ability to revamp classic literature into hilariously horrifying stories, Grahame-Smith took a chance with Abraham Lincoln, putting a twist on his legacy that no one (besides Smith) could ever have conjured up. His gag in the form of “Pride and Prejudice and Zombies” proved him the master of making a joke last a lot longer than we expected it to while keeping it enjoyable at the same time.

In the story, Abraham Lincoln is a model citizen with a dark undertone – having witnessed the murder of his mother at the hands of a vampire. Years had past, and he vowed to avenge his mother’s death by training in the art of vampire slaying. With his skills in axe slinging and his natural ability to pump out profound public oratory, he leads two lives, one in shadow and one in public service, hiding his night life of killing “devils.”

This is not a film for those who are unable to use their understanding of disbelief when it comes to historical revamping. The final battle scene at Gettysburg shows a different look at how the South was able to survive the Civil War as long as they did – with Stephen A. Douglas making deals with Vampires. If honoring the men who died fighting in this war is too important to you, then you might not enjoy the climactic final battle sequence. But as a lover of vampire stories and folklore, I ate this up! I could barely contain my laughter when Jefferson Davis is shown dealing with those “of his kind” to win the Civil War. Again, if you have so much respect for history (and maybe even Jefferson Davis) this might irk you to the point of no return.

“Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter” is arguably the best vampire film to hit the big screen since “Interview with a Vampire!” And to be honest, Abe Lincoln might just be the best Vampire film I’ve ever seen! The clever rounding about with history, messing with historical fact, and using a historical icon to rejuvenate this part of America’s history was a unique joy to behold. Dan Simmons wrote a book title “Children of the Night” where the concept of the political vampire was born. In this film, we see a revival of political vamps and demons. It’s hard to make any vampire story relevant to a modern audience – so when tied to an expression of social injustice and slavery of the body, soul, and spirit, vampire literature can become a much more powerful story to enjoy.

The story helps explain the reason why vampires became more publicly known as the years rolled forward. Blacks were used as crops the vampires could feed on – easy prey meant happy blood suckers, keeping them away from the rich white folk. However, with Lincoln pushing for the freedom of the blacks, whites would no longer have anything to barter with, forcing the vampires to expand on their culinary vocabulary. This is not an expressively supported theme in the film, merely hinted at in unintentional ways.

The mash-up of historical fact and science fiction are certainly not unknown cinematic territories. In fact, this mash-up has been a successful plot device that has given birth to many great films. What makes this story so unique and different is how slavery is directly connected to the needs of vampires, as well as stringing Lincoln’s vendetta against vampires to his quest to abolish slavery.

Making this film even more enjoyable are its visual aspects. The cinematography is wonderful and realistic as can be. Sure, much of what you see is obviously CGI’d, but it never seems out of place or inappropriate. Moments of sepia toned scenery give this film a much older and classic feel, helping to create the mood. Likewise, epic scenes like the burning train rolling down the collapsing tracks, the bloody fight scenes where vampire faces contort and contract, and a 50 year old man swinging his ax around decapitating vampires was excellently executed and top notch.

Benjamin Walker has certainly done Honest Abe justice and made a name for himself with the role – he portrays the confidence we imagine Abe Lincoln having with the utmost fervor and might. The rest of the cast is amazing too, with no one producing a poor performance in the least.

Although the film takes some (many) liberties with the original plot, there isn’t a single moment where I felt the film dishonored the novel. Much of what transcends from book to film were little blips – much more elaborate and descriptive in the novel, yet they find their place in the film quite nicely. There’s a twist at the end that’s neither surprising nor expected, yet doesn’t downplay the film at all.

As stated above, this is quite possibly the best vampire film ever made. The issues occur only in tiny instances where you aren’t quite sure what Joshua Speed is thinking and/or hoping for. For you naysayers, don’t drive a stake into the heart of this film just yet – give it a chance and see what you think. If nothing else, you can always watch an episode of Buffy to counter your dislike for any bastardization of history. Then again, it was Abe that started the tradition of the slayer now wasn’t it?

Pixar’s “Brave” Movie Review

Posted: June 23, 2012 in Billy Connolly, Brave, Disney, Emma Thompson, Kelly Macdonald, Movie Review, Pixar

Release Date: June 22, 2012 (3D/2D theaters)
Studio: Disney•Pixar
Director: Mark Andrews, Brenda Chapman
Screenwriter: Mark Andrews, Steve Purcell, Brenda Chapman, Irene Mecchi
Starring: Kelly Macdonald, Emma Thompson, Billy Connolly, Julie Walters, Kevin McKidd, Craig Ferguson, Robbie Coltrane
Genre: Adventure, Animation, Comedy
MPAA Rating: PG (for some scary action and rude humor)
Official Website: Disney.com/Brave

The glories of Scotland can be fully realized in “Brave” to any who’ve never visited the forested land with a rich and vibrant poetic and militaristic history. Since ancient times, the mystical stories of Scotland’s epic battles have leaked through the generational cracks and into the hearts of children to this day. In Pixar’s “Brave,” a new tale unfolds about a young and adventurous girl whose personality and spirit was ahead of its time.

Princess Merida (Kelly Macdonald) is faced with the terrible burden of being raised as royalty. Her mother, Queen Elinor (Emma Thompson) constantly barks the fact that Merida is a princess who must act accordingly. But Merida refuses to accept her fate, hoping to change it. Defying tradition and destiny, Merida rides out into the woods to the mystical side of the land where she finds an old witch and requests a spell to change her fate. However things are not always as they seem in the world of cinema and Merida is faced with a terrible dilemma that she must rectify before the second sunrise. Time’s a wastin’, and Merida may not be ready to meet the challenge.

To start off, “Brave” marks many firsts for the acclaimed animation studio, most notably having a powerful female lead driving the story forward. Merida’s gorgeous spirit and vibrant personality makes her one of the most intriguing and sensational character’s in animation history, especially with her wavy red hair. But there’s also the princess themed aspect of the story. Pixar’s never taken the typical Disney approach to their films, and making Merida a princess in that same tradition is an interesting move. Not bad, just interesting. This 13th feature for Pixar is also its debut period piece, setting the stage in pre-medieval Scottland. All of which served the film adequately.

As I state in all my reviews of any Pixar film, Brave reminds us why they rule the world of animation with an iron fist. No doubt, Brave is the most beautiful animated film to date. There’s this photo-realistic status that Brave upholds while not forgetting the poetic nature of animating realistically – something Avatar failed to accomplish. There’s a definite attention to detail in the cinematic lighting flowing throughout the film and how it radiates against Merida’s glowing red hair. Likewise, the realistic look of each animal was masterful – Merida’s horse was especially well done. Yet Pixar appropriately animates a certain level of cartoon-styled eyes, lips, and stature in every beast, maintaining its “cartooniness.’ It may look real, but this is still a cartoon, and the animators at Pixar are the masters of combining the two aspects into one beautiful feature length film.

With the release of Up!, containing adult themes and mature content, Pixar was given full license to do whatever they wanted! In Brave we are presented a story as dark as any tale I’ve read or seen before. Mostly radiating from the evil bear, Brave maintains a dark undertone, supported by the misty part of the woods and the mysterious will-o the wisps. In fact, there’s so much about Brave that’s “mysterious” you’ll walk out of that theater wishing you knew more about the film’s side stories. Thus lie the flaws in Brave – the inability to tell the full story.

I fully understand the need to keep certain things anonymous – The major flaw in Tim Burton’s “Batman” was revealing the identity of the Thomas and Martha Wayne shooter as the Joker, forgetting that it was the anonymous nature of the shooter which gave the Batman origin story such a strong will. However, Brave left almost too much open-ended. What was the significance of the wisps besides being the guiding light for Merida? What was the history of the spell given to Merida for her mother? What was the old witch’s story and how was she connected to the four brothers of the ancient kingdom? Is their more to be learned about Mor’Du and his “beastly” condition? This woodland region seems to have a vast history, and 90 minutes wasn’t enough time for it to be fleshed out. So much is yet to be told, which left much of the film in a state of uncertainty. It needed more time.

In addition, the choice of gags and humor in Brave felt cheap and out of place. It’s possible, due to the intense and dark nature of the story, that Mark Andrews and Brenda Chapman decided this type of humor was needed to keep the tension at a much lower level as not to scare the kids TOO much. It went into a toggling pattern which followed this – masterfully written story, cheap gags, masterfully written story, cheap gags - and so on and so forth. I suspect many people my age will walk out of the theater trying to figure if they actually enjoyed Brave or not due to this very inconsistent aspect of the script.

There’s also a very unclear purpose within the script. The film has trouble living up to its title, staying on the safe side rather than being brave and taking a few risks. The film had the potential of being Pixar’s best if it weren’t for the constant out of place themes. As funny as it was in the beginning, the slapstick ruckus caused by the men became very cumbersome. Sure, this is how most men want to act, but it was a running gag that became too much of a good thing. Likewise, in the Queen’s transformation from human to bear, I wondered when her constant state of panic would end. These two major thematic aspects of the film were only a fraction of the writing flaws. Most of Pixar’s movies have a glimmer of the unexpected, both in plot and tone. Brave has this, but unlike its predecessors, the film never comes to a comprehensible closure to its side stories. But, again I state, it all had to do with limited screen time.

Please note, parents, that this is a very violent film; Bears are going at it tooth and claw, men are constantly punching each other for the sake of showing who’s the better man, and this film has one of the scariest creatures I’ve ever seen in an animated movie. If you were one of those parents who took issue with Cars 2 and the torture scene, then be careful with this one…you may have another conniption.

Aside from the fact that this is Pixar’s greatest visual achievement in its history, Brave fails to deliver the type of story Pixar has become known for. As far as the script and humor are concerned, Brave reminded me more of a Dreamworks animated film – still enjoyable, yet very dry.

That being said, however, Brave still mops the floor with most other animated films outside the Pixar regime. I guess that’s the trouble you face when you’ve become the standard that every one else tries to mimic.

Prometheus Movie Review

Posted: June 17, 2012 in 20th Century Fox, Charlize Theron, Michael Fassbender, Movie Review, Noomi Rapace, Prometheus, Ridley Scott

Release Date: June 8, 2012 (3D/2D theaters and IMAX 3D)
Studio: 20th Century Fox
Director: Ridley Scott
Screenwriter: Damon Lindelof, Jon Spaihts, Ridley Scott
Starring: Noomi Rapace, Michael Fassbender, Guy Pearce, Idris Elba, Logan Marshall-Green, Charlize Theron
Genre: Sci-Fi
MPAA Rating: R (for sci-fi violence including intense images, and brief language)
Official Website: Prometheusmovie.com

It was only a few days before actually seeing the film when I learned of the connection Prometheus shared with the “Alien” movie franchise. Then it wasn’t until a few moments before the trailers began when I learned that this movie was a prequel to the series. After seeing the film, I made some inquiries to others who had seen the film, and they also had no idea that Prometheus was a part of the “Alien” mythos until afterwards. This leads me to believe that Ridley Scott and company purposefully tried to conceal this fact, keeping a distance between the film and the notion that Prometheus is simply an Alien prequel, making its potential as a great stand alone sci-fi movie to increase and not be dictated by the expectations fans may or may not have.

However, thanks to the world of WWW, leakage always occurs, and Prometheus’s connection to the 1979 film got out before the movie was released. But seeing as how the Alien franchise is in a state of limbo, it was a good attempt on the part of 20th Century Fox (curse you!) to make this enigma, creating the illusion of newness for the casual movie goer, and the die hard ones.

Setting aside the nostalgic sensibilities of the film, the story is about two archaeologists, Dr. Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) and Dr. Charlie Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green) who discover a plethora of ancient cave drawings that lead them to believe the origins of humanity were not of divine origins, but rather due to the scientific experiments of an alien race. After research and study, they’re pointed in the direction of a distant moon, LV-223, where the two protagonists and a team of astronauts and other scientists travel in search for answers. Little did Shaw and Holloway realize that their importance in this trek were overestimated as they had to fight against Meredith Vickers (Charlize Theron) and her bitterly skeptical attitude towards the entire mission. However, what was believed by many to be a waste of funds soon turned into a horrifying discovery where the resolutions to many of the unanswered questions were more than anyone was ready to face.

For the most part, Prometheus does very well as a stand alone Sci-Fi/Horror film, albeit a few confusing moments within the story’s unfolding plotline. To be honest, however, there aren’t many Sci-Fi films that can match this level of artistry, especially with how well the script is written and how carefully planned out its sequences are. There’s also a very different offering for both types of movie goers in this film, presenting an experience that will, more than likely, have you leaving the theater wondering what’s going to happen next, which will compel you to come back for more with the inevitable prequel sequel. However, there’s still enough confusing material and plot developing moments that will leave you wondering why any of this important, and how it relates to the overall scheme of the story.

Much of the Ridley Scott fan club who has been less than impressed with the director’s non Science Fiction cinematic endeavors (Robin Hood, Body of Lies, A Good Year) will be thrilled to see him getting back in the Sci-Fi chair and doing what he does best. If Scott is known for only one thing, it’s his ability to set up the most beautiful, yet horrifying scenes that describe an entire alien world to its utmost importance. In the opening sequence, without a word being spoken, we understand this world’s religious significance as well as the willingness to sacrifice oneself for a cause we know very little about. So much went into the creation of this first four minute scene, and so few actually care about the work and thought that went into making such a weighty and descriptive opener. But this will be the saving grace to any skepticism you may have had before entering the theater.

However, as descriptive and amazing as that opening scene was, it creates a very perplexing situation as it really doesn’t make sense in context of the overall plot. Was this more of a myth of this interesting and mysterious alien culture, or did this actually happen thousands of years ago? And if so, how does it connect to everything else we saw in the film? I won’t give anything away, but more than once you’ll wonder why certain plot developing moments are there . The end scene, despite how excitingly terrifying it is, is just as confusing with no explanation for being.

The film does follow a very typical and cliche plot progression, as well as containing characters that feel a little too form fitting for the type of story Prometheus is. We have the two protagonists, one being the enthusiastic forward thinker who wants to discover the truth, and the other being the realistic counter part who’s constantly telling his girlfriend to look past her own ambitions for the sake of living. The bad guy is more of a distrustful player in the story who’s simply bitter due to unknown circumstances, kicking the bucket in the end. Likewise, the ensemble supporting cast follows a very familiar cinematic line up, complete with a captain who falls victim to Shaw’s sense of discovery and eagerness to know the truth, a dirty yet brilliant archaeologist who’s too scared to risk his life for the greater good, and the token British actor. This, in no way, takes away from the overall enjoyment of the film, but for those of us who are all too familiar with it, it comes off more cumbersome and underwhelming.

I can’t speak much to the three dimensional aspect of the film as I’m one of those movie goers that prefers the classic 2D viewing. However, knowing that the film was shot using 3D cameras, and in the hands of a more than capable director, I suspect that seeing this film in 3D is worth the over priced ticket. Then again, I’m not sure I remember seeing anything that would lend itself to in-your-face moments.

Horror films have never intrigued me however. At least not enough to get excited about them. I guess my weak tummy just can’t hack it. But there’s also the lack of an intelligent story that most horror films are plagued with that just doesn’t sit well with me. (Although I hear Cabin in the Woods surpasses anything the typical horror movie has tried to do.) Along with the mindless violence and idiotic ventures into obviously dark and treacherous rooms, I’ve simply never been able to get into those types of movies. Granted, Prometheus provides much more intellectual horror and good writing, but there’s still enough grotesque and bloody scenes that the potential this film had at being MORE than a typical horror film was only slightly above average. (Although the abortion scene was the most intense scene in the entire film!)

To be honest, while the connection to the Alien franchise may confuse those unfamiliar with the series, the film stands on its own quite well. This is an enjoyable cinematic excursion that I think most people who enjoy the genre will get a kick out of regardless of its faults and unnecessary violence. I’m definitely going to be pleading for more Ridley Scott Sci-Fi/horror based movies in the future.

Snow White And The Huntsman Movie Review

Posted: June 10, 2012 in Bob Hoskins, Chris Hemsworth, Kristen Stewart, Movie Review, Rupert Sanders, Snow White And The Huntsman, Universal Pictures

Release Date: June 1, 2012
Studio: Universal Pictures
Director: Rupert Sanders
Screenwriter: Evan Daugherty, Evan Spiliotopoulos, Hossein Amini, John Lee Hancock, Jez Butterworth
Starring: Kristen Stewart, Charlize Theron, Chris Hemsworth, Sam Claflin, Ray Winstone, Ian McShane, Eddie Izzard, Bob Hoskins, Toby Jones, Eddie Marsan, Stephen Graham, Ray Winstone, Lily Cole, Sam Spruell, Liberty Ross, Noah Huntley
Genre: Action, Adventure
MPAA Rating: PG-13 (for intense sequences of violence and action, and brief sensuality)
Official Website: SnowWhiteandtheHuntsman.com

It’s a grotesque journey from dark to light, a unique retelling of the classic tale that verges on the side of the twisted and insane. It was an incredibly beautiful film even with it’s sick and twisted interpretation. However, the mismash of Narnia, Lord of the Rings, vampire lore – such as with the story of Elizabeth Bathory – was odd enough to make me wonder if the plot actually spun into anything significant.

And if I ever wanted to know what it feels like to get high, this film succeeds with flying colors!

The story takes place on the familiar fantasy terrain, and Snow White (Stewart) is the only woman in the land who threatens the Queen (Theron) and her unequaled beauty. Snow White runs away and the Queen hires an aggressively reluctant huntsman (Hemsworth) to hunt her down so she can devour her heart and have ever lasting youth. But in true pseudo-love-story form, the Huntsman sees the purity in Snow White and prepares her for the worst, while in turn, Snow White shows the Huntsman compassion and friendship. Together they share in an adventure that’s based in good versus evil, dark vs. light, with a plethora of magical elements.

I mentioned the above phrase, “with flying colors,” which is incredibly appropriate for this film with its wonderfully clever usage of darker tones juxtaposed against the brighter colors. In fact, the entire film is FLUSHED with blacks and whites, with the occasional red apple. With this infusion of the two color depictions, and the different shades of each, the film does present an interesting question – Does white always have to represent good, and vice versa with black representing evil? Sure, the queen wears a terrifyingly black outfit, but she bears a lighter color tone than the film’s protagonist does. It’s a confusing visual depiction to say the least, but a wonder to behold.

That’s really where the greatness of this film lies, within it’s visuals. Carrying the rest of the burden of making this film worth while lay with the cast…minus one.

Chris Hemsworth’s hit the jackpot thanks to the Avengers, and now has complete control over the reigns of his acting career thanks to his stellar performance as the Huntsman. Along with Theron, he’s the saving grace of the movie and provides a lot of depth and emotion in a character that started out as someone who could care less about the people and the Kingdom.

Charlize Theron, the reason the bulk of movie goers saw this film, delivers a captivating and chilling performance. This was an interesting take, on the screen writer’s part, to make the queen not only evil and twisted, but depressed and sympathetic. As an audience, we see why the Queen is such a tyrant, giving us a reason sympathize with her. But even Theron can’t save a script that’s overly poetic and analytical, forcing the cast to overact.

Thus comes Stewart’s “Oscar” speech, which is laughable at best. But let’s not throw the fault completely at her. The speech, which was meant to inspire the soldiers to brave the oncoming danger, was only successful because the director told them to make it so. Stewart’s performance, however, was less filled with dialog and more with angsty driven moments of ecstasy. Was this the director’s choice, or is Stewart simply unable to move past the type of performance she typically portrays thanks to Twilight; always unpleasantly writhing due to some outer force which compels her to act with such sullen malaise. It’s almost as if she has a disease she’s fighting throughout the film, and it feels more out of place than as apart of the story. With her contemporary edge, is it possible that she’s acting in the wrong era? If only we had the same magical burden of Dwarf Muir due to being blind – seeing the potential in individuals which others cannot see.

At the film’s core, however, is the subliminal messaging of getting high and how it makes you happy – which is true. Not a moment goes by where it doesn’t seem like someone just took a heaving whiff of meth or cocaine. Do the dwarves simply live off of Heroine? It certainly seems like it. The dwarves always seem exceptionally happy, especially Muir. (Bob Hoskins) Even the animals in the gorgeously animated forest scene seem to be the after affect of the dwarves drug addiction. But I don’t think anything will cure Snow White’s constantly depressed state of mind, which could have been caused by an overdose of Marijuana. And I’ll just make the assumption that the queen is injected daily with LSD since she always has an altered state of mind, seeing things that aren’t there. Is it possible that the nameless Huntsman is the only sensible one, partaking in the normal drinking of beer, getting into drunken fights, only to wake up with minor migraines the next morning? I think so. No wonder he dislikes people, they’re all crazy due to drug induced insanity! Perhaps an appearance from Dopey would have been appropriate?

It’s hard to sit through a two hour long film in which we already know the plot. I’ve known the plot since I was 5 years old! So it was nice to see some of the story telling upgrades to make the already known plot seem fresh and new. The apple was poisoned not because of some magical potion poured into it, but rather because of the decaying land. The dwarves aren’t the cutesy Disney versions from the 1937 Disney film, but rather a brutish and vile lot who have the only humorous moment (singular) in the film’s 2 hour duration. As mentioned above, the Queen is completely reinvented where we can sympathize with her and her newly discovered humanity, and despite Stewart’s lack luster, over compensating performance, turning Snow White into a stronger character rather than a damsel in distress was an intelligent move.

The problems occur in the plot’s overall purpose; the character developing moments are quite odd and the reasoning behind the character’s motivations could have made sense if only the execution and writing were better. The story goes off the deep end with its “Snow White turned Joan of Arc” motif with no reason for being except for the strangely placed sense of patriotism she obtains that was never alluded to prior. The transition for the Huntsman from brute to caring man was more abrupt than fluid, as was the queen’s final bow as she crawled away from Snow White in fear of…something? It was never made clear as to what the Queen was trying to accomplish; was she simply attempting to be the fairest in all the land, or did she have some misplaced concern for the people?

“I will give this wretched world the Queen it deserves.”
“Mirror, Mirror, on the wall, who is the Fairest of them all?”

Which is it? I couldn’t tell.

Transitions seem to be a problem with this film as this juxtaposition from darkness to light, while gorgeous to look at, is overly drawn out and sluggish, with nothing tangible in sight.

A single viewing was and will be enough for me. I loved looking at the special effects of the film as well as enjoying some of the story alterations, but overall this is not a movie worth its price of admission. If you’re into 2 hour long durations of the after effects of drugs, by all means, go see this film. But if you can wait until it’s streamable online, then go with that option. There is a poison apple lurking around in seeing this film, and you might just bite into it by accident.

Heretical Jargon

Hits

How Do I Compare?

Contact Me

Heretical Jargon

Subscribe!!

Search Heretical Jargon

Site Pages

Blogroll

Heretical Archives

Author

Heretical Tweets

Categories

Archive for the ‘Movie Review’ Category

Iron Man 3 Review

Oz The Great And Powerful Movie Review

Warm Bodies Movie Review

Jack the Giant Slayer Movie Review

Django Unchained Movie Review

Les Misérables Movie Review

Hitchcock Movie Review

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey Movie Review

Lincoln Movie Review

Wreck-It Ralph Movie Review

Dredd Movie Review

How The Dark Knight Rises Should Have Ended….

Total Recall Movie Review

Beasts of the Southern Wild Movie Review

Moonrise Kingdom Movie Review

The Amazing Spider-Man Movie Review

Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter Movie Review

Pixar’s “Brave” Movie Review

Prometheus Movie Review

Snow White And The Huntsman Movie Review

Follow “Heretical Jargon”