James Adam's Movie Ratings - Rotten Tomatoes

Movie Ratings and Reviews

Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens

I can say that if you are a fan of the Star Wars Saga, you will not be disappointed by this latest entry in the series. In preparation for the release of Star Wars: The Force Awakens, I sat down (and for the first time) watched the original trilogy of films that starred Mark Hamill, Carrie Fisher, and Harrison Ford. Of the three films, I loved The Empire Strikes Back and I enjoyed A New Hope and Return of the Jedi. Following my two day marathon of the original trilogy, I was set to see the new film at a 10PM showing the night after it nationwide release of December 18th. I entered the theater, excited, and prepared myself for another two hours of Star Wars.

Star Wars: The Force Awakens picks up thirty years after the destruction of the Galactic Empire. A new dark side has formed and it's called The First Order and it is lead by sith in training, Kylo Ren (Played by Adam Driver) and Hilter-like General Hux (Played by Domhnall Gleeson) with Supreme Leader Snoke (Played by Andy Serkis in a motion captured performance) being the mastermind hidden in the shadows (a sort of Emperor Palpatine-like character). The First Order is out to destroy the Republic and Luke Skywalker (the last Jedi).

In the opening crawl, we learn that Luke Skywalker has disappeared and that Princess Leia (now, General Leia) has sent her best pilot, Poe Dameron (Oscar Isaacs) to a village on the planet of Jakku to retrieve new information on the whereabouts of her brother.

After Dameron retrieves the information from the village elder (Max Von Sydow, in a cameo appearance), The First Order arrives and destroys the village. Dameron quickly places the information inside his trusty robotic buddy BB-8 (a soon to be fan favorite character of the series) and tells the robot to get the information to General Leia. Dameron is then captured by Kylo Ren and brought to Starkiller Base where he is tortured into giving up the location of the information (BB-8).

While transporting Poe Dameron to a cell, a storm trooper (Played by John Boyega) decides to go AWOL and helps Poe Dameron escape Starkiller base. Dameron crashes their stolen TIE fighter in the desert of Jakku and is seemingly killed in the action leaving the storm trooper, who he nicknamed Finn, stranded in the desert.

Meanwhile, we are introduced to Rey (Played by Daisy Ridley) who barely makes a living as a scavenger on Jakku. Rey stumbles upon BB-8, who has been captured by another scavenger, and saves him and the two form a tight bond with one another.

Finn encounters Rey and BB-8 at a junkyard settlement and when the First Order arrives to kill them and take BB-8, they escape on the Millennium Falcon and are then intercepted by Han Solo and Chewbacca who now work on a freighter.

Did any of the story I just told you sound familiar? That's because it is familiar...Most of the story in Star Wars: The Force Awakens is basically redone from Star Wars: A New Hope with a twist or two. It is more than a little bit irritating. However, I forgive the film of its narrative similarities with the original film because this one seems to do all the same stuff uniquely and updated to the point where I do feel like i'm watching a new film even if it's more or less the same as the original.

A problem with Star Wars: The Force Awakens is that it somehow cannot quite conjure up any emotional connection with the audience. In moments such as when Han Solo and Chewbacca are reintroduced to the audience or when Han Solo meets up on screen with his love interest from the previous trilogy, Leia, we should feel excitement or nostalgia or joy but we don't feel anything. This is in part because of the score and also in part because of the script. When Leia and Han Solo come onto the screen together, the score should get loud and dramatic! The score needs to say 'This is a big moment', but it doesn't. The script needs to have action when reintroducing us to our favorite characters....

I want to connect the last paragraph to another sequence in the film, which also had the same problems but additional ones... When Han Solo confront his son in what is supposed to be a very dramatic - very tense - very emotional sequence of the film, we don't feel anything. When Han is killed by his son in that sequence, we should be horrified and shocked and sad but somehow we aren't... It isn't because of poor direction or staging or conception or acting (That is all brilliant) it's because the script hasn't formed any relationship between Han Solo and his son (this is the first time we see them together in the same scene!). We hear Han and Leia talk about their son and we hear people talk to Han's son about Han, but that's it... It makes for an emotionless twist.

The cast is phenomenal. Returners Peter Mayhew (in a suit as Chewbacca) and Harrison Ford (as Han Solo) are great and seem to have a lot of fun. Other then Mayhew and Ford we don't see much of the original cast (appropriately, for this is a NEW trilogy centered on NEW characters). Carrie Fisher (as General Leia) has a couple of scenes and so does Anthony Daniels (as C-3PO). Mark Hamill (as Luke Skywalker) only has a cameo appearance at the very conclusion of the film and his cameo has no lines.

The real talent comes with the new cast. Daisy Ridley (as Rey) is spectacular; she was a real catch... Ridley is a very talented young actress and she displays charm and heart in her performance and makes her character a favorite of the whole series. Ridley's costar (whom she shares the screen with for the majority of the film) is John Boyega, another talented young actor. Boyega's chemistry with Ridley and Oscar Isaac is oozing. Boyega gives a very funny and scared performance as Finn. Another casting success is Adam Driver as Kylo Ren... Driver successfully differentiates his character from Darth Vader by making Kylo Ren a more vulnerable and hot headed and crazy guy. Adam Driver stole every scene he was in as Kylo Ren and I was glad he didn't have his mask on the whole movie. I'd also like to give praise to Domhnall Gleeson for his scary and inspired performance as General Hux... Gleeson's speech was probably one of my personal favorites of the film. Lupita Nyong'o does fantastic motion capture work as Maz Kanata and nails Kanata's voice. Finally, Oscar Isaac gives a very likable, heroic and charming performance as the Resistance's best pilot - Poe Dameron.

The visual effect in Star Wars: The Force Awakens are awards worthy... The action sequences are stunning and real looking... I give a lot of praise to director J.J Abrams for bringing practical effects and sets and location shooting back to the Star Wars series... The use of practical effects and sets and location shooting gave the film a strong look of realism instead of the cartoony effect the second trilogy of films carried.

I give a lot of praise to J.J Abrams for making a pretty enjoyable Star Wars film that spill all its beans in just one round. J.J Abrams got the most out of the cast's performances, the script, the cinematography and practically everything else.

After watching Star Wars: The Force Awakens I walked out of my movie theater wanting to see the film again, and that's a good thing.

All and all, Star Wars: The Force Awakens features excellent performances, great directing and visual effects and a lot of fun; this all overcomes the disappointingly familiar story and lack of emotional connection between the audience and the film. B- 12/21/2015 & 12/22/15

P.S I'd say this film is better than the second trilogy of films but falls behind the first trilogy. I'd rank it fourth of the seven films.


I'm reviewing a sleeper hit called Trainwreck that actually isn't a train wreck.
The film is directed by Judd Apatow and, in double duty, written and starring somebody named Amy Schumer. Schumer, who nobody knew when this was released back in July 2015, is practically a household name among film fans now because of her memorable work in this film. Judd Apatow has directed a few fairly funny raunchy comedies and this is no exception either, this is a fairly funny foul mouthed movie (thanks to Schumer) filled with buckets of sex jokes - sex scenes - and practically everything else your dirty mind could imagine...

Trainwreck is the story of a dirty men's magazine writer named Amy (Played by Amy Schumer) whose life consists of one night flings, hangovers, and working at the magazine. One day, Amy is assigned by her boss Dianna (Played by the unrecognizable Tilda Swinton) to write an article about a sports doctor named Aaron Chambers (Played by Bill Hader). Soon, Amy finds herself falling for Aaron and vice versa.

Amy Schumer stars in Trainwreck, and it's her first time leading a film (She has a popular television show Inside Amy Schumer which she also leads). Schumer is great - she hits all the right notes as Amy, she has comedic timing and she effectively displays Amy's imperfect habits and traits and also a lot of heart and relatability and awkwardness that make the character who she is. Bill Hader is only OK as Schumer's love interest. LeBron James and John Cena are scene stealers and (in a small cameo) Leslie Jones had me laughing my head off. One other thing; kudos to anyone who recognizes Tilda Swinton in this film...

For a comedy, there is a surprisingly strong amount of pure romance and pure drama. You can't call this a rom-com or a dramedy because this film isn't solely two genres it's a comedy and a drama and a romance film. All these different genre make it difficult for the film to find a beat and a tone. You'll watch this movie and you won't quite be sure whether it's appropriate to laugh or be sad or be happy. This consistent tonal shift causes some of the jokes to fall flat.

I also found that the film was way too raunchy and that its raunchiness took away from the enjoyment of the film. There isn't a line of dialogue that comes out of Schumer's mouth that doesn't include an innuendo. We see John Cena's buttocks several times (just because it's Amy Schumer writing this film) and we see John Cena and Amy Schumer get down with it early on in the film. If I got a penny every time there was a sex joke I would be a millionaire now. Don't get me wrong, a lot of the sex jokes were funny but after a while they began to overwhelm.

I think the best writing came in the film's final half hour... In this final half hour, I laughed a lot more than I expected to and when the film concluded I felt satisfied.

All and all, Trainwreck is a funny and enjoyable film (thanks to Amy Schumer) even if it suffers from a lack of consistent tone and overwhelming raunchiness. B- 12/18/15 & 12/21/15


I admit to being a Rocky virgin. That's right, I had never seen a Rocky movie until I watched Creed though I guess you wouldn't call Creed a Rocky movie, because Rocky himself is only a supporter in this tale that mostly follows Adonis 'Donnie' Creed (Michael B Jordan). I may have never seen the Rocky films, but I was very familiar with them. I read the entire synopses of the film series just in case this film was to reference any of those (which it honorably did). I walked into Creed with my friends Jesse Zoeller and Kristian Plummer in tow Thanksgiving weekend, ready to see the film that had been reportedly well received.

Adonis Johnson is the son of heavyweight champion Apollo Creed. Adonis participates in underground boxing matches as a pastime to his day job in a security firm. One day Adonis decides to quit his job at the security firm to pursue his dream of becoming a professional boxer. Adonis' mom Mary Anne (Phylicia Rashad) disapproves of Adonis' decision to become a professional boxer, reminding him of how his father had died in the ring 30 years before... However, Adonis' mom cannot dissuade Adonis for he has decided to follow his dream and nothing and nobody can stop him from doing this.

To become a professional boxer you need a trainer so Adonis heads over to Philadelphia and finds Rocky Balboa (Sylvester Stallone returning as good as ever) running a Italian restaurant named Adrian's (More honorable tribute to the Rocky film series). At first, Rocky declines Adonis' plea to train him though he eventually reverses his decision and agrees to train Adonis at Front Street Gym.

After defeating a local fighter, Adonis gets the attention of heavy weight champion Ricky Conlon's (Tony Bellew, a professional boxer in reality) trainer who caught word that Adonis Johnson is really Adonis Creed. Ricky Conlon's trainer wants Adonis to be Conlon's final competitor because Conlon is going to prison soon. Adonis accepts the match (after changing his last name from Johnson to Creed at Conlen's trainer's request).

I found Michael B Jordan to have given a powerful leading performance as the fully developed Adonis Creed and he shines next to Sylvester Stallone, who gives another solid performance as Rocky Balboa. The standout of the supporting cast is Tessa Thompson as Michael B Jordan's love interest who is more than your typical love interest... Thompson's character is nearly deaf and a very talented singer/songwriter. Anytime Tessa Thompson is singing, I close my eyes and smile - her voice is beautiful.

The screenplay written by director Ryan Coogler (whose directing work in Fruitvale Station and Creed is top notch) and Aaron Covington is great in terms of character development (they did an excellent job of forwarding the development of Rocky)and pacing but the story itself lacks originality... It's too predictable. The climatic boxing scene in Creed is really exciting and well staged and acted but its outcome felt like a really forced wink toward the first Rocky films conclusion. However, I feel that Coogler and Covington got away with their other tributes to the Rocky series.

Creed features strong performances and character development and excellent directing though the film doesn't have as strong a story as it does everything else. After watching Creed, I find myself wanting a sequel... B+ 12/2/15

Seven (Se7en)

Let me set the scene. Halloween night 2015; trick-or-treaters gone and my parents retired to sleep... Its cold and the darkest shade of black outside... I pop some popcorn and grab my blanket from my bedroom in the back of the house. I head into the living room and put my BLU-RAY copy of Seven into the player. I turn on my father's 65 inch widescreen television (He got it on sale at the Black Friday the year previous to this one) and turn on the sound bar connected to the television. I sit back on the sofa and press play on the film ready for my Halloween finale.

I think David Fincher is a very talented director. I have enjoyed almost every film he has made (that I have seen). I thought The Curious Case of Benjamin Button was excellent and I voiced a similar opinion of Gone Girl and Panic Room. I didn't care for Zodiac but that wasn't because of Fincher in particular. After viewing Seven, I feel it renews my faith in David Fincher as a great director. Seven is smart and equally spooky and its script packs quite a punch (its twisted ending most of all).

Seven is the story of two police detectives, a freshie (Brad Pitt) and a soon to be retiree (Morgan Freeman) who are on the trail of a serial killer who bases his murders off the seven deadly sins.

Each scene pulls you deeper into the mystery as we follow two developed and likable characters down a road of gruesome murder scenes and vague clues. I liked how Fincher portrayed the murder scenes and the lighting during these scenes.

David Fincher directs excellent performances from Morgan Freeman to Brad Pitt to Gwyneth Paltrow to R. Lee Ermey to Kevin Spacey in a small but crucial role late in the film. Pitt and Freeman and Spacey were excellent in their roles and I feel that Spacey's character could've have had a better actor. Freeman seems to add something to this particular performance (something you can tell when watching him speak with Gwyneth Paltrow's character in a particular scene set in a diner) . Pitt demonstrates his acting chops during the ending and it's this one scene in particular hat made me conclude that Pitt had an award worthy performance on display.

I found the script to be sharply written, well paced and full of thrills and chills and character development. You know a script is well written when it ties all the plot points together into a twisted finale. You know a script is sharply written when you can understand and hate a villain with only a handful of scenes. You know a script is sharply written if it is original and smart and filled with good dialogue and that's what the script for Seven is. The final line in the film is the best as it summarizes the story's message "'The world is a fine place, and worth fighting for'...I agree with the second part.". That's what sharp writing is.

I think that Gwyneth Paltrow was sidelined too much in the film (as she is in most films). I feel that if Fincher wanted to, he could've cut her almost completely out of the film and it wouldn't have made much of a difference except in the conclusion of the film.

This is a dark, thrilling and well made film by David Fincher featuring appealing performances from Morgan Freeman and Brad Pitt. A 11/2/15

Jupiter Ascending

I had semi retired from film reviewing after my review of the science fiction disaster, Tomorrowland, was written... I was brought out of retirement, today, to review the latest science fiction disaster that is Jupiter Ascending... Did you happen to see last year's Winter's Tale? Or 2012's Cloud Atlas? Maybe you did, but you didn't like them if you did see them... Both films came to mind as I watched the Wachowskis' latest nonsensical film.

Jupiter Ascending begins with our lead character's dad (James D'Arcy) looking into space with his treasured golden telescope. As he and his pregnant wife (The wife is pregnant with our lead character) smile and look happy as hell, a group of robbers break into their house and begin to take their stuff. One of the robbers grabs the golden telescope and James D'Arcy goes crazy, begging the robber to leave the telescope behind. The robber shoots and kills James D'Arcy thus leaving our lead character without a dad. This is the last time we see or hear of our lead character's dad.

The film then jumps years later and we are introduced to our lead character, Jupiter Jones, (Played rather lifelessly by Mila Kunis). Jupiter Jones cleans wealthy people's houses. One day she goes to donate her eggs so that she will have money to buy a golden telescope. During the egg donating procedure, the nurses and doctors operating on Jupiter are revealed to be aliens sent to kill her by Balem Abrasax (Played by Eddie Redmayne who sounds like a dying whale in this movie) who is a part of an outer space dynasty and has control of the Earth. Jupiter is saved by an alien mercenary soldier named Caine Wise (Played by Channing Tatum). It is revealed by Balem's sister (Tuppence Middleton) that Jupiter is the rightful owner of Earth. Jupiter seeks to claim the planet Earth from Balem Abrasax, who will do anything and everything in his power to stop her from taking the Earth, with the help of Caine.

Jupiter Ascending contains the exact same narrative befuddlement and attractive visual effects that Cloud Atlas and Winter's Tale both displayed.

Watching Jupiter Ascending was like watching a football game if you didn't understand football at all. Jupiter Ascending was confusing and I was befuddled the entire two hour length of the film. The script is so heavy on science fiction thrills that it fails to take the time to explain these thrills or the story that make these thrills possible.

The story of Jupiter Ascending was so heavily conceived that what we end up getting on screen is a humongous pile of ideas but no idea of what these ideas are. The characters in the film never explain enough to satisfy our thirst for knowledge of this world that Jupiter Ascending is set in. If clearer exposition was added to the script, maybe I would've understood what was happening in Jupiter Ascending.

This film was so confusing to watch that it made me very angry. I wanted to turn the film off a half an hour into it, but didn't because I figured that later on the story would become coherent. The story never did become coherent it became even more incoherent.

Another thing is that the big visual effects heavy action sequences themselves aren't very enjoyable to watch. These sequences are so fast paced and repetitive and long that they begin to cause the viewer mental agony. There is one particular action sequence in the beginning of the film in which Jupiter Jones and Caine Wise are be chased by aliens as they fly around the city of Chicago that cause the most damage to my father and I as we sat and endured it. It is the longest of the action sequence in the film, apparently running for a total of EIGHT minutes... That is way too long and the sequence is also way too fast paced. We the viewers cannot make sense of what is going on because of the fact that this sequence is so fast paced... Everything goes by in a blur... We end up not caring about what's going on, we just want this scene to end.

Visual effects are great when they don't overpower the movie. It's just like how spices make food better when they are used in small amounts but when they are used in large amounts, it's the exact opposite effect. The Wachowskis' film Jupiter Ascending features an eye sore of beautiful visual effects. If the effects hadn't been as beautiful as they were to behold for two hours, I would've given this film a very pathetic one star rating.

The performances, lead by Mila Kunis and Channing Tatum, are surprisingly weak considering all the talent in this film. Just about everybody underperforms here. Kunis, who is excellent in films such as Book of Eli and Friends with Benefits, comes off lackluster and (as I said earlier) lifeless as Jupiter Jones. Channing Tatum is so-so and Eddie Redmayne, who won the coveted best actor award at the Academy Awards 2015 show for his work as Stephen Hawking in The Theory of Everything, is absolutely horrible as the lead villain of this movie. Redmayne voice in the movie is so strange that you wonder what he was going for with it. Was Redmayne trying to impersonate a dying whale or a very old man on his last leg? I don't know, all I know is that I couldn't hear any of his lines due to his inaudible voice.

Actually, all the actors were pretty inaudible because every actor in this movie seemed to mumble their lines! It got so hard to hear the actor's lines, to the point in which I had to turn the volume of my sound bar up to its highest level just to be able to get the slightest idea of what everybody was saying... That's another reason why I didn't understand anything that was going on. Even if exposition was being given, I couldn't hear it.

The bottom line is that while Jupiter Ascending looks great... It's an incoherent and confusing mess of a film with bad performances, action sequences that are too fast paced and too long, and a screenplay void of explanations. D- 9/12/15

I observe now that the Wachowskis' continue to dispense expensive and unenjoyable film one after another.


Of the science fiction films released in the last year none were even close to being as bad as 'Tomorrowland'. OK, yeah, 'Lucy' and 'Transcendence' were pretty bad too... Let's rephrase; 'Tomorrowland' was as bad as those other two films. What made viewing it even worse was that i was watching it in a movie theater. As i watched 'Tomorrowland' all i kept thinking was that i had paid hard earned money to see this piece of incoherent nonsensical crap.

You might be asking this question, "How did you (me) come upon seeing 'Tomorrowland' in theaters?"

I'll answer that. I wasn't going to see 'Tomorrowland' in the theaters. I wasn't going to waste my time on it, let alone my money. Instead i was set to see 'Mad Max: Fury Road' with my father while my sister and grandma went to see this film. However, be it destiny or simply God's wraith at me for missing church to go see a film, my father got the times mixed up with another movie theater. What my father saw was 'Mad Max: Fury Road' at 3:25 PM and 'Tomorrowland' at 3:30 PM... In reality my theater wasn't playing 'Mad Max: Fury Road' until 5:50 PM and guess what? 'Tomorrowland' was playing at 3:30 PM at BOTH theaters... So there you have it. My dad didn't want to waste time and gas driving me and him home and back again to see the Mad Max movie so we accompanied my grandma and sister to see 'Tomorrowland'. BIG MISTAKE.

'Tomorrowland' begins with a young girl, Casey Newton (Played by Britt Robertson) sneaking into a decommissioned NASA launch pad that was being dismantled by machines. Casey's plan was to sabatoge and break those machines to keep her father (Played by Tim McGraw) employed at that NASA compound. However she is caught and placed in jail. When she is released on bail and retrieves her belongings from a desk jockey, she finds a pin amongst her stuff. Casey discovers that when she touches the pin she is transported to a magical place, a place of dreams.

Later, while searching online for any information she can find on the pin, Casey finds an ad asking for the pin. This ad has no information other then the address from which the ad was placed. Tracking the address, Casey enters a memorabilia shop and meets the shopowners... They provide information on the pin and then attempt to kill Casey, but she is saved by Athena (Played by Raffey Cassidy) a animatronic robot who destroys the two shopowners that have also been revealed as animatronic robots.

Athena leads Casey to the house of Frank Walker (Played by George Clooney) who (after a brief while) begrudgingly agrees to accompany Athena and Casey to Tomorrowland to defeat its leader and save the world.

The biggest problem with 'Tomorrowland' is that it acts like it makes sense, but it really doesn't. Nowhere in the film did i feel like anything that i was watching was comprehensible. The reason for that is that nothing really was comprehensible.

First off, i want to know why you can enter 'Tomorrowland' by way of a pin - in Disney Land - on the 'Its a Small World' theme park ride. I don't understand why you can enter such a place by way of Disney Land, and also - how can you do that. The opening scene of the movie showed the pin being scanned during the ride and a secret passageway being opened and from there more unbelievable nonsense. It didn't make any sense.

I'd also like to note that you can enter 'Tomorrowland' from the Eiffel Tower, which has a secret rocket hidden in it. I don't know how someody could have hidden a rocket inside the Eiffel Tower but there you go.

The big question marks are how and why Tomorrowland exists and where it is. These questions are very imperfectly answered. Basically, a group consisting of Gustave Eiffel, Jules Verne, Nikola Tesla, and Thomas Edison founded the 'Plus Ultra'. The 'Plus Ultra' was a group of inventors who found an alternate universe (We never learn how) and named it Tomorrowland. This film never explains how the group found Tomorrowland and how Tomorrowland became what it was in the film (High tech and farther advanced)

A major plot point in the movie envolves the world coming to an end and Tomorrowland being the salvation. We never learn why the world is coming to an end, it sure doesn't look like it is in the movie.

The most irritating thing in the movie for me was the fact that Hugh Laurie's character David Nix,( the film's ineffective villain) made it seem like Tomorrowland was supposed to be some TOP SECRET place but when a younger version of George Clooney comes flying into Tomorrowland out of nowhere, Hugh Laurie doesn't even bat an eye. Even on Earth, you mention 'Tomorrowland' and everybody's like "Let me tell you all i know about it." like its no big deal - no secret - when to the contrary, people say it is.

Something else i didn't understand is about Hugh Laurie's character David Nix. Nix is the supposed leader of Tomorrowland but how did that come to pass? When did he become leader? How did he get to Tomorrowland even? How'd he discover it? What qualified him to be the leader? In my opinion, George Clooney's Frank Walker was more qualified then Nix.

The film opens in 1964 with David Nix as a 50ish man then it flashforwards to present day 2015 and Nix looks the same. How is that so? Is Nix an alien of some sort, maybe a robot? I don't think so, because aliens didn't find Tomorrowland, humans did... Plus Ultra to be exact. Plus the film doesn't even suggest that Nix is a robot, not even a hint, so that rules that out. Does living in Tomorrowland stop aging? I don't even want to go there because if i did i would be even MORE CONFUSED then i already am.

Aside from all the befuddling nonsense that i just mentioned above what else sucks about this film?

Let's start out with the lackluster script. The script not only is filled with plotholes and headscratching galour but also features pretty cardbourd characters. Let's begin with our lead protagonist portrayed by Britt Robertson, she is powered by what to discover Tomorrowland? Curiousity? Thats what we're lead to believe but why else? In a good screenplay we recieve several reasons for why a character (Ofter the lead) does what he/she does btu we don't get that in this screenplay. Its just CURIOUSITY for this lead. Frank Walker is powered to fix Tomorrowland because NO REASON WHATSOEVER. The little robot girl wants to save Tomorrowland because ITS HER MISSION. And the villain, David Nix, wants to keep Tomorrowland to himself and not let anyone in because... (And this is the best one yet) BECAUSE OTHER HUMANS SUCK (Nix forgets he is one... Or so we assume) and Nix is SELFISH and rather see earth collapse and him alone prosper. These characters are so uninteresting and not very drawn out that i foundit hard to feel for them when i was supposed to.

The characters and story seem to have been treated more as afterthoughts to the concept of Tomorrowland then as the prime focus of the people behind 'Tomorrowland', which is a true pity. Director Brad Bird came up with an intriguing concept but seemed to give up after that thinking that the hard part was done but it wasn't.

The only scene i didn't dislike in 'Tomorrowland' was the introduction of George Clooney's character midway through the film. Casey is locked outside Frank's house while its raining until she manages to sneak into the house, Frank goes outside looking for her and then Casey locks him out of the house. Later they both make amends but then a group of robots attack Frank's house and the two are forced to escape in a bathtub that is sort of like a rocket. Yes, this is the scene that is featured heavily in the trailers (Go figure). This is a scene that is an example of one of the many concepts Brad Bird came up with for the movie and this one was one that i liked. It was the most fun i had during the whole movie and gave poor Clooney and Robertson some actual opportunity to act.

I pity the talent involved. George Clooney gives this movie his all, just as he does with every movie he appears in, even if the movie isn't a good one. You can always expect a great performance from Clooney, a performance that sometimes goes above and beyond the movie he's in itself, as it did in this film's case. Besides Clooney, Britt Robertson does a nice job of establishing herself as leading material but whenever she's on screen with Clooney she seems to shrink back. Britt Robertson doesnt really hold her own with the veteran star. Hugh Laurie plays misanthropic characters so well (Look at his famous television character Dr. Gregory House in the show House M.D) but his villainous character doesn't get nearly enough time to truely give Laurie anything to do in the film besides say a ton of sarcastic comments at Clooney and everybody else. A waste of Laurie's talent but it is what it is.

The film throws a lot of beautiful visual effect imagrey at you... Brad Bird delt in the animation department before diving into the live action field so yeah, the animation looks FANTASTIC. The point is the visuals can look gorgious but we already know that movies aren't built on visuals, they're built on strong stories and developed characters that matter to us. The people behind 'Tomorrowland' tried to build the movie on an interesting concept and eye-popping visual effects but obviously they stumbled and eventually fell because of that weak building material.

All and all, 'Tomorrowland' has a very interesting concept, it has good visuals and features another fine performance from George Clooney but everything else is trash. The script is confused and full of plotholes and irritating nonsense and also gives the viewers one dimensional characters that we don't care about and a villain who gets too little screentime to make much impact on us during the lengthy final to this bad science fiction film. D 6/9/15

Avengers: Age of Ultron

Phase 2 officially concluded with the release of 'Avengers: Age of Ultron' (I choose to not give Ant-Man the destinction of being the end of Phase 2). I will begin this review by stating that after watching Avengers: Age of Ultron i felt alittle disappointed. I was not nearly as disappointed as i was with the release of 'Amazing Spiderman 2' just a year before i saw this film, but i was still slightly disappointed.

'Avengers: Age of Ultron' wastes no time getting to the action and this time opens with the Avengers already assembled and fighting against Hydra in the European country of Sokovia. Infiltrating Hydra's outpost led by Baron Von Strucker (The guy we saw in the end credits scene in Captain America: The Winter Soldier) Tony Stark (Played again by Robert Downey Jr) finds Loki's sceptor and brings it back to the Avengers Tower (Stark Tower in the first movie). At the Avengers Tower, Tony Stark and Dr. Bruce Banner (Played again by Mark Ruffalo) discover that the sceptor's gem has artificial intelligence in it and together they create Ultron (Voiced by James Spader) a very intelligent robot. With the help of superpowered-russian twins Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver (Played by Elizabeth Olsen and Aaron Taylor-Johnson) who wish to avenge their parents death, Ultron seeks to save Earth by destroying the Avengers and eradicating the human population.

This sequel was not even remotely as good as the first Avengers film. Ranking it with the rest of the Marvel Universe films... I'd put it behind Iron Man (The first one), The Avengers, Captain America (The first/second one), and Guardians of the Galaxy. It just wasn't as good in quality compared to those superior films. The first thing that i found noticeably amiss was the humor that makes these Marvel films so good. The first Avengers film was packed with laughter... This one not so much.

I was actually quite surprised by the lack of breakout humor. Sure there were a few minor giggle moments (Including Stan Lee's cameo scenes) but for the most part there was no BIG laughs to be had. The funniest bit that i found was a long running joke in the movie that began with Robert Downey Jr (In his Iron Man suit) saying "Shit!" during a fight scene. Chris Evans as Captain America scoulds Downey Jr saying "Language." It was pretty funny hence the destinction of the 'funniest bit'. Other then that joke, humor was absent.

Besides lacking humor, the script lacks a unique story. OK, so good guys fight a bad guy... This time the bad guy is a robot. The bad guy who is a robot is a bad guy who wants to kill all of the human race to save the earth... That isn't very unique. Or original. But thankfully, we can forgive the script for that because the good guys are the Avengers and the bad guy is Ultron.

Other then that, the only other issue i had with the film is that the action wasn't even close to be as fun as it was in the first film. Maybe that's because the story isn't very unique and we are just so used to the same thing. But maybe that's not the case. The hyped scene that had Tony Stark in his hulkbuster suit fighting a ragging green Bruce Banner wasn't as good as expected. It was abit overlong... Most of the acton scenes in the movie were overlong and lacked surprises. The scene with Tony Stark fighting the Hulk lacked surprises. All that was present was Tony Stark throwing Hulk into buildings and saving people that were caught in Hulk's viscinity. The final fight scene that put all the avengers together (including War Machine, Vision, Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch) up against Ultron and his own army of mini-ultrons was a good scene but it was too fast. I couldn't make sense of what was going on half of the time, unlike when i was watching the final fight scene in the first avengers movie. But this final fight scene does get cudos for providing a much needed shockfactor that had been missing for most of the movie.

The one thing i did note as i watched 'Avengers: Age of Ultron' was the darker tone. I really did like that aspect of this Avengers movie. I liked the sence of fear that i felt throughtout the film, it gave the film some much needed backing. I felt worried for the Avengers team.

As always the cast excels. Robert Downey Jr noticeably got some of the best material from the script and did great with it. He will truely be the best and only Tony Stark/Iron Man in my opinion. Chris Hemsworth and Scarlett Johanssen and Mark Ruffalo also give good performances. Of the new additions to the cast, i loved James Spader's vocal and motion capture work as the villianous robot Ultron. His voice still echos in my head a day after watching the movie. I think Joss Whedon had fun writing for Ultron because Ultron had great dialogue. And finally i gotta say that the twins Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver were scene stealers from the get-go. Elizabeth Olsen was great as the 'weird' witch and while i still feel that Evan Peters had the upperhand as Quicksilver, Aaron Taylor-Johnson still did a spot on performance. Though i must note that Elizabeth Olsen and Aaron-Taylor Johnson's russion accents faultered a few times but no matter, it didn't make much of a difference in my opinion.
I also wanted to say this. I enjoyed the 'cameo' appearence of Andy Serkis.

The costumes and visuals and make-up are well done as can be expected from Marvel films. The visual effects team did an excellent job on Ultron and the Hulk. Did you know that Paul Bettany was Vision in the flesh? Or did you think that he only provided the voice? I didn't quite know for sure until later. The make up team did a wonder on Paul Bettany's face and their efforts were well recieved by me. Vision looks good.

All and all, 'Avengers: Age of Ultron' isn't even close to being as good as its predecessor. It's script lacks in humor and the story isn't that unique. The common audience will still enjoy the story as it is and the humor the same and thankfully the cast is great and the visuals burst... That's enough for most and that includes me. B- 5/10/15

How to Train Your Dragon 2

'How to Train Your Dragon 2' came four years after the first film premiered in theaters in March 2010 to rave reviews and a surprisingly abundant bag of cash. I admit to you that i loved the first 'How to Train Your Dragon' very much. It was cute, the vocal work and designs were excellent and the animation was beautiful. I looked forward to seeing the sequel to this sleeper hit.

The story takes a time-jump of five years and follows a 20 year old Hiccup (Voiced again by Jay Baruchal) and his dragon Toothless and the rest of the characters from the past film including Astrid (Now Hiccup's girlfriend) as Hiccup seeks to map out the rest of the land. While out adventuring, Hiccup uncovers a group of dragon trappers led by newcomer Eret, son of Eret (Voiced by 'Game of Thrones' Kit Harrington) who tells Hiccup of his leader; a villianous dragon hunter named Drago Bludvist who seeks to take over the world with his dragon army. Along the way Hiccup must grasp with the discovery of his mom (Voiced by Cate Blanchett) who was thought to have been long since deceased.

'How to Train Your Dragon 2' is different from the first film in many aspects, its more mature and defined. The character designs are sharper and fuller as is the story. The script looks to move away from the cuteness and light nature of the first film and evolve into something along the lines of 'Toy Story 3'.

'How to Train Your Dragon 2' losses most of its cuteness to give way to a film that is mroe about growing up and discovery and adventure and loss... The film features much more emotionl depth then that of the first film. It'll leave you sad at a few moments - that i can say to you.

'How to Train Your Dragon 2' succeeds in becoming something new and different from the first film, but there was something lost between that five year jump. I believe that due to the growth and maturation of the lead characters, the jokes began to transition from the funny antics of Toothless and Hiccup into something else. Now we must rely on the side characters to give us a laugh now and then. The problem with that is the fact that the side characters are not main. We see way lesser of the side characters then that of Hiccup and Toothless and as such we recieve less oppurtunities for jokes to be expressed. I must note that these jokes that were presented didn't all work. There is one particular recurring joke that concerns a friend of Hiccup's named Ruffnut, sister to Tuffnut (Voiced by Kristian Wiig and T.J Miller respectively ) who falls for Eret, son of Eret, while two other friends, Fishlegs and Snotloat (Voiced by Christopher Mintz-Plasse and Jonah Hill)who both compete for her attention and affection from that of Eret. This was not that funny in my opinion, but i'm sure it will amuse the younger kids.

The animation in this movie is so jawdroppingly gorgous that i had to pause the film several times just to take it all in. The animation of the characters is so breathtakingly advanced and expressive that i contiually repeated the word 'Wow' at every moment a character spoke. The individual facial features are more detailed in that you can see much more. The skin is less smooth and has more tecture to it, the hair is less clumpy and you can see many individual strands... i swear i could feel exactly what the characters were feeling just by looking at their eyes!

All and all, 'How to Train Your Dragon 2' is superior to the first film in the terms of animation and emotional depth and development but i still can't shake off the general lack of cuteness and abundance of jokes that made the first film so successful. However, in the end i except that with a five year gap between the first and second film, we are bound to lose something and in this case it was that. B 4/25/15

Men, Women & Children

Jason Reitman's second film of this year after 'Labors Day', and I'd say the better of the two. Men, Women and Children is unique in the way that it puts forth its message. It doesn't give it to you subtly or slowly, in the first minutes of the film we get the fullity of it.

That is also the main (and one of the only) issues i had with the film. Reitman forces the themes onto you, and you feel a bit overwelmed by it all. And by the end of the film, you feel as if your going explode from the overbearing nature the film's themes present.

Even if the film feels overwelming in terms of what its trying to get across to you, we do get it. Jason Reitman knows what he wants to get across and he gets it across. The story hits you, and it doesn't hit you lightly either. After the end of 'Men, Women and Children' i couldn't stop thinking about it even as i began viewing 'The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies'.

Added for additional pleasure, is a dark tone and an equally refreshing musical score that mixes in well with the tone. Plus, with an extrodanary cast including star in-the-making Ansel Elgort of 'Fault in Our Stars' fame, Judy Greer, Rosemarie DeWitt, J.K Simmons and Adam Sandler (His performance was phenominal) 'Men, Woman and Children' works.

Reitman is so keen on strong characters, that by the end of the film you relate and feel attached to some of them. You can understand what they are going through.
Normally, i'm not a fan of the format in which seperate stories are wrapped up into one connected film, because i feel that not every story gets enough time to develop itself, or that the format isn't used properly, but in the case of this film, i actually did find it well utilized. Reitman makes each story stand up against each other.

Of the two Jason Reitman films released in 2014, Labors Day and Men, Woman and Children, the latter is far superior then the earlier by far.

All and all 'Men, Woman and Children' is a little too heavily handled with what its trying to get across, but its still emotionally impacting and powerfully acted. And a Reitman standout. B

X-Men: Days of Future Past

The second of two superhero related movies to be released in May were The Amazing Spiderman 2 and this, X-Men: Days of Future Past, a film that chronologically fits between the X-Men films ... Well, I don't really know. And it features the returns of several cast members from the original trilogy in reprising their roles. This was by far a disappointment.

You would think that it'd be fun to see your favorite cast members return to reprise roles they had performed as, years ago... But it wasn't fun, because those actors were not given much to work with. They had about 5 minutes in the opening, and 5 minutes in the middle and a few more minutes at the end. But most of those minutes were comprised of action sequences featuring the characters being killed off one by one, and then reset. Seriously, we get to watch the characters in the future be killed off the exact same way but in different locations- twice. Once at the beginning and once at the end, and you'd think this would raise tension, but it doesn't. Most of the future portion of the film featuring original cast members doesn't hold its own to the rest of the film.

The past portion of the film (About 90% of the film itself) isn't that bad. It features good performances from new cast members playing younger versions of the old actors. Jennifer Lawrence is top notch, as is Michael Fassbender and James McAvoy. New to the X-Men films and by far the standout was Evan Peters as Quicksilver. He stole the show from veteran actors Hugh Jackman, Avoy, and Fassbender. It was really energetic, sly, and fun. And it was pretty fast paced and felt like a 70's film, which was refreshing.

I really hate when films try to jam in every character they possibly could into a film. It just doesn't work. Look at The Hobbit series... It's overall good, but it succumbs to one dimensional character, because there just isn't enough time to develop each and every one of them. 'X-Me: Days of Future Past suffers from this. It has too many characters and doesn't know what to do with all of them.
Absolutely nothing is done with the original cast member's characters (Ellen Page, Halle Berry). And let's not even talk about Hugh Jackman who, though leading the film, his character has no progression whatsoever.

The worst part about the script is how confusing and tasteless it is. The opening scene of the film is an example of this. We jump into an action sequence, and then everybody dies except for Ellen Page's character and Omar Sy. Then we jump into a room with Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellan. They don't tell us what's going on, and why they're there and why the people we just saw killed in the first scene are now alive... All we know is that Jackman has to go back in the past to stop Peter Dinklage from being shot by Jennifer Lawrence so that robots (Seen in the first scene killing everybody) aren't created. And that's all we find out. That's all.

Visually 'X-Men: Days of Future Past' looks sharp. The 70's era is good looking as is the future. The action sequences are well made, and a scene featuring Quicksilver in fats motion single handedly taking down a ton of security members in high speed looks stunning. Dialogue is good too, believe it or not.

All and all 'X-Men: Days of Future Past' features A confusing, overstuffed with characters script, a top notch cast, great visuals, but overall disappointing levels of fun and excitement. This is an OK popcorn flick, but not nearly as fun as the previous X-Men films nor as smart as this summer's other sci-fi flick, 'Edge of Tomorrow'. C 12/19/14

The Theory of Everything

An old fashioned love story in its finest form is what people have labeled 'The Theory of Everything' but it's more than that. It's really a personal story about Stephen Hawking. Sure, the film features a love story between Stephen Hawking and his first wife Jane Hawking but it doesn't focus on that aspect as much as you would assume considering the advertising. Its more or less a story of both Stephen and Jane's struggle with Stephen's disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.

Watching 'The Theory of Everything' you'll never feel on the brink of tears, the script just isn't as hard hitting as it could but you'll have strong emotions nevertheless. Stephen Hawking's disease is not softened in the least sense, and that is a reason why I praise the script for telling it how it is. It's straight forward and never glossy but not very deep.

If I didn't know any better I would've said that Eddie Redmayne is Stephen Hawking. His performance is star making, it is a sure bet for a best actor nomination at the Academy Awards, and it may very well be Best Actor Award winning material. Either way, it's one of the best performances all all-round this year. Redmayne took seriously his role, performing the different stages of ALS with realism, determination, and perfection. Another stand out for the second and third acts is Redmayne's on screen Felicity Jones. I felt her frustration, wiriness, and general love for Stephen Hawking.

Director James Marsh provides Redmayne with top notch direction and his vision of Hawking, his struggles, and the overall story come across the screen with grace and love. I feel this film was more to Marsh then a just a movie, it was a sign of gratitude toward Stephen Hawking and his strength, and brains.

The musical score composed by Icelander, Johann Johannsson, is worthy of note. It's full of passion, and its' old fashioned which fits the film well. That mixed in with the beautiful cinematography make 'Theory of Everything' good to watch and listen to.

The film has a few rough spots here and there. Tiny bits of the film could've used more editing then they had, in particular in the first act. And 'The Theory of Everything' every once and a while drags, noticeably. And as I said before, the script isn't hard hitting... it doesn't punch out at you. It gives you a few small bursts sprinkled here and there, but never enough big ones to emotionally hit you hard enough.

All and all 'The Theory of Everything' features a powerful performance from Eddie Redmayne, excellent directing, and a noteworthy score. It's a film that may not be quite a Best Picture nomination; it's still a film worthy of remembering. B 11/25/14


'Hercules', the second of two Hercules films (The other titled 'The Legend of Hercules' and starring Kellan Lutz as the titled character). For this adaption of 'Hercules', Dwayne Johnson stars as the titled character. And I must admit that he fits the role (And bulk) and seems to have had as much fun as he possibly could playing the heroic Hercules... But the film itself just isn't fun.

The few random action sequences sprinkled in between training sessions and 'Dwayne Johnson conversation scenes, (just so you remember that he's the main character) come off surprisingly dull and boring. And I'm not using the term 'boring' lightly. 'Hercules' just isn't any fun.

Director Brett Ratner knew what he wanted in his take on the tale of 'Hercules'... He even had a check list. Get Dwayne Johnson to play the shirtless 'main' character. Check. Have a ton of one liners that don't work. Check. Don't forget to have a million training sequences and a ton of CGI! Check. Check. Check.

Nothing in 'Hercules' feels original, or interesting in the least sense. Even your average filmgoer, who'll enjoy virtually anything, won't enjoy 'Hercules'. Nothing new is brought to the script to make 'Hercules' worthy of note. I found it hard to sit through this entire film. And that's strange.

The biggest problem I had with 'Hercules' is how minor they made Hercules himself seem. Watching the film, I didn't feel like Hercules was the lead character, I felt like he was a part of an ensemble. Whenever an action sequence began, I honest to god forgot he was in the movie. He just didn't do much during the action scenes. It was pathetic. And if it weren't for a timely conversation scene between him and whoever every 4-10 minutes, I would've probably forgotten his existence in the entire film. And his back story? Not that emotionally impacting, which is pretty surprising given its weight.

While 'Hercules is a bit overstuffed with CGI.... It could've looked a lot more like 'I, Frankenstein'. Atleast when you're watching 'Hercules' you won't wanna pull your eyes out. The visuals don't look bad... they look really good. Anything but amateur.

And you'll definitely wanna spend some time looking at those costumes and pandering over the hair and make-up effects cause they're all worthy of note.

All and all, 'Hercules' has looks anything but amateur. The costumes and hair/make-up effects are of note, plus Dwayne Johnson fits the role of 'Hercules' but the titled character himself just doesn't have enough of a presence in the film emotionally or otherwise, and the film itself is just standard fare, it's boring and brings nothing to the table. D 11/22/14


I can't say that 'Interstellar' met my expectations. It let me down alittle. It wasn't Nolan's best film nor worse, but instead something inbetween. It showed potential but was obviously overwhelmed by its own concept.

'Interstellar' introduces us to many things, and tries to explain itself. It reaches for the stars (No pun intended) but fails to grab any. When the film is over you are left dumbfounded and abit befuddled for you do not understand the film's science. That was a major problem with 'Interstellar', it tried to make sense but failed at it. Watching the film (Particularly the last 30 minutes) I was left confused and scratching my head.

'Interstellar' features a very good, cinematic score. But maybe too cinematic for its own good. The music is so loud that sometimes you cannot understand the dialogue that is being said while the music plays. Alongside that fact, the music also becomes distracting to what we are witnessing on screen, due to the fact that it is so loud. It pulls you out of the experience, instead of pulling you in.

The script has other issues besides that of its failure at explaining itself to the audience. The script feels uneven. The first 40 minutes and last 30 minutes or so are noticeably weaker then the middle chunk of film. Opening, the script feels as if it's rushing to get to the middle instead of taking its time. And closing, the script feels like it's just trying to end itself as quick as possible. The best of the film is its middle section, well paced and emotionally satisfying.

Visually, 'Interstellar' is stellar (Pun intended). Christopher Nolan does have a knack for making a film look good. The film's grainy look suits itself, and the scenes in the worm hole are beyond magnifying. I especially was fond of two visually frustrating robots, TARS and CASE. Both in design are simply dazzling and creative. They are a wonder to the eye.

The all-star cast of Matthew McConaughey, Anne Hathaway, Michael Caine, Mackenzie Foy and Jessica Chastain all levitate the film. McConaughey gives the film an emotional pack. He has a way of relating to the audience, he has an every-man look and feel to him. The audience respects him and wants him to succeed. Hathaway and Chastain both give all their efforts to the film, and it works. They give good performances in supporting roles.

Now, I won't lie and say that 'Interstellar didn't have its moments of true inspiration. But I also won't say that it quite gets itself across to the audience, even with almost 3 hours of film.

All and all, 'Interstellar' has stellar visuals, a top notch cast, and a pretty solid score (Though it may be too loud), and while its script is uneven and drags here and there, it's not that bad. But what drags 'Interstellar' down is the fact that though it has 3 hours to get itself across, we don't understand half of what we are witnessing and this is what allows the film to ultimately be waved off. 'Interstellar' went alittle too far, farther then its own grasp and fails to make sense of what it is it has. And if the film fails to explain to itself, what it has, we too fail to understand what it has. B- 11/16/14

P.S On November 11th, My computer crashed, losing 14 film reviews I had yet to publish.

Winter's Tale

Disaster. Mega headache snooze fest. I didn't like 'Winter's Tale', and I doubt anybody else did.

The script is so confusing and not well thought out that you leave bewildered at what you have watched alongside a massive migraine. This is 'Cloud Atlas' number 2. The script introduces us to so much nonsense and chooses to explain so little that you end up laughing your head off at the stupidity you're witnessing. There's a horse, a white magic horse thing, and the film chooses not to explain it. You think 'What the hell?'

You see 'Russell Crowe' as a demon guy trying to kill Peter Lake (Colin Farrell) but we don't know why, they try to explain it, just not well enough. And then there's that cheesy cameo by Will Smith... I'm serious; he should win a raspberry for that horrible performance that he gave us in only two scenes.

And the biggest plot hole of them all is the fact that somehow Peter Lake ended up in 2014 from 1914 with no explanation as too how he did that... Seriously, he fell in a lake and ended up in 2014... What the hell?

And if it weren't for the excellent production values, I wouldn't even have given it a star at all. The film just has such beautiful sets, visuals, and cast that I can't give it one star. That's how bad the script was. It was so bad that even if most of the film was good, the script would still demolish it.

All and all 'Winter's Tale' has great production values, but this is all let down by the beyond confusing and laughable script that leaves you saying 'What the hell'? When the film finally ends. D 8/17/14

'Winter's Tale' is rated PG-13 for violence and some sensuality. It's appropriate for 13 and up.


Liam Neelson does what he does best. Most of his films are basically the same, but does that really matter? 'The Grey', 'Taken', 'Unknown'.... All so similar to each other, but all of which I loved... 'Non-Stop' is just no-stop fun that, it really doesn't matter how unoriginal it really is.

With solid performances from the large cast, and some well timed thrills, 'Non-Stop' keeps you guessing whom is the villain or villains... Is it Neelson himself? That's the fun watching 'Non-Stop'. It's got good writing that it doesn't matter how unoriginal it is. It's just pure fun. And that's what you want to see going into a Liam Neelson led film.

'Non-Stop' features some well choreographed action stunts as well as a few well thought out visual effects shots.

'Liam Neelson' gives another a-list performance worthy of praise. And the large supporting cast adds to the mysterious thriller that is 'Non-Stop'.

Though some would raise eyebrows at the script for a few unrealistic scenes throughout, some that are passable, but some that aren't.

All and all 'Non-Stop' has a great performance from Liam Neelson, well choreographed action stunts, and a sense of fun, which all overpower the mostly formulaic plotline. B 8/17/14

'Non-Stop' is rated PG-13 for intense sequences of action and violence, some language, sensuality, and some drug references. It's appropriate for 13 and up.

Inside Llewyn Davis

Man! I've been seeing a lot of good films lately. And this is one of them. I learned three things after watching 'Inside Llewyn Davis'.

1. Oscar Isaac is now one of my favorite actors
2. Oscar Isaac has a great singing voice and resembles comedian Jake Johnson.
3. The film should've gotten a Best Picture nod at the Academy Awards.

The Coen Brothers are very talented directors who have made very good films. 'True Grit' 'Fargo'.... And many more, they just have a way of successfully writing and directing films, including this one.

'Inside Llewyn Davis' features some solid cinematography and a great score that provides a sense of atmosphere. A song featured in the film 'Please Mr. Kennedy' is beyond catchy and provides a solid point for a laugh or two, a laugh that is well needed in a film largely drastic and dry.

Oscar Isaac is a talent. Recently he was added to the cast of the new Star Wars film, and after seeing him showcased here, I cannot wait to see how he handles the force. He's got a leading man quality and fits the personality of Llewyn Davis. He was likeable on screen, and I enjoyed his performance. Carey Mulligan, Justin Timberlake and John Goodman are other talents in the cast.

The script, which is strangely void of music, considering the plotline, shines with some very well timed character moments for the lead. However, the script does end abruptly and largely unsatisfying for such a strong buildup. There are a handful of solid heartfelt moments, one of which involves Oscar Isaac and a cat. All of these help develop the characters, successfully.

All and all 'Inside Llewyn Davis' features a top notch cast, a good score, and some satisfying character moments from the well written script by the directors themselves, The Coen Brothers, who once again deliver an excellent film. A- 8/9/14

Do I feel that 'Inside Llewyn Davis' was snubbed a Best Picture nom? Yes, yes I do.

'Inside Llewyn Davis' is rated R for language including some sexual references. It's appropriate for 14 and up.

Vampire Academy

So many YA adaptions. Damn you Twilight and Hunger Games!!! And of those YA adaptions I've liked few, and hated many including Vampires Academy. They just can't stop pumping out these big piles of crap.

Vampire Academy is so poorly edited that I have no idea what's going on all the time. We jump from one area to another in moments, and it leaves you wondering, what is going on. Whole scenes seem to be missing.

The scripting may be to blame for this disaster. Critics usually can tell if a script is good or bad based on the film, and this film showcased its horrible script. It's filled with an overabundance of pop culture references, most which feel unwelcomed, unfunny, and ultimately cheesy. The dialogue tries to be witty but comes out dumb and laughable. And the film spends little time to explain itself, and doesn't allow for a satisfying buildup whatsoever.

We jump right into the film and from there on the script takes us on a bumpy ride. Switching between multiple genres, thriller, mystery, horror, romance, comedy... And it all feels like a mess of a picture do to this.

The script focuses heavily on excess material instead of the core plot, and this weakens the story, which is ultimately put to the sideline instead for some High School clichéd segments. And a hand full of clichéd characters to boost, all of which have zip personality outside their clichéd stereotypes. We have the Russian 'bad boy' lover. The Edward rip off. The bad ass girl, who doesn't actually kick butt. And the blonde damsel in distress. Oh! Wait and theirs this one orange haired kid whose in love with the lead, but she loves another guy more... (Think Jacob off of Twilight).

The script basically barrows elements from every other film and mashed it together into this messed up film.

Leads Zoey Deutch and Lucy Fry are so-so. Deutch comes off a bit as a Katie Holmes rip off, but she still has enough charm to hold her own on the screen. And Lucy Fry's pretty... And that's about it. Our male stars basically do little performance wise.

The film has a few solid sets and some nice visuals. Which are actually pretty good considering the low 30 million budget the film had to work with. And I have to admit the film had a bit of charm, just a bit, enough to slightly keep you watching, though you'd be too confused to understand what you're watching.

All and all 'Vampire Academy' takes a stake to its poorly written script, that's full of cringe worthy pop culture references, a thin plot, bad dialogue, and poorly set up story. D- 8/6/14

'Vampire Academy' is rated PG-13 for violence, bloody images, sexual content, and language. It's appropriate for 13 and up. Teen girls may squeal for this one, but nobody else will. Well, maybe a squeal of terror.

American Beauty

What is beauty? The film 'American Beauty' can be used a definition of the word.

In all aspects, 'American Beauty' succeeds and sometimes, it even excels. It is a film that I could, and definitely would view over and over again for its themes and messages.

What is 'American Beauty'? It's a film that won Best Picture in both the Academy and Golden Globes Awards shows. While this may seem like no more than a small honor, one must put in account how many people voted for Best Picture. A lot of people voted for Best Picture, and they picked American Beauty as the winner. A lot of people loved the film, me included. And it's understandable. The film is gold. Good to teach in film schools and for people who enjoy more than an endless action film. People who want a sophisticated indie film.

'American Beauty' features beautiful cinematography and solid script work with sharp character writing. By the end of the film, I felt I could relate to each and every character in atleast one way. When the film reached its climax and started wrapping up its character's stories you were attached to the characters, felt as if you knew them. As if they were you. That's what solid scripting is. Great character development. An attribute that is misplaced often in film and it makes me cringe.

To further my enjoyment of the film was a talented handful of well chosen actors including the likes of Kevin Spacey, Annette Bening, Thora Birch, Wes Bentley, Mena Suvari, and Chris Cooper. All very talented actors, all fit for their respective roles. Spacey in particular exposes Lester Burnham's boredom with his life, and Bening showcases her character's stress and desires. Bentley is fairly off putting (in a good way) as the creepy yet misunderstood next door neighbor. And finally Suvari showcases the beauty, particularly in Lester's fantasy sequences (Which were visually pleasant to the eyes).

Director, Sam Mendes perfectly captures the themes that 'American Beaut' presents. He uses colors to represent different symbols, like red in particular.
The color red drives Lester's story and the overall film itself. The red rose is the symbol for beauty and desire and love. And Mendes b\perfectly captures its meaning as well as many others on film.

All and All, 'American Beauty' is a beautiful film with an excellent script with well developed characters, solid themes of Conformity and Beauty, Imprisonment, and Redemption, and Sexuality and Repression. It features awards worthy performances and beautiful cinematography and visuals. 'American Beauty' may very well be one of the best film's I've ever seen in my life. A 8/5/14

'American Beauty' is rated R for strong sexuality, language, violence, and drug use. It's appropriate for 16 (Depending on the child) and up. It's a pretty hard R, but parents should consider vetoing the rating and letting their older teenagers to see the film, as it supports very strong messages.

I originally didn't plan on reviewing the film, after viewing it days ago, but the film stuck in my head for so long, that I felt I had to express my deep admiration for it on paper. You could call this review a love letter.


'Robocop' follows Alex Murphy (Joel Kinnaman) is a police officer alongside his partner tries to arrest a big time crime boss after searching for him for a long time. However, he is fatally injured in a car bomb ment to kill him; however he is able to be saved from death and transferred into a Robot body suit meant to be the first in many men transferred into robot suits to protect the country.

An un-necessary reboot is what this one has been called. And I agree, totally un-necessary but as you know there's always those reboots that prove their worth, for example the recent 'Godzilla' film. And then there's this. I felt it was possible it could match or beat the original film version. Maybe. And when I saw the new suit design for Robocop, I thought 'Hell yeah'....

It's not that the film was absolutely unbearable. It just wasn't good or anything close to being deemed good. It was mediocre. Very mediocre. And it's a shame, with such top notch visuals and a solid cast, you would think it would go above and beyond the original film. But it didn't.

When you have Michael Keaton in a possible comeback, Samuel L Jackson, Gary Oldman, and Joel Kinnaman in a film together, you'd expect awesomeness. But I just didn't get it. Surprisingly, though doing solid work, nobody stands out amongst this star studded cast. Kinnaman was the supposed lead but he wasn't given much to work with, I mean what do you expect from a guy who has to wear a dark helmet throughout the film...? And then there's L Jackson in a completely un-necessary role that provides nothing to further the story, and instead distracts the viewers... seriously though, what was that guy even supposed to be doing this entire film?

Basically the film follows no path whatsoever and instead involves three different things on a continued rotation. Action, then talking about the action, then a scene featuring Oldman, Keaton, or L Jackson. Seriously, there's no plot in there whatsoever to keep viewers interested. And eventually this endless amount of action becomes dull. I eventually grew bored myself watching the film after round after round of the continual loop of the same three things.

And then theirs those hand full of forced scenes involving Kinnaman and his family. Those were hard to endure, believe me.

All and all, 'Robocop' is an so-so reboot of the original film featuring a star studded cast in which nobody stands out, good visuals, but a complete lack of plot makes this one a decidedly unneeded reboot that does nothing to justify its existence. C 8/3/14

'Robocop' is rated PG-13 for intense sequences of action including gun violence, brief strong language, sensuality, and some drug materiel. It's appropriate to teenagers and up.


'Her' follows Theodore Twombly (Joaquin Phoenix) a lonely man working for a company in which he must write letters for other people, to other people. One day he buys's an Operating system with artificial intelligence that is designed to evolve and adapt. He soon finds himself falling in love with the computer system, now self named Samantha (Voiced by Scarlett Johansson).

This is a very well crafted film. 'Spike Jonze' is a very capable director, though unfortunately only having produced four films including this one as of today. Whether it be this film or another you always have atleast one film from Jonze that you enjoyed. He has a way of creating new stories out of a simple idea. He fleshes out his character's emotions crisply.

'Her' having went on to win many awards, including the Academy and Golden Globes awards for Best Screenplay. Jonze himself wrote the script, which though in its simplistic form isn't particularly original, but Jonze handily crafted a story so full of emotion and expanded on that, that it really didn't matter how original it was. And kudos goes to the clever insistences of wit and sharp dialogue.

Scarlett Johansson should've had a nod at an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress. I don't fucking care whether or not she appeared in full form or not. It takes almost just the same amount of effort to portray a character vocally, and express emotions that can't be seen on faces that aren't there. And as always Indie favorite Joaquin Phoenix spreads his talents across the film. Like seriously, the guy can't have a bad performance not once.

The film is sharply edited, and features beautiful cinematography. Jonze knows what he wants and never skips a beat in making an art piece. A solid score from Arcade Fire burst's out the heart of the film, and allowing for both emotional and fun moments.

All and All 'Her' is Solidly directed by Spike Jonze, with a great screenplay that while not the most original, makes the most out of the idea, and performances that touch the heart. I'm talking to you Samantha! A- 7/30/14

'Her' is rated R for language, sexual content, and brief graphic nudity. It's appropriate for 16 and up.

Do I feel 'Her' was snubbed from an Academy Award for Best Picture? Yes, yes I do. But do I still feel that Gravity still should have won? Yes, 'Her' was great, but 'Gravity' was a bit better.

Dawn Of The Planet Of The Apes

"Apes. Together. Strong" - Koba
Many reboots, remakes, sequels... whatever never seem to be able to prove their worthiness of existence. Whether or not that you take this statement as bias is up to you, but when you really think about it. Most of them are just bad and highly un-necessary. Most are made simply to be a possible cash grab. But ever once and awhile you get a film like 'Rise of the Planet of the Apes'. A reboot that shocked audiences and critics alike at how good it was. Some even say it matches or even topples the original 1960's film in comparisons. And it did really well at the box office. It made shocking numbers. And because of it a sequel was quickly greenlit and here we have 'Dawn of the Planet of the Apes'.

'Dawn of the Planet of the Apes' takes place 10 years after the events of Rise. The majority of the human race have been wiped out by the Simian flu a few of the couple of thousands of survivors live in a civilization which is running out of power. Meanwhile Caesar (Andy Serkis) is now the unchallenged leader of a thriving ape colony which resides in the Muir Woods. Caesar now has a family of his own including a son (Nick Thurston) whose relationship with his father is somewhat distant. One day a group of humans (who had come into the woods looking for a dam which was to provide the civilization's power source) come upon the ape colony. The group is led by Malcolm (Jason Clarke) a family man, looking for peace. However upon the knowledge the race's survival, Koba (Toby Kebbell), through his hatred of the human kind, seeks to spark war with the human civilization and end their race forever.

It was a good sequel. But for the most part it felt like a set up for a sequel rather than as a standalone film. While I found the script to be emotionally satisfying and highly intelligent it didn't have a story that stood on its own. It didn't pull out any real one-two punches that made the first film a show stopper. It lacked in character development. Though the apes are the stars of the show, one cannot help but feel abit disdained at the lack of character detail toward the human characters. The script's opening 20 minutes were brilliant showcasing the ape's colony and the first encounter with Malcolm and co. However I felt abit distained toward the middle section.

The films sports a talented cast including the likes of returner Andy Serkis, as well as new cast members Jason Clarke, Gary Oldman, Nick Thurston, Toby Kebbell, Kodi Smit McPhee, and Keri Russell. Clarke, who seems to always be under estimated in film, stars for the first time. He is fit for the lead, and emotionally convincing. Andy Serkis as always shinned as Caesar and performed with veteran's power. Newcomer Nick Thurston provides an extra punch as Caesar's son. And though underused Gary Oldman and Keri Russell are delightful additions. Toby Kebbell meanwhile overacts abit, but still works as Koba.

Visually, Dawn is eye catching. With a heft budget of 170 you'd expect nothing less than amazing, and that's exactly what you get. The apes look incredibly alive. The fur and design look real and loads of detail are presented. Facial features highlight emotion and look good.

The cinematography and direction work well together. Expesically during action sequences which required tons of movement and such. The cinematography brings to life the action and apes and emotionally captures the performances, and the direction proves useful in guiding the cast thru he shots. The cinematography captured a beautiful gritty and dark look and it successfully set up the tone. As well as the tension.

The set's are beyond magnifying. They are full of detail, they are gritty and beautiful, and show much hands men ship and work put into them.

All and all 'Dawn of the Planet of the Apes' doesn't rise above its predecessor but matches it with top notch visuals, award worthy performances highlighted by that of Andy Serkis, and beautiful sets. Though the scripting lack as in character development it still thrives in capturing emotion which in turn made Dawn an above note worthy sequel. B 7/22/14

'Dawn of the Planet of the Apes' is rated PG-13 for intense sequences of Sci-Fi action and violence, and brief strong language. It's appropriate for 13 and up.

Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit

Jack is back! First there was Alec Baldwin, afterward star wars stud Harrison Ford, then Ben Affleck took a turn, and now we join Chris Pine in this latest reboot of the Jack Ryan series in 'Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit'. My review of 'Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit'.
Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit' meet's Jack Ryan (Chris Pine) as an undercover CIA agent in the form of a compliance officer at a stock brokerage. He discovers a possible terrorist plan lead by billionaire Viktor Cherevin (Kenneth Branagh). He must go to Moscow to uncover the plans with the help of wife (Keira Knightly) who unknowingly suspects he is having an affair, as well as a veteran agent (Kevin Costner).

Originally scheduled for a December debut, this Jack Ryan film was booted off its spot in favor of a more awards friendly 'Wolf of Wall Street' which was falling abit behind schedule.

I had low expectations going into this one. I liked the cast but wasn't very fond of its January push. But I have to proclaim, Shadow Recruit is one of the best January releases in recent memory.

Shadow Recruit, is slick and stylish. The action sequences are perfectly choreographed and highly entertaining. Though there are fewer action sequences then one would have hoped for, and expected... those few we are served are full of energy and beautifully filmed.

Not to mention the solid casting. Though I was skeptical of Chris Pine's abilities to lead an action film, he actually does well as Ryan. And he shares a few solid moments with Costner and Knightly who both steal a few scenes. Knightly, however underused, is convincing as Ryan's girlfriend would be Fiancée. Costner, who has seemingly lost some of his flare over the past few years, is back and better then ever as the veteran agent who aids our lead often. Maybe it's his sense in timing when delivering lines or just his charm, no matter what it is; he's still a delightful presence.

Kenneth Branagh not only stars on screen but behind screen as well. He perfectly maneuvers the film from start to finish, wrapping up all he began; he did solid direction with the film, leading it in just the right direction.

However one has to admit that the script has solid dialogue and character development but has a more unoriginal story. It's your basic Jack Ryan story, but this can be better and for worse. It does little to hurt you but it does little to stimulate you either.

All and All, 'Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit' is a pretty good thriller, with a great cast, powerful action sequences and choreography and solid characterization. This is the rare January release that works. B+ 7/2/14

'Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit' is rated PG-13 for intense sequences of action and violence and brief strong language. It's appropriate for 13 and up.

The LEGO Movie

I'm surprised by how much hype this film got. But is it worth it? For most people, yes. But for me? No. I didn't find 'The Lego Movie' to be that great a film. It was by no standards bad, but it just wasn't as great as most people say it is. It's a solid animation feature but more on the level of Monsters University. It's no Despicable Me 2. My review of 'The Lego Movie'.

'The Lego Movie' follows Emmet (Voiced by Chris Pratt) an ordinary Lego construction worker from Bricksburg. One day he comes across a girl named Wyldstyle (Elizabeth Banks), and attempts to stop her when she trespasses onto the construction site. However Emmet falls into a hole and touches the piece of resistance, which deems him the 'special' and attaches itself to him. With the help of Wyldstyle, Batman (Will Arnett), an old wizard Vitruvius (Morgan Freeman) and other master builders Emmet must use the piece of resistance to stop Lord Business (Will Ferrell) from using the kragle to glue everything together.

I'll admit the stop-motion work is beyond gorgeous. The Lego worlds are very well designed and look amazing. The animation flows perfectly. It's up to scale with Pixar animation. The animation is bright, colorful, and fun looking. It's just beautiful. And you know what's what? That wasn't stop motion, that was CGI animation made to look like stop motion! Brilliant work I'd say!

I'll admit that the script is imperfect. Parts of it are strong, other parts weak. The first 2 acts of 'The Lego Movie' work and then comes the horrid 3rd act that takes the viewer out of the animated world... and it doesn't work. When Emmet becomes live, it just seems weird. The dialogue by the live action actors is stiff and cheesy. The live action scenes just look out of place and awkward. Even if the live action parts only take place for about 8 minutes of the 100 minute runtime, it really just doesn't work. And the 3rd act altogether seems to drag and lose momentum.

And while most will say 'The Lego Movie' is full of hardy laughs. I'll only say that the film is mostly void of solid jokes. I'll admit I chuckled a few times but mostly I found the jokes stale. The film tried hard to be funny, and punched out many would be funnies, but I just didn't find most of the... funny at all.

But even without the jokes that make an animated movie...the script still provides some solid character moments. It's full of heart. Emmet develops slowly but steadily into a master builder, and he makes for a solidly developed character, which is surprising for an animated character that's only had one film to go throw the motions Woody had to go through in 3 films.

The voice cast brings to life these characters. Chris Pratt embodies Emmet and fleshes him out. Plus his cheerful yet clueless vocals make Emmet funnier then he could've been. Liam Neeson and Will Ferrell both do some solid voice performances as Bad Cop and Lord Business respectively. And Will Arnett voices Batman... Yeah, he was made to voice Batman.

And I have to mention that catchy song 'Everything is Awesome'. While everything wasn't so awesome altogether that song was pretty cool. I still can't seem to get the small tune outta my head. Everything is awesome... everything is cool when your part of a team... everything is awesome... when you're living your dream... Yes. I wasn't joking when I said I couldn't get that song outta my head. It was just too catchy.

All and all 'The Lego Movie' is disappointingly lacking in jokes, and the 3rd act including a weird live action sequence is lackluster to say the least but the film makes up for that with heart, a voice cast that succeeds in expressing the characters, and animation that is beyond gorgeous. Plus, who didn't love that song 'Everything is Awesome'? B- 6/30/14

'The Lego Movie' is rated PG for action and rude humor. It's appropriate for 6 and up. The kids will love it, even the teenagers may get into it, but most adults (including my Mom and Dad) won't be able to be kept interested in this one.

Girl Most Likely

'Girl Most Likely' tells the tale of Imogene (Kristen Wiig) a failed playwright who after a failed attempt to get her longtime boyfriend to get back with her via fake suicide she is forced to move in with her mother (Annette Bening), her boyfriend (Matt Dillion), brother (Christopher Fitzgerald), and failed musician (Darren Criss).

'Kristen Wiig' who has had a mostly solid career in voice over, and comedy work on Saturday Night Live reaches inside of herself emotionally to play the troubled Imogene. And she does so successfully I might add. She's convincing and as a comedic actress at heart does provide a few solid chuckles here and their when allowed.

But don't be shocked if it isn't as funny as one would assume. 'Girl Most Likely' is more dark then funny and sometimes dark and funny. But mostly just dramatic, which suits the film fine. The script does solid work in allowing a few sly jokes in here and there without totally altering the tone as well as allowing some solid character development in the film's 1 and a half runtime.

All and All 'Girl Most Likely' is a solid film lead by the talented Kristen Wiig along with a script that successfully develops the characters and allows for a few solid jokes in without becoming distracting to the overall tone. B 6/29/14

'Girl Most Likely' is rated PG-13 for sexual content and language. It's appropriate for 15 and up.

Dear Mr. Watterson

'Dear Mr. Watterson' is documentary that chronics the famed cartoonist's most popular comic strip Calvin and Hobbes.

The film plays out like a love letter. It includes tons and tons of interviews from average Joe's who enjoyed the comic strip as well as a few notable names including fellow cartoonists and Seth Green. They all explain why the comic helped them grow and what they loved about it, and that's great and all but by the end of the film that's really all the content we're given.

Beyond countless interviews by people who continuously say they enjoyed the comic and that it was a masterpiece, they're just wasn't enough to the movie besides that. Instead of feeding us facts or information that most documentaries do, it instead just says I love you. The film really doesn't document Calvin and Hobbes, because to document is to tell about its history and the film simply didn't do that.

Sure, the film is fairly sweet but after 20 minutes it simply becomes sour. It doesn't hold your interest, no matter how comfy it may be. It simply would've worked better as a half hour special rather than as a full length film. There's just not enough content presented to justify a feature length.

All and All, 'Dear Mr. Watterson' would've served better as a half hour special rather than as a feature length film. It overdoses on love and lacks any real content or information that makes for strong documentaries. C- 6/29/14

'Dear Mr. Watterson' is unrated. It's appropriate for 10 and up, but outside of Calvin and Hobbes fans, they may not show much interest in this one.


'Pompeii' follows' Milo (Kit Harington) a gladiator whose parents were killed at the hands of Senator Corvus (Kiefer Sutherland) falls in love with the a very high in power lady, Cassia (Emily Browning) while in the city of Pompeii where he is to fight in battles for people's entertainment. Before a battle, Milo becomes friends with a fellow gladiator (Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje) who is set to be released from slavery soon after one last battle. And then the volcano of Pompeii erupts. Milo is forced to rescue the girl who was lost amiss all the ciaos, and hopefully get off the island of Pompeii.

Another disaster film filled with multiple subplots. There are more subplots then I'd care to watch, but I was held against my will. There is one with Kiefer Sutherland who wants to marry Emily Browning. Another with Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje who is supposed to be set free. Another with Kit Harington whose parents were murdered by Kiefer Sutherland. And another with Emily Browning and Kit Harington, where they fall in love, 'Titanic' style. And another with some supporting character who's brother was killed by Kit Harington. There are way TOO MANY subplots. And above all these subplots we have two more. The volcano erupting and everyone trying to escape. It's too much.

Not to mention that with all these subplots you'd think you'd get an ounce of characterization but you don't. I would assume that one is supposed to feel something for these characters we are introduced to as they all start being picked off one by one, but we don't. Characterization is set aside for endless subplots and gladiator fighting and a clichéd love story between the two leads. Emily Browning's character is about as one dimensional as a damsel in distress could possibly be. And don't get me started on the action hero Milo figure. He's about as thin and boring as a lead character could be. Milo is basically made up of several different people mashed into one. We got Russell Crowe's character in 'Gladiator', we have Leonardo Decaprio's character in 'Titanic', I mean this list could go on forever.

And then you have all those characters pump out cringe worthy dialogue, and it truly does a double take on you. The script just completely side steps the story and characters for mindless action and a romantic subplot that just doesn't work. It comes out soapy, and like a television mini-series. If the script devoted more time to developing this romantic plot like 'Titanic' did, it may have been successful. But it didn't, it used it as a subplot, and at the end the script still wants you to believe the love between the two leads but to no avail.

And to top of that one note character is an actor whose performance is as wooden as a log. 'Kit Harington's performance was beyond unbelievable. The guy looks like a model onscreen and flirts with any on screen woman he has lines with. He was unconvincing as some strong, heroic warrior man. Sure, his six pack were displayed prominently in almost every scene he's in, but in every other possible aspect... And Emily Browning was only so-so. There wasn't much she could do with her character. The supporting cast by far outshine the leads. 'Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje' is a stand out. He is convincing and I enjoyed his presence in the film. And veteran performances by 'Jared Harris' and 'Kiefer Sutherland' are a must.

Visually, 'Pompeii' makes good use of its 80 million budget. When the volcano erupts, it erupts with tremendous eye-catching beauty. When buildings collapse and fire balls fly out and a surge of lava spread across the city of Pompeii... it truly leaves you breathless.

All and All 'Pompeii' is a mistake. Its script lacks characterization and instead boost's multiple action scenes and way too many subplots, without devoting time to justify any of them. Visually 'Pompeii' is eye-popping and the supporting cast is believable but they aren't enough to help lift 'Pompeii' up from the ashes. D+ 6/23/14

'Pompeii' is rated PG-13 for intense battle sequences, disaster related action, and brief sexual content. Be aware people die. A lot of people die. This is definitely not for the younger audience who definitely want to watch this. Kids 13 and over could check this out.

Live Die Repeat: Edge of Tomorrow

This is how a summer blockbuster should be done. After watching Amazing Spiderman 2, I was worried that this summer wouldn't be worthy of 2013's summer, which had a few duds (Internship, After Earth, Man of Steel) but was mostly a successful summer (The Wolverine, Pacific Rim, Despicable Me 2, etc). Then I watched 'Godzilla' a mostly successful monster film in the vein of last years, Pacific Rim. But to be honest, it did have some fatal flaws. Then I watched 'Edge of Tomorrow' formally known as All You Need is Kill. My review of 'Edge of Tomorrow'.

'Edge of Tomorrow' tells the tale of Major William Cage (Tom Cruise) a man who has never seen war before but is stripped of his rank and forced to battle the alien's known as Mimics, who are invading earth, successfully. Armed in a high-tech battle suit, Cage is dropped into an ongoing fight with the Mimics. He is shortly afterward killed, but not before blowing a rare-alpha mimic to piece causing it to transfer its power's of regeneration to Cage himself. Cage then wakes up where he was two days before, and is forced to live, die, repeat. He meet's a girl, Rita (Emily Blunt) who informs him that she two was transferred the power of the Alpha Mimic. He is told by her he needs to use the power to defeat the mimics and end the invasion.

'Edge of Tomorrow' is one sleek, stylish, and smart film. You would think that the time-loop plot would wear and tear on you, but it doesn't. The film nevers dulls and never bores, thankfully due to a solid script by 'Christopher McQuarrie' who doesn't stupefy to suit the audience. It's smart, McQuarrie justifies the time-loop plot enough that it doesn't leave us scratching our heads after the credits start to roll. There is enough plot to suit the film. Plus, he cleverly adds some sly jokes in the mix, which relieve the tension from the hardcore violence. But one would wish that the characters were more than one note. Nobody matters by the end.

Visually, 'Edge of Tomorrow' is stunning. The mimics are beautifully original creatures. Everything about the film is pure detail, from the beautiful suits the soldiers wore, to the ships and the creatures, to the final 20 minutes which were very well done, visually.

The film showcases the fact that while Cruise is a bit over 50 years of age he still is very capable of convincingly performing in an action film. He's charming, and convincing as Cage. 'Emily Blunt' seems to almost always be underused in film, though she holds great talent. She put much oomph in her character and outshined that of Cruise multiple times. And 'Bill Paxton' is just an added pleasure.

All and All, 'Edge of Tomorrow' is a visually beautiful, smart, and entertaining film, showcasing the way summer blockbusters should be. And is shows that even with old age Cruise can still cruise through an action film affectively. A- 6/15/14

'Edge of Tomorrow' is rated PG-13 for intense sequences of Sci-Fi action and violence, language and brief suggestive material. It is appropriate for 14 and up.

Romeo and Juliet

'Romeo and Juliet' tells the classic tale of two separate rival houses, The Capulet and The Montague, who have, for many centuries, loathed the other. But during a party set up by Lord Capulet (Damian Lewis), that of Romeo (Douglas Booth) and Juliet (Hailee Steinfeld) meet and fall in love at first sight. The thing is both of them are from separate houses, and that is socially not done.

This film basically makes it known that Hollywood is at a standstill. New stories are not being produced and instead studios have to make use of stories that have been told over and over again, and one of those very stories is that of the lovers 'Romeo and Juliet'.

The problem with this adaption is it's pretty lifeless. We all know the tale and the ultimate fate of our leads but the way the story is told is what is supposed to keep us attached, make us love the characters and eventually make you tear up in the final minutes of the film. But we do not. The film is painfully dull and too soapy to be entertaining and attention grabbing.

The script doesn't take it's time to look at what it has in front of it, it spits out chunk after chunk of Shakespeare's dialogue but it all comes out clunky and eyebrow raising to the audience's ears. When adapting a classic, you must adapt it to the period presented. Sure, that dialogue works, but it's hard to comprehend for average viewers. Not to mention the script is way too melodramatic and soapy for comfort.

The thing that makes 'Romeo and Juliet' even the slightest bit watchable is its set's. The sets are beautiful and well crafted for the time period. They suit the film in looking the period, as well as making the film feel more or less real.

Our leads are convincing but no more than average. 'Hailee Steinfeld' through very talented, was not able to overcome her stiff dialogue and 'Douglas Booth' just could've been given better material than what he was, maybe if he'd been given something to work with, his performance might not have came off so wooden. One must also note the age differences between the two leads, however accurate; it does come off as very uncomfortable to watch as the two fall in love and very distracting.

The film also runs at an unbearable length of 2 hours. With a total lack of editing, the film slowly becomes unmanageable. You get lost among the long lines of melodramatic Shakespeare dialogue that could've been lessened to a few snippets per. There's just too much talking and not enough action to suit the length.

All and all, I wanted to like 'Romeo and Juliet'. Its set's are beautiful and however distracting and uncomfortable, leads Steinfeld and Booth are mostly convincing but the dull script proves the fatal poison. It gave the cast wooden dialogue, and provided a sense of soupy melodrama that drugs the entire 2 hour film for a painful experience. D 6/8/14

'Romeo and Juliet' is rated PG-13 for some violence and thematic elements. It's appropriate for teenagers and up.

Labor Day
Labor Day(2014)

'Labor Day', as narrated by Henry Wheeler (Tobey Maguire) follows the 13 year old version of himself (Gattlin Griffith) as he and his fragile mother (Kate Winslet) bond and quickly grow close to an escaped convict (Josh Brolin) who takes residence in their house over a 3 day weekend.

What made this film so hard to sit through was the complete lack of realistic thinking. Honestly Frank (The convict) wouldn't have been outside if he had just escaped from prison, he wouldn't dare be out in the open for the world to see him, he'd be in hiding. It's the complete disregard for realistic thinking that really made me dislike the film. Over the course of three days Kate Winslet's character Adele had completely fallen in love with him... it's just unrealistic. As much as I want to believe in such a strong love, it just doesn't happen that fast. Never.
As much as the film is unrealistic it tries so hard to make you like it. It really does.

The cinematography is sharp and quite beautiful to look at. The music is well timed and sets a nice tone for the film. The film works in terms of design and setting, its well taken care of. And editing wise, it moves smoothly enough. That's what made it so hard to dislike the film, but I just didn't like it, it's just not good.

The film features a likeable trio of leads in 'Gattlin Griffith', 'Josh Brolin', and 'Kate Winslet'. Winslet captures her character's looneyness in the first few scenes she's in. She and Brolin share nice chemistry and convincingly seem to fall in love even if their romance is rushed way too fast for it to work. And while not a stand out Griffith almost holds his own to Winslet, almost.

Scripting is unfair to that of the superior cast. It rushes the romance of Brolin and Winslet that even their strong chemistry together fails to make an impact. The script tries to provide tension but falls flat of that by offering little to no surprises to raise hairs on your arms. But though very predictable as it is while trying to create tension and unrealistic in terms of pacing and situations it still supplies a solid amount of character development to suit the viewers and does end satisfactory, while one could assume it could've ended worse.

All and All 'Labor Day' features beautiful cinematography and a trio of capable leads with some well fleshed out characters, but the film also follows a sense of unrealistic thinking as well as a script that realizes heavily on predictable tension and hold's little to no surprises. C 6/5/14

'Labor Day' is rated for thematic material, brief violence, and sexuality. It's appropriate for 13 and up.


One word to describe 'Godzilla' you ask? That one word would be "Wow". This is a film that I intentionally avoided watching the trailers after viewing the first one in hope of not being spoiled anything, and I wasn't. I took my time seeing it as I had to focus on end of the year school work and tests so, here I am, 3 weeks after the release of ''Godzilla' first weekend off and I go to the movies to see this. I have seen 7 films released in the cinema this year including 'Godzilla'. All of which excluding 'Godzilla' I have either disliked or found highly mediocre. The year of 2014 for me has not had a bright light until I viewed that of 'Godzilla'. My review of 'Godzilla'.

'Godzilla' tells the tale of Lieutenant Ford (Aaron-Taylor Johnson) a explosive ordnance disposal officer who returns home to his wife (Elizabeth Olsen) and child (Carson Bolde) only to have to depart to Japan because his father (Bryan Cranston) was jailed for breaking into a quarantined zone in Japan. There, Ford discovers the Muto (Massive Unidentified Terrestrial Organism) which hatches and escapes the building it was being held and studied. Ford then learns from a scientist (Ken Watanabe) that of a monster, Godzilla who is hunting the monster Muto. It is up to Ford with the help of many others to destroy the monsters.

'Godzilla' is highly character driven. That can work for better or for worse. We only see the titled Godzilla for about 10 minutes of the 2 hour film. This helps to develop our leads, but also leaves the character Godzilla miss used and stranded. We grow to somewhat care about our lead characters but care less for our monsters who get no time to truly develop. We see more of the Muto monster then we do of Godzilla himself, and it disappoints in some senses. However, when we do see Godzilla, it impacts us, it matters more. It's show stopping. It's the drop on a Rollar coaster. It is cinematic.

Visually, 'Godzilla' is magnificent. Godzilla himself, is a monster of true feats, every scale on his body is beautifully rendered and unbelievably real looking. It is truly amazing. Watching the battle between the Muto and Godzilla are attention grabbing, mouth dropping shots of pure amazement. The cities falling apart look amazing, visually everything is in full detail, and look good.

'Godzilla' is in good hands with the relatively inexperienced 'Gareth Edwards' who hasn't directed more than one independent small film. It was a hugh risk made by the studio, when they put Edwards in the helm of their 150 million dollar baby, but it was a well made decision. Edwards knows how to handle his beast. His choice of film making is highly realistic and never dull and boring, he puts forward characters rather than mindless explosions and action that has come accustom to these types of films.

The main problem here is that the script by 'Max Borenstein' still needed another draft or two. Some parts of the plot make little or no sense when viewed, and you can't help but feel that Godzilla himself is very neglected here in favor of that of its human companions. Pieces of this puzzle just don't fit, and the script can't help but feel overly rushed even at 2 hours. More time was needed for Godzilla.
The script is also overly stuffed with characters that isn't hard to tell who's important, while the script is high on character development, they're just too many characters to follow and some are just left in the dust. And it doesn't help that those developed characters are just dull altogether.

All and All, 'Godzilla' is a magnificent film with eye catching visuals, beautifully captured by the solid filmmaking work of director 'Gareth Edwards' who puts the characters first, but the film can't help but neglect the titled character, and the script could have used more tweaking to find its true final cut. But overall 'Godzilla' shows that with a lot of effort a remake can provide good reasons for its existence. B 6/1/14

'Godzilla' is rated PG-13 for intense sequences of destruction, mayhem and creature violence. It appropriate for 12 and up, through most may be unable to follow the story. It's more for 14 and up but those 12 year olds can see it also.

Endless Love
Endless Love(2014)

I've always had a soft spot in my critical mind for romantic movies. Honestly, I find it quit difficult to dislike the romance genre, they're always so enjoyable for me. Happy, a term coined for films, but isn't always the case. This film made me happy, and if I wasn't a film critic and just a common movie watcher I'd probably would've given it a 3 1/2 star rating same as 'About Time', but this film when viewed critically isn't very good. It isn't. As enjoyable as it is, I have to set aside my personal genre pleasures and see what the film holds as a whole. It doesn't hold a lot. This is a remake. Remakes have always been meant to only be made when the original film was a disaster, but that has never been the case, ever. I've viewed few films that I could say are better than the originals such as 'Dredd', 'True Grit', and 'The Thing'. Those three films are among a meager amount of remakes I deem better then they're originals. And 'Endless Love' is better than the original. And that's not really setting the bar high, as the original 1981 film was complete garbage. This film makes up for that one, but still is no success story as a whole. My review of 'Endless Love'.

'Endless Love' follows Jade Butterfield (newcomer Gabriella Wilde) a highly intelligent, rich, yet socially outcasted girl whose high school years were spent in studies. She has her whole life planned out by her parents (Bruce Greenwood, Joely Richardson) who expect her to attend medical school. She does well in high school and plans to go to an internship for a job in the medical field. Then she meet's David Elliot (Alex Pettyfier) a mechanic's son, who doesn't plan on going to college even with his high grades. They soon fall in love much to the dismay of Jade's father (Greenwood) who immediately dislikes David and seeks to tear him out of Jade's life no matter what.

Honestly, 'Endless Love' is a very predictable, underwhelming film. The original, as much as I loathed it, had some pretty good themes in it. However watching this one, it can't help to feel water downed and overly sweet. The script supplies way too many overly clichéd snippets of cringe worthy dialogue, and fast passes the romantic endure of Jade and David. It can't help but feel unrealistic, it happens too fast.

The characters of Jade and David are well supported with a group of talented actors. 'Alex Pettyfier'' who always seems to be seeked out for these roles, yet almost always denies them does a top notch job with what meager he is given. He makes best of what little he has. 'Gabriella Wilde' is a very pretty young lady, and a big sense of realisms to the film, though I just feel that she may have been a bit too pretty. But she does well work with her clichéd one dimensional character. Pettyfier and Wilde also share good enough chemistry to make this film somewhat bearable. And who doesn't love 'Bruce Greenwood'? Nuff said.
Watching this you can't help but feel bored. The film is overly predictable been there seen that. Same one dimensional stereotypical characters, same love story. Nothing added makes you feel any extra ump. You don't truly become attached to the movie the way it wants you to. I blame the screenwriter for the big fault the film holds. He gives us a huge abundance of under developed characters, a ton of clichéd dialogue, and a story requiring little thought. It's seriously as if the studio hired a 13 year old girl to write the script. That's what it feels like.

The music helps a bit to at least get into the romantic mood. It's sweet, catchy, and get's you happy. It adds to emotions when it has to.

All and All 'Endless Love' let's down the reliable cast with a overly predictable story filled with clichéd under developed characters. D+ 5/30/14

While I enjoyed the film and my own uncritical opinion would have warranted a C rating (3 stars) that is not what a critic does.

'Endless Love' is rated PG-13 for sexual content, brief partial nudity, some language, and teen partying. It's appropriate for teens and up.

I, Frankenstein

God-awful waste of time. Going into this, I knew it was going to be a disaster, the trailers were ugly and uninteresting but I convinced myself that all films should be given an equal chance to prove its worthiness, so I watched this... I never wanted more in my life to leave. After about 14 minutes into this film I wanted to get up and run for my life, to prevent the risk of a heart attack watching this mess. The easiest titles to compare this to would be 'Underworld' and 'Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters'. 'Underworld' wasn't great but it was a modest film with some pure effort put into it. And 'Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters' sucked, it was unbelievably bad, but I loved it because it was fun. This film is neither modestly good or even fun to watch, it's just bad. My review of 'I, Frankenstein'.

'I, Frankenstein' tells the tale of Adam Frankenstein (Aaron Eckhart) who struggles to comp with his past as well as finding out how he is who he was. He is watched by a group of gargoyles who's leader (Miranda Otto) hides a secret book, which beholds the information on how Adam was created. But an evil business billionaire, Charles Wesexx (Bill Nighy) whose crew of demons discover that of Frankenstein's existence, seeks to capture Adam or his book of creation to reanimate his own army of monsters to fight against his enemy, the gargoyles, and take over the world. It's up to Adam and a scientist who seeks to reanimate substances to save the day along with the group of gargoyles.

How visually poor could a film be? Watching this I felt as if I was watching one of those weekly Sci-Fi films that premiere every Friday. Maybe if this film were released in late 80's or early 90's before Jurassic Park was invented these effects would have been accepted, but for a film released in 2014, after the release of King Kong and Avatar? This is unacceptable. The visuals are crude, ugly, and unconvincing to say the least. The amateur work of it almost made me exit the room where I was watching it after we get our first glimpses of those fire demon things (I don't even know, they were just so ugly and blah)

I have to talk about the mind aching editing and pace. The film goes by so fast, taking no time to sit and take a look at what it has, it just can't slow down, its dull action sequence after dull action sequence... and in the only second when the film isn't in an action sequence we get a highly awkward and un-necessary shirtless shot of our Frankenstein Monster. The endless action sequences are only made worse by the editing, with quick cuts all over the place to film the action; it's so hard to comprehend anything. There's no fun in any of it. The action is in such a large quantity, and poorly paste together form it comes out extremely dull and boring.

This is a film only for a person who expects little to nothing from a film. The plot is so bland, so dull, so cheesy, so predictable that it's beyond laughable it's just sad. All the dialogue here is clunky and chunky and unbelievably stupid to say the LEAST. Not to mention the script includes an overabundance of action sequences (As I have already explained) and a high lack of character development. So in the end you care little for anybody, and you find it hard to become emotionally attached to Adam, who's only role in the film as the lead, is to fight and say 'I'm a monster'.

That is why I feel sorry for the talent who were completely wasted here. 'Aaron Eckhart' who did a pretty nice job was no match for his unbelievably soupy dialogue, and lack of time to develop his character beyond a few lines in between action shots. 'Bill Nighy' who can make any bad role good, is left nothing to work with and 'Miranda Otto'... well I just liked her in this, no matter how predictable her character was. But 'Yvonne Strahovski' for the scientist? Really? All she was, was some unconvincing, miss-casted, hotty, and that's it. She was probably only brought in to attract young male audience members.

All and all this is a complete disaster. The scripting is predictable; the visuals are worthy of a Sci-Fi channel film, and the action sequences lifeless and dull and leave no room for any character development. This wasted the present's of a mostly impressive cast aside from one completely un-necessary and horribly miscast 'Yvonne Strahovski'. F 5/23/14

P.S After a dismal run at the box office it's safe to say we won't see Frankenstein's monster anytime soon... oh wait! We have that one with Daniel Radcliffe out in October 2015...

'I, Frankenstein' is rated PG-13 for intense sequences of fantasy action and violence throughout. It's appropriate for teen's and up, maybe a little younger. But they'll be the only ones who might show any interest in this one, which right now is a strong contender for my worst films of 2014 number 1 spot.

About Time
About Time(2013)

It's all about time. 'About Time' is that wonderful, little, sleeper hit that went into the theaters and quietly snuck out but still ran away with plenty of cash to spare. It's that film that little remember having heard of when it was released, but now lies to be seen clearly on DVD, and so I rented and watched it. It's a romantic- dramedy starring type casted 'Rachel McAdams' of 'The Notebook' and 'The Vow' fame. Of course I'm not complaining she was made for these types of roles. The plot line was fairly simple and I thought knew how the film was going to play out, but then I was delightfully surprised when it actually surprised me. It fooled me in a good way. My review of 'About Time'.

'About Time' tells the tale of a young and awkward British man by the name of Tim (Domhnall Gleeson) who is informed by his father (Bill Nighy) that the male in a long line of his ancestry has the ability to time travel, particularly to past events that the subject was involved in. Tim is beyond excited, his dream of which is to get a girlfriend. He continuously travels to the past to make his future better, along the way he meets the girl of his dreams, the one (Rachel McAdams) his pans re to improve their future by changing their past.

By reading that plot line you'd assume that for the climax our lead, Tim would most likely make a horribly bad mistake in the past and change the future for the worst, and having to fix the wrong he had done in the past to make the future better, right? Nope, no drama, the film is just a light, warm, romance, whose ending is necessary and sweet. It's that fairytale ending just without the fairies. That's how delightful the film is to see. The scripting is nice, and while tense when it needs to be it never goes full out gloomy like that of 'The Notebook' and 'The Vow' everything in the end, is good. Nothing done to make the story sad, you still cry but its tears of joy. The script allows moments of pure wit, the film is funny in times that it needs to be and more serious when it needs to be. The film balances all aspects.

The cast allows characters that are more one dimensional to become more fleshed out, real. I cannot imagine anyone else portraying out lead, Tim other then 'Domhnall Gleeson'. Gleeson is well comedically timed and wonderfully convincing as Tim, and shares great chemistry with the rom-dramedy reliable 'Rachel McAdams'. McAdams is sweet and smooth with Gleeson and their both lovingly compatible off each other. 'Bill Nighy' is a much welcomed co-star and screen stealer as always.

But sometimes the film can't help but lag. There is too much, the film could have used a few cuts to better stream line itself more. At over 2 hours, the film feels overlong and sometimes you get an over dosage of sweetness, and you kind of start to get bored of it, as happy as the film is, it loses steam toward the end due to a lack of edited out scenes.

All and All 'About Time' is a wonderfully cheerful film, with a great pare of leads including Domhnall Gleeson, Rachel McAdams, and Bill Nighy, and while the film is a bit overlong and the plotline a little under the fresh line, the film pumps on delightfully, and will leave you smiling till the end. B 5/17/14

'About Time' is rated R for language and some sexual content. It's appropriate for teenagers and up.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2

Go Spidey Go! This was my most anticipated film of the summer and probably of the year. And I'm not going to lie when I tell you I was let down. As I write this, I have seen a total of four films that have been released this year. Each of which received a rating of 3 stars or below, and that is not good. I was highly surprised when I saw the reviews of 'Amazing Spiderman 2' clocked in at a mediocre 2.5 rating out of a possible 5.0 star rating. That's about average. I thought this was going to be better, and while I won't say it was that mediocre it was certainly a step down from the much superior 'Amazing Spiderman' as well as the original trilogy. My review of 'The Amazing Spiderman 2'.

'The Amazing Spiderman 2' follows Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) who after the events of 'Amazing Spiderman' struggles to discover the mystery of his mother and father's disappearance as well as his ever growing love for Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone). But when an old friend arrives (Dane DeHaan) as well as a spider obsessive (Jamie Foxx) who's horrible accident causes him to become a electricity charged super villain who calls himself Electro, come into town it is up to Spiderman to save the day!

So much happens in Amazing Spiderman 2, it is hard to compress a summary f it all for you guys, without spoiling anything. With all this stuff going on, it's hard to focus on anything. Beside's that sub plot with Peter Parker's father and mother, we also have a subplot with Oscorp, a subplot with 'Dane DeHaan', a subplot with Garfield and Stone, a subplot with 'Sally Field', a subplot with 'Jamie Foxx', a subplot with Ravencroft Institute.... TO MANY SUBPLOTS. And to top it off we have the main plot which is on Spiderman fighting villains! Director 'Marc Webb' tries's to cram so much story into a 2 and a half hour film it's hard to comprehend or become attached to anything.

While we're talking about overstuffing with plot, let's get to the overstuffing of characters. There are WAY too many characters in this. The film tries to stuff all of 'Dane DeHaan's Harry Osborne's character development into one film and it doesn't work. Not to mention with all these characters it's hard to focus on who's the main one. Jamie Foxx's Electro is supposed to be the main villain yet he gets lost among the characters, and becomes sort of just there. Unlike in the first film, Gwen Stacy is just there. All she is meant to do, is walk around and say 'I can't be with you Peter' or 'I love the real you Peter'. It's upsetting as Emma Stone truly is a gifted actress, but her character got side-saddled to suit the large ensemble of characters. Don't even get me started with Paul Giametti's Rhino, who is there just to be there for about 5 minutes of film. I'm pretty sure, that the studio wanted to try and cameo almost every single Spiderman character there is.

With all the characters you aren't become emotionally involved in any of them, and that includes the ending, which should of left me in tears but it didn't. Harry Osborne's discovery should have left me sad, but it didn't. Electro's character should of left me with symphony for the guy, but it didn't.

I'm not going to lie, the visuals were amazing. While there are few action sequences to speak of those we do view are pretty breathe taking. Electro's fight on Times Square was just gorgeously rendered, as was Electro himself. Dane DeHaan's transformed Green Goblin was amazingly done. And way superior to the cheap looking one done for the original Goblin. And Spiderman himself, when he flies thru the sky is beautiful and realistic looking.

The performances were fine. 'Andrew Garfield' and 'Emma Stone' who share romance off the screen, share great chemistry on the screen as well. The relationship they implied was realistic, and both actors have charm and charisma. Not to mention Garfield's almost perfect sense of comedic timing. Spiderman was made for Garfield. And Stone holds her own, I mean it, I would see another spiderman movie just for her alone. 'Sally Fields' is underused to say the least, but in what meager scene's she has, she makes the most of it, playing a sweet and lovable Aunt May. 'Jamie Foxx' is Electro. Yeah, I was skeptical at first, when I heard he had been cast but now I'm sure he was perfect for the part. While he kind of when a bit far in his performance, in was still nice enough and he tried hard. 'Dane DeHaan' plays a creepy Harry. While I won't say he was better than Franco, he was pretty solid. And out of anybody who could play Osborne after James Franco, I would have said DeHaan. And then there's 'Paul Giametti' as Rhino. He's over the top and too hammy. And his accent is probably one of the accents I have heard, I could not comprehend anything he said.

The costume design and make up affects are also well put to use. I liked Spiderman's new suit.

The editing was way too choppy during action sequences, particularly during the opening scene involving a plane, as well as a scene in the end involving a very green goblin.

The music was well chosen for the scenes used, it added emotional under tones, as well as a sense of fun when particular scene become a bit too serious. I particularly liked the end credit music from 'Alicia Keys'. It was a catchy tune.

All and All 'The Amazing Spiderman 2' has an over abundance of characters, choppy editing, less then successful character development, but still the film works with the help of a nice chemistry between leads 'Andrew Garfield' and 'Emma Stone' as well as some nice supporters including 'Jamie Foxx' and' Dane DeHaan'. Plus, it helps that the visuals are spectacular and the music, fun. Plus kudos goes to director 'Marc Webb' for a very surprising, very emotionally gripping and powerful ending. But this Spidey sequel still was a disappointment. C+ 5/11/14

'The Amazing Spiderman 2' is rated PG-13 for sequences of action violence, some scenes that may disturb or frighten young children, and some language.

47 Ronin
47 Ronin(2013)

This film quietly sneaked into the theaters, and quickly and quietly was kicked out when it debuted on the 25th of last December. '47 Ronin' bombed so badly it was laughable. I think it made more money here than in its own native country, where it also flopped. The film was rejected from everywhere. Not to mention its massive amount of production trouble which resulted in three release date shifts, the film finally was released after a tally of a whole year later after the film's original set release date (November 2012). As well as the budget growing higher and higher and fights over the cut of the film between the studio and director. This was a disaster making 150 million on a budget of 225 million. Most people hated the film, and I have to agree. My review of '47 Ronin'.

'47 Ronin' is the tale of the 47 Ronin, who after watching their master kill himself honorably due to a spell being cast on himself, decide to take revenge on the man that did it. Among them is the master's second in command, Oishi (Hiroyuki Sanada) a man sentenced to a year by Lord Kira (Tadanobu Asano) in a pit to break his spirit, just in case he may want to seek revenge on his master's unjust execution. A year later he teams up with Kai (Keanu Reeves) a half breed, who was disgraced among the other samurais. Together the two along with the 45 other discharged samurais, seek revenge of Lord Kira, and to rescue the princess, Mika (Kou Shibasaki) who after her father's death, was forced to marry Lord Kira.

You don't even know how hard it was for me to explain the story. I typed, and then retyped this thing 4 times, before settling on this one. Honestly, when you actually watch the film, it's a pretty by the numbers samurai tale. Just with mystical beasts, and witches, and cyclops...

I'm not kidding when I tell you his one was filled to the brim with every possible visual effect you could imagine. It was god-awful. The first scene we watch with Keanu Reeves involves him and other samurais hunting down some gigantic, poorly animated CGI dog beast thing. I can't even describe it, as i9 had no clue what the hell it was at all. I go in thinking I'm going to see a samurai film, and I get a CGI dog thingy??? What the heck, that's what I thought.

Not to mention the lackluster scripting which was over stuffed with characters and drawn out action sequences, oh and walking. Lots and lots of walking. The script could have been condensed into a light 90 minute popcorn flick, but instead we get this overlong, surprisingly dull flick that ticks in at about120 minutes. It didn't feel like 2 hours, it felt like 3. The scripting scimp's on characters to instead include a scene with a witch who turns into a dragon... The script didn't know what to do with itself. I mean, nobody stands out here at all. Keanu Reeves character is in about 15 minutes of the film, and is almost just as one dimensional as it gets. The witch is your stereotypical, freaky, goth girl with no style or substance given to her. I'm not even going to start on you with that dialogue. Just the most out right cringe worthy thing ever. I mean, when going for realistic you don't want to sound like a bunch of characters off of some old soap opera. When the words come out of the actor's mouth I just can't help but think 'What the hell? Did he seriously just say that?'.

The editing is beyond bad. The film's editing is what kept the film from its original November 2012 release date with struggles over who gets the editing rights, the director or the studio and in the end, the film becomes lost between the fight. The editing cuts back in forth between fight scene, CGI galore, random close-up of Keanu Reeves just so you know he's there, and a few stupid pieces of dialogue about destiny and redemption thrown in for good measure.

I'm not going to lie; I did find the production values quiet pleasant. The film was good to look at; I'm not going to lie. The scenery was beyond gorgeous, and the costumes were well designed. Japan was well represented in set designs and wardrobe. The film looked so lavish and pleasing to the eye.

The actors gave it their all. 'Keanu Reeves' had surprisingly little screen time despite being billed the lead (Of course, it's Hollywood) and I couldn't call him more than a supporting character in spite of a few random un-necessary scene's made to try to make him a lead, even if his character wasn't. But in the few pieces of him that I actually found appropriate in the film, he did well. The Japanese native actors were pretty decent. Some of the actors spoke English with ease, while others not-so much and it didn't help that what they were saying was so badly written. 'Hiroyuki Sanada' whom played the real lead character, was outstandingly convincing in his role as an arrogant, yet loyal and brave leader of the Ronin. He slipped into his role with ease. Other highlights include Min Tanaka as Lord Asana the master, who was bewitched and later sentenced to death 40 minutes into the film. He was very good, and made for the role.

All and all '47 Ronin' is a poorly scripted, shamefully edited, dull, CGI stuffed samurai film who's production values and well assembled cast are left betrayed by a lack of any character development. D 5/7/14

'47 Ronin' is rated PG-13 for intense sequences of action and violence, some disturbing images and thematic elements. It's appropriate for 14 and up.


When I was young I had enjoyed the film. This was ofcourse before, I knew how to correctly judge and criticize film. And of course it had a hefty heaping of violence, and at that age that was all I wanted in a movie. I wasn't too judgmental of what I saw on the screen back then... but now I am, and as such I now really loath this film. My review of 'Lockout' below.

'Lockout' follows Snow (Played by Guy Pearce) a man forced to enter a space prison, when it is over taken by about 500 rape and murder convicts who took over the ship. The surprise is, the President's own daughter, Emilie (Played by Maggie Grace) who was inspecting the safety of the prisoners, is trapped on the ship, and so it is up to Snow to enter the ship, retrieve her, and get the hell out of there.

Generic, generic, generic, generic.... That line could go on forever. I'm not even lying this has got to be the blandest, thrill-less sci-fi action film I have ever seen.

The script has few surprises, and follows the same ol GENERIC 'by the dots' action playbook route. The script has 'Snow' as a GENERIC John McLane type action hero, who enjoys making jokes while he works... not to mention he does enjoy a good smoke every now and then just like McLane. The script provides plenty of income (Taken from other films) but no outcome. Nothing here is even the slightest bit interesting. GENERIC. GENERIC. GENERIC.

Not to mention the editing is migraine inducing. We cut back and forth and back and forth between one thing and another. Even if the script is dumb and generic, I mean the action would have been at least stupid fun, but it isn't because of the editing. The action shots are so poorly edited together you cannot even make sense of what you're seeing. I hate it when movies have such sloppy editing; it basically ruins the entire product.

Wait, wait, wait, that's not even the worst part. The worst part is the particular cheesy-ness this film seems to have. Every moment of this film made me laugh out loud. The clunky dialogue, the bland characters... it's all so cheesy. I couldn't stop laughing at how bad the dialogue was... it produces the 'no duh' effect, that I always have whenever a film say's the obvious. Basically this entire film stats the obvious, it's unbelievable. And the special effects during Snow's chase sequence in the first 10 minutes of the film is just so bad, that I had to fast-forward through it. It looked like a poorly animated racing game from the 80's.

The one thing that kept me back from full out loathing this piece of trailer trash was the unbelievable amount of effort the cast made to try and keep this from sinking... obviously it sank, but it was a nice try from the cast. 'Guy Pearce' is almost always grand in any role he takes; it's just that his efforts are weighed down by his John McLane- rip off character. The guy that really got me smiling though was the outstanding breakout performance from 'Joseph Gilgun' as the psycho-nut, prisoner Hydell. It's noticeable how much this guy really tried to make the best of his character, and he does. 'Hydell' is efficient as a wacko back-up villain, to the more sophisticated one. Gilgun helped make his character juicier and fun and I liked it.

All and All 'Lockout' is almost a complete mess. Almost. If it weren't for some pretty convincing performances, 'Lockout' would have completely flopped due to the migraine inducing editing, poor scripting, laughable special effects, and just a lack of creativity. D- 5/2/14

'Lockout' is rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and action, and language including some sexual references. It's appropriate for ages 13 and up. I doubt anyone over and under the age of 13 would enjoy this one though.


After watching the trailer, I thought the film would get a best picture nomination from the Academy Awards; surprisingly this was not the case. Watching the film now, I express my bewilderment at this film not being nominated. It's a great film. Solidly filmed, and well scripted, this was a very well crafted biographical sports drama and I'll tell you why. My review of 'Rush'.

'Rush' tells the tale of James Hunt (Chris Hemsworth) and Niki Lauda (Daniel Bruhl), as two highly skilled race car drivers, who form a rivalry that lasted from 1970 to 1976. James, a stubborn, dimwitted, and slacker, and Niki, a smart, calculated jerk, face off against each other to win the Championship for the Grand Prix.

'Rush' is a very well handled racing film. What surprises me is that it is more character driven then actual race car sequences, something you hardly see in these type of films. This not only helps the tension level when the racing scenes do occur, but it helps make the characters more human than one dimensional figures just following a script.

The film was well written by 'Peter Morgan' who seemingly puts the characters first, and the stunts, and car's second. He balances both Lauda and Hunt's separate story arcs perfectly, keeping each of them in tune with the other, not giving one more screen time then another. Morgan develops his character's well, and the dialogue is un-cringworthy. He even makes characters likable even when they seem to not be, that helps to make the film more enjoyable.

The film is well handled by director 'Ron Howard' who has provided us with the likes of 'The DaVinci Code' and 'Apollo 13'. He handles the material he is given wisely. His camera work is impressive to say the least, especially during the racing sequences. We are brought into the action being put right in front of the racer, or in the vehicle... And the crash sequences... wow. Not to mention the climax of the film was eye widening beautifully shot, with the rain and all.

The film is lead by two impressive performances from 'Chris Hemsworth' and 'Daniel Bruhl'. Hemsworth gives his all, and ends up successfully giving probably his best performance to date as Hunt. He seems to have tons of fun as the character and it plays well on screen. Even better is the relative unfamiliar face Bruhl, whose name is familiar outside the U.S but rather unheard of here in the states. He is powerful as Lauda, his eagerness to win, and evil-genius like qualities are transferred to Bruhl successfully.

I do however feel the film get's to be a bit to much spanning for over 2 hours. I felt it had a little excess that needed to be trimmed off to make this a more straightforward film, as to help it not lag along so much as it did.

All and All, 'Rush' is a beautifully filmed, solidly scripted, and powerfully performed film from director 'Ron Howard' that's more about the characters then noisy racing sequences, which works well. B+ 4/30/14

'Rush' is rated R for adult content, nudity, language, drug use, and disturbing accident images. It's appropriate for teens and up.


First there was Cars then Planes next we'll get another thinly scripted, cheap film on Boats or Trains or any other mobile item. I did enjoy 'Planes' at all. I mean, it's not even a Pixar film! It's a Disney film, but not from Disney Animations or Pixar, it's from Disneytoons! A studio that works for Disney and makes DIRECT TO DVD movies off of Disney's already existing products. And that's what they were doing with 'Planes' until a test screening impressed Disney enough to move it to the theater instead of direct to DVD. I can't see why it ever made it to the cinema. It's not worthy of being seen by theater patron's. To be honest I didn't much care for 'Cars' which this spin off is based on. I didn't hate it but I didn't love it either. However the film had enough charm and heart to redeem itself as still worthy to carry Pixar's name... 'Planes' has neither enough charm, heart, or anything actually. My review of 'Planes'.

'Planes' tells the tale of Dusty Crophopper (originally voiced by Jon Cryer, but at the last minute was replaced by comedian Dane Cook) a crop-duster in the small town of Radiator Springs- no I mean another small town called Propwash Junction, a place that lays in the middle of nowhere. Dusty dreams of flying in races practicing every night, hoping that one day he'd be good enough to compete in the Wings Around the Globe Competition. This year he decides to try and qualify for the competition. Falling short of qualifying, after another racer is axed, Dusty is allowed to move up a position and qualifies for the Wings Competition. Dusty now must conquer his fear of heights, and fly, fly, fly with the help of a retired war veteran (Stacy Keach) and his friends.

Yawn, yawn, yawn. Been there, seen that. This is your average kiddie fair. The script is dumbed down, predictable, and very unfunny. Not to mention the film is almost a complete replica of the far superior 'Cars', just switched around the main characters from cars to planes. About ten minutes into the film I knew everything that was going to happen. Nothing about the film surprises me, or delights me. The film can be seen as made for children, but I doubt even them will get much out of this. The jokes, are seen, you know they're there but they just aren't funny. The dialogue is somewhat laughable, and cliché.

The animation is below-par. It's sad; it's rough and seems to have been done by a bunch of people straight out of college. I mean, when you compare the animation of 'Planes' to that of any other Pixar or Disney film, you can tell 'Planes' animation is by far worse. However, I must express my admiration for the flying sequences, that seem to be done with ease... well some of them anyways. Some of them just don't look good, while others do.

Character wise, you don't relate to, or care for anybody. Our lead, Dusty Crophopper, is just so bland and uninspired, without any real motivation for anything. He's just unrelatable, and boring. The rest of the competitors are mostly stereotypes of different cultures. The only character you can even feel for is Skipper, but even his story is underwhelming.

Voice cast wise, 'Cars' had the upper hand, but 'Planes' didn't do that bad itself. 'Dane Cook' is fine as Dusty, no matter how bad his dialogue is. 'Stacy Keach' basically mimic's 'Paul Newman's' voice as Doc from 'Cars'. The other competitor's vocals are good enough to portray the characters stereotypes in their respective cultures.

All and All 'Planes' try's to soar but crashes. Its predictable, unfunny, and almost a replica of 'Cars'. Adults will hardly be able to manage sitting through it, and while small children will enjoy it, most anybody else may not. D 4/22/14

'Planes' is rated PG for mild action and rude humor. It's appropriate for kids 5 and up. However I doubt anybody over 10 will be willing to watch this one.

The Wolf of Wall Street

I watched the fifth academy award nominee for best picture this beautiful Easter Sunday morning. I have to say I was by far impressed by what I saw; this has got to be my second favorite (After Gravity) best picture nominee of the year. The film has been tagged with multiple controversies. Those controversies only made me want to see the film even more. For starters the film broke the record for most amount of uses of the f-word. Over 500 times it is said, in fact I think just about every character in the film says it at least once. Another thing is the film is 2 hours and 59 minutes long. That one there left me in a dozy, I mean that's 'King Kong' long, but the film never bores at all. Now, the film has been debated among viewers of whether or not it deserved the academy award nod, and I must full on say it definitely deserved it. It's 'Leonardo Decaprio' and 'Martin Scorsese' at their finest moments. My review of 'The Wolf of Wall Street'.

'The Wolf of Wall Street' follows the aspiring, cunning, and bright young man, Jordan Belfort (Played by Leonardo Decaprio) as he cheats wall street itself selling worthless investment bonds to the rich to feed himself money, and money and money. Soon, he's so good; he can afford to throw money out into the open sea. Life is good for Belfort, he has a beautiful wife (Played by hottie, Margot Robbie), a nice ride (It's white, not red, as he clarifies early in the film), a gigantic mansion of a home, as well as two cute wonderful children, and loads of cash to spare. However when a cop (Played by the seemingly always type casted, Kyle Chandler) get's deep into his life, Belfort must stop his bachelor lifestyle, and quit his ways for good, but for him it's more easier said than done...

This is a magnificent film from the magnificent 'Martin Scorsese'. While the film would seem to drag at the exhausted 3 hours, it doesn't. It always keeps your attention. Yes, do I feel some of the materiel would have best been served cut off. Sure! I feel Scorsese should have left some of the littler details off to the side, it sure would have stream lined the film a bit more, but it's still never the less entertaining.

The script, in particular shines, it plays off the talent of the cast. For me, I felt the character of Jordan Belfort, was written just for 'Leonardo Decaprio', who's particularly absorbed into the materiel delightfully. The script has a few flaws in the seams. As I've already said, it get's distracted a bit with less important side plots, and it's very un-necessary. But the script does manage to supply some witty dialogue thrown around by Hill and Decaprio. It also supplies some solid character development of Belfort; you see his money seeking self from the beginning to the end, as he struggles with himself.

The script also feeds us plenty of memorable scenes that we'll end up still chewing on beyond the films ending. In particular is the scene in which 'Matthew McConaughey ' starts randomly beating his chest. Another see's 'Leonardo Decaprio' crawling up to his stripper wife, who lay's her high heeled foot on his face, and playfully pushes him off.

The cast portrays their roles perfectly. 'Leonardo Decaprio' coming off a wonderful role in 'The Great Gatsby' plays his part of a self centered, money hungry, playboy with style. He adds meat to his character and, performs each line, not as a line as an actual piece of word. 'Jonah Hill' also makes the most of his time, as Belfort best friend, and co-manager, Donnie Azoff. You felt the fact he really loved his part and put ump into Azoff.

I feel the film didn't shine particularly in heart. The script does its best to make you feel something for Belfort toward the end, but you don't, you see him solely as a self centered jerk. A jerk is all he will be remembered as in my book. All the characters were unlikable, even if you tried to like them, you just couldn't. Hill tried his best to make his own character likable, but he too was just a jerk. When you know that at the end of the story the only character you end up relating to is the stripper wife of Belfort, you know there's something wrong.

All and all, 'The Wolf of Wall Street' is a powerfully scripted, energetic, fun, and lead excellently by the performance of Leonardo Decaprio never becomes dull in its excessive 3 hour runtime. A 4/20/14

'The Wolf of Wall Street' is rated R for strong sexual content, nudity, drug use, and language throughout as well as some violence. It's not appropriate for children.


Alright, I have finally seen the animated film that has been talked about for the last 6 or so months. Almost everyone I know has seen the film, as well as most people everyone else anywhere apparently (The film has made well over a billion dollars). You could say I under estimated the film's potential, I did, I didn't expect the film to reach such a following as it has, and now that I have finally seen the film myself I see why it's received so much attention. It's really a beautiful film from Disney. Would I say we are entering another Disney Renaissance? No, at least not yet, but I would say 'Frozen' made a large leap toward it. I estimated back in November, a total gross of 500 million even, similar to the studio's previous venture in 'Wreak it Ralph'. And now it's grossed well over a billion dollars. A little fun fact is the film played in my own home town theater for 14 weeks from its release of November 27th to March 7th. I'm just amazed at how strong the film was, and now I say I'm not as amazed because I understand why. My review of 'Frozen'.

'Frozen' tells the tale of sisters Elsa and Anna. Elsa, however freezes whatever she touches and his magical abilities, after nearly killing her sister in an accident as a child, Elsa hides herself away till adulthood. When she is finally forced to reveal herself as she is titled Queen, her powers are unfortunately discovered, with Elsa fleeing into the woods in a fit of anger turning the country into a blizzard of snow and ice. Now it is up to her sister, Anna with the help of an ice maker with a warm heart, Kristoff, a snowman Olaf, and a reindeer Sven, to find Elsa and return summer to the country.

The formula is typical Disney, but it's told with such tender care and ease, it doesn't make any difference. You still feel as if you're journeying into something new. It's warm hearted storytelling. The story connects well with the audience, with a heart that has been missing recently in Disney films. You feel Elsa's pain in the story, which is really uplifting.

The animation is beyond beautifully rendered. It's very soft to touch. The designs of Elsa's snow castle are particularly beautiful. The shots of snow are cleanly animated and surprisingly realistic looking. The character animation never misses a note; with Anna looking particularly human through the first 1/3 of the film.

The songs while mostly nothing to brag about, one stands out as magnificent. 'Let it Go' won the Academy Award for Best Original Song, and it deserves it. It's emotionally powerful, and gripping. It showcases Elsa, as anything but a villain. It is original, catchy and can be heard multiple times. The opposite could be said of 'Do You Want to Build a Snowman?'. I found that one to be beyond annoying and while it does express emotions I found tit o be cringe worthy and not very good. Most of the songs end up being just sub-par except 'Let it Go'.

The voice cast excels, with 'Idina Menzel' vocally performing the song 'Let it Go' and expressing Elsa's distress and sadness wonderfully well. 'Kristian Bell' is beautiful as the voice of our heroine, Anna and 'Josh Gad' is very witty as the snowman, Olaf in the short amount of screentime he receives.

But I do express disappointment with the lack of character development. The film's pacing really doesn't allow for much. Its speeds by not allowing for our heroines, Anna and Elsa to be much of anything. Anna more in particular falls into a seemingly plain Disney model, with no style or substance to make herself differentiate from previous Disney females. The same can be said to the male characters, Hans and Kristoff who play out as generic male love interests for the female leads.

All and all 'Frozen' may not be the most superior Disney film, but with strong animation, emotionally gripping voice casting, and the near classic song 'Let it Go', 'Frozen' is still one of Disney's best to date. B+ 4/19/14

'Frozen' is rated PG for some action and mild rude humor. It appropriate for kids 6 and up.

Parents beware, you'll probably be viewing the film multiple times with your children, as is the way with all Disney films, they are simply child magnets. But do not fret, there are worse films to bare witness to multiple times.

The Book Thief

As I read the novel by author 'Markus Zusak' I was thrusted into the world of Liesel Meminger. A emotional connecting, solidly characterized, and powerfully written book. And right after finishing the book, I read that the film adaption had begun production. I was overjoyed to see an excellent tale of courage and friendship would come to life on the big screen. Unfortunately the film never showed at my Cinema when November 27th clocked in. So here I am, April 13th watching 'The Book Thief'. Was it all that I had hoped and prayed for, or what I have come to expect from film adaptions of my beloved books? I'd take the later, for this tale. My review of 'The Book Thief'.

'The Book Thief' follows Liesel Meminger, a poor unfortunate girl who is thrusted into the hands of foster parents Hans and Rosa Hubermann (Played by Geoffrey Rush and Emily Watson), after her mother was forced to abandon her and her late brother (who died on the way there), as she was a communist. Taking place from the beginning to the end of Hitler's rain, the film (Narrated by Death) tells Liesel's story of hope, courage, and her love for books.

It's a very intriguing story, having it narrated by death. It doesn't take very long to realize this as the film's first line is 'You're all going to die." The narrating works to set up the characters and get you invested more as the film's opening is rather dull without the narration. The narration comes in short snippets throughout the film, until its closing monologue at the end, summing everything up. It's somewhat chilling and creepy, which is effective in a good way. But seems rather un-necessary altogether and is access weight to the film that already stretches past a bearable runtime, and instead leap farther into a slow 2 hours plus film.

The film on a technical stand point is very strong. The visual effects are both beautiful and show loads of craftsmanship, what with the detail of everything imaginable, the snow and houses, it's all beautifully rendered with care.

The film looks like a newly designed fabric. It's soft and pleasing to touch and hear and feel, and that's good and all, but it makes for a more comfy experience when the film tries to become serious, it just can't be taken that way. It try's dramatically to succeed but it doesn't, it's just too puppy like.

The script has too much on its mind as well. It slacks often. When it's trying to be serious, it's not, and when it's trying to be funny, it's not. The script's dialogue is uninspired and cringworthy beyond be leaf for a film like this. The script winds up just slopping about, jumping us into random places, without any explanation.
The film tries often, way too hard to be good, and instead falls on its head from exhaustion. Dramatically the film holds well, but it wears itself out from so much trying, it doesn't let itself just go with it. It follows the book well enough, but never adds what would be useful to successfully adapt the book to a feature length film.

This may have been made up by the performances, and should have but it wasn't. The cast is fine, but wasn't enough to save the story from being a hopeless mess. 'Geoffrey Rush' shines as the lovably soft, foster father of Liesel, and so does 'Emily Watson' as the bittersweet, no-nonsense foster mother, with a heart hidden underneath all the sternness. Newcomer 'Sophie Nelisse' was brilliantly cast as our heroine, Liesel Meminger a brave and strong young girl.
The score from 'John Williams' and the cinematography from 'Florian Ballhaus' both succeed to dramatically tone the film beautifully.

All and all, 'The Book Thief' is visually beautiful, dramatically successful due to the strong score and cinematography, but the uninspired script pulls the film down from truly being good. C- 4/13/14

'The Book Thief' is rated PG-13 for some intense violence. It's appropriate for children 12 and up.

American Hustle

Ok. Yes, this is the third film in a row that I've reviewed that was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Picture. It's just that I've been having a marathon of some sort. Also of note is that the date this review is published befalls my birthday. Happy Birthday to Me! Even though I'm writing this a month or so in advance, it's still nice to write. 'American Hustle' was one of those Academy Award Best Picture nominees I most wanted to view myself. I'll be honest when I say that back in August 2013 when the first trailer for the film came out, I was not interested at all. And then later on I watched the second trailer and started to get interested. It's the costumes and cast that really got me attached. It looked like a film that puts you in the 70's and I'm glad to note it does. Now let's read my review of 'American Hustle'.

'American Hustle' follows Irving Rosenfeld (Played by Christian Bale) a businessman who operates a small business of dry-cleaning shops. But Irving's greatest business success was as a con man operating a fake money lending scheme, to fool people into handing him 5,000 dollars for credits. He has a wife and child as well. After meeting and falling in love with Sydney Prosser (Played by Amy Adams), a big dreaming, smart girl, Irving asks her to join him in his operation. But the two are soon busted by senile and aggressive FBI agent Richard DiMaso (Played by Bradley Cooper) who forces the two to con the Mayor Carmine Polito (Played by Jeremy Renner) or face jail time. But things go too far with the two whining up attracting the attention of the mob.

'American Hustle' is a very interesting film. But the most interesting thing is the characters. Some of them start out cool and end up being a steam pot. The characters are relatable and well fleshed out throughout the bloated 2 hours and 10 minutes runtime. Usually when you watch a movie, the characters are more of a side dish, with the action the main course, and it hurts the film in many ways. But this is obviously not the case with this film. We are given emotionally acceptable characters, characters you hate, characters you love. Highly realistic characters with motives for their actions and interesting back stories. We feel their desperation and anger and fear.

Director 'David O. Russell' dives into this crime cape masterfully. Coming off the critical successes of 'Silver Lining Playbook' and 'The Fighter' O. Russell get's inside the story, delivering ripe camerawork and giving us hearty characters, characters that we connect with solely because of O. Russell's direction.

But I feel the film lagged in the third act before finally coming to a close. The film feels like 3 hours rather than 2. It includes loads of excess that would have served the film better if it had been cut and left on the cutting room floor. I suggest removing a few nice but rather un-necessary scenes involving DiMaso and his boss (Played by Louis C.K) as well as a scene involving DiMaso at his home, which I felt did nothing to progress the story in anyway. O. Russell is a director who is overly talented but can't seem to leave anything out.

The cast is what really makes this film glimmer. 'Christian Bale' coming off the success of the Batman Trilogy plays Irving. He performs the anger, confusion, and smarts that came with the character. He was able to move the story along. 'Amy Adams' shines as Sydney. Her fake British accent is perfect and her performance is remarkably convincing as the clever and decidedly beautiful woman. 'Bradley Cooper' surprisingly pulls off the dramatic role as the somewhat senile detective. I have to give him a tip of the hat, when I say he really puts some effort into the role, and overshadows Bale in the shots they share together. 'Jeremy Renner' plays the sweet mayor, and really pulls off the powerful and very much likable character he plays. I felt sorry for him at the end and felt Renner made the best of his screentime. Also during the end we get a very surprising (and delighting) uncredited cameo from 'Robert De'Niro' as a very powerful mob boss, who plays the tension high and convincing, and gave me a small smirk every time I saw him on screen.

The costumes and hair styling is also pretty elegant. Sydney's curly hair is pretty fashionable to the period, and her flashy and scandalous clothing is quite beautiful to look at. Irving himself sports a nice hairdo, as does the agent, DiMaso in a short cut curly hairdo as well. The costumes were well selected and fit the period well. The hairdos were well done and also fit the period well and look really cool as well.

All and All 'American Hustle' is a smart film with top notch performances, solid characters, great directing, and even if the film is a bit too long, it's still entertaining. B- 4/7/14

'American Hustle' is rated R for pervasive language, some sexual content and brief violence. It's appropriate for ages 14 and up.

12 Years a Slave

It comes to no surprise for me that I liked the film. I knew I would enjoy it even before it was released it just seemed like that uplifting true take on slavery. The film, unlike many, did justice to the topic of slavery, not skipping on the dirty details that has been polished before in many, many film adaptions of the same topic of slavery. And then the film took 9 nominations at the Academy Award. Of course it only won two of those awards, it got what it deserved. While I still feel 'Gravity' was the better film, '12 Years a Slave' was a close second and here is why. My review of '12 Years a Slave'.

'12 Years a Slave' follows Solomon Northup, a free man, kidnapped and forced into slavery under the name 'Platt' for 12 years, facing the hardships of being a slave, under the hands of a few different slave owners.

The story of Solomon Northup is based on his biography written by himself and titled '12 years a Slave'. The film ended up being scripted brilliantly by 'John Ridley'. Ridley wrote all the details of slavery into his lengthy screenplay, and left nothing out. He faithfully adapted Northup's biography into a film script having taken all it had and putting it onto another piece of paper, adding little attachments. His script work was beautiful, yet sometimes flawed. By flawed, I mean that it isn't always clear as to the events occurring, sometimes ending up avoiding realistic situations in favor of instead moving onto another problem, never fully coming to light on a problem. For example, the fact that Northup, a slave, got away with beating a white man, with his own wipe, and not getting punished is beyond shocking to me, and then next thing you know he is being traded to Epps. His script was smart, but flawed. It never holds back, it is raw and compelling.

The cast portrays the historical characters with realistic expressions and motions and, whatever. British man, 'Chiwetel Ejiofor' powerfully leads the cast as Solomon Northup. He pulls you into the story, he shows you pain; he shows you kindness, and hardships. He gave us the impact that we need. He emotionally connected with us; his character did, because of Ejiofor. Not to mention that Ejiofor perfectly masks his British voice, in a convincing American one. Another delight was the heartbreaking and tear jerking performance from newcomer, (and Academy Award Winner) 'Lupita Nyong'o'. Her situation and pain is felt, just as much a Northup's. And during the films most controversial and cringworthy scene at the end of the film, she holds her own, making you shoat for mercy the whole time. She fits the slave Patsey perfectly, and I couldn't imagine anybody better to play the role. 'Michael Fassbender' plays the worthless slave owner during most of the film's second and third acts. He makes every sound stop. Whenever he yells, your heart stops beating, because you know there's trouble. He plays the villain perfectly. The rest of the cast does well in their roles as well. There's just one guy I don't believe fit, and that was 'Paul Dano' as the second hand to the nice slave owner William Ford. He just seemed too young for the role, even if he acted solidly; it just wasn't convincing enough for me.

The musical score is strange, it doesn't play often, but when it does it hits you. It sets you in the mind frame of what's happening, it undertones the lines. If there is violence, the music is heard playing to the beat of the cry of whoever is getting hurt. It's emotional, it's driving, and it's original. And of course it was done by 'Hans Zimmer'. It's gripping, powerful, and works with the scenes to hit you harder then you thought you'd be hit.

Direction from 'Steve McQueen' was extraordinary. He knows how to helm a feature. He shocks you with affective camerawork. He gives you many shots of Ejiofor's face to express his emotions and expressions in reenactment to what is placed on him, and what he is thinking. And he uses his techniques to convey the suffering of the slaves. He never went and skimped, when he promised he would make an excellent retelling of Solomon Northup's tale. He knew what he wanted and went for it, directing an excellent feature.

The editing was creative and effective. What you see is shots that are cut where you just linger in a particular area for a much longer period of time, letting you absorb what is occurring or what has occurred, or what will occur. It helps keep you invested in Northup's tale, and wanting more.

All and all, '12 Years a Slave' is a powerful, raw, emotional, film that never goes limp on all the gory details of Northup's tale of survival. It succeeds in impacting you emotionally with the powerful performances, solid scriptwriting and creative camerawork, and will leave you thinking for moments after the films end. A- 4/2/14

Captain Phillips

I'm sure your all familiar with the true story of Captain Phillips? If not let me tell you alittle bit about the event that started on April 8th 2009 and ended four long days later on April 12th. Four Somali Pirates attacked the Maersk Alabama cargo ship on route toward Mombasa, Kenya and after a struggle they got on board with the intentions of taking over the ship and sailing it to Somalia. However the crew fought back and the pirates were forced to leave the ship on a lifeboat, with the captain as a hostage. After 3 days on the lifeboat, the U.S military were able to safely rescue Phillips from the pirates. I had previously herd about this on the news. It was fascinating, and I knew at once it had potential to be film adapted. And here we are, October 2013. Captain Phillip and his crew's story of heroism and survival have been painted onto the big screen. The film went onto be nominated for Best Picture at the Academy Awards. It didn't win, but I can see why it got nominated. It's a great film, and I'll tell you why. My review of 'Captain Phillips'.

'Captain Phillips' tells the true story of the crew of the Maersk Alabama cargo ship of which was on route toward Mombasa, Kenya when a group of four Somali Pirates hijacked the ship. But when the crew fought back, the four Somalians were forced to hold the Captain (Played by Tom Hanks) hostage on a life boat.

Ok, so I may have just spoiled the whole film for you. But odds are you have already read in the paper the story of the Maersk Alabama cargo ship hijacking and already knew what was going to happen. Anyways, the story is told in a pretty solid fashion. The cast which includes real simalians (Smart casting decision) powerfully convey the emotions and energy that the real crew and pirates were probably having at the time of the incident. 'Tom Hanks' leads the cast as the Captain. With Hanks, you used to be able to tell that if he's in the film, it's going to be good, but lately with disaster 'Larry Crowne' and pile of migraines 'Cloud Atlas' you can't tell anymore. But rest easy, maybe Hanks is getting back to his old self. He acts with ease, sending the audience the heartbreaking emotions of his predicament. His acting leads the film, and you want him to make it, to continue to fight back and get on. He played perfectly the average man, ho when thrusted into a problem acts as any average man would act. Not all John McClain sudden action hero. His last 5 minutes of screentime are the most emotional minutes the entire film has, all because of his performance. 'Barkhad Abdi' is the scene stealer though as the leader of the hijacking pirates. He is smart, leadership worthy, and pitiful. He isn't the worst guy; he just wants money and will do anything for it. He isn't crazy or just plain kill-hungry. He just wants money. He stole all the scenes he had, and I wish he'd been given a better chance at the Academy Awards.

What makes 'Captain Phillips' a success is its direction from 'Paul Greengrass'. Greengrass successively captures the true story on camera with skill. His camera work is impressive and smart, bringing you into the action, seeing things the way Phillips and other's see things. It's really worthwhile to watch. He gives us a few nice shots of the boats as well as a view of Somalia. Oh, and we can't forget those neat shots of the lifeboat from the U.S military's point of view... that was pretty neat.

A problem here is the jagged editing. The pace doesn't help anything either. The film runs to fast into its action and the editing doesn't keep up, jolting us back and forth with quick glances at Hanks and then to Abdi and it makes your eyes kind of roll right into your head. The editing and pacing make it hard for you to concentrate on the emotional center the cast is trying to convey. It's too fast and jittery for you to be able to grab anything to hold onto. It ends in a blur, a big blue blur. You try your best to keep steady but in the end it tips you over. Not to say it ruined the film, just made it harder to fully engulf yourself into when you have to concentrate on everything to make sure you processed it. If you will, relate the pacing to a speeding motor boat, and relate the editing to the hard waves you hit when your fast boat hits the waves. That's what you feel watching this. However points go to it as well, for keeping you on the edge of your seat.

The music gives a very dynamic performance as well. Even if the film isn't as holding as it should be, the music tries to catch the viewer and hold them as long as it can. It is original, it is moving, it is almost as quick and loud as the film itself is, and it holds you. It gets you to the edge of your seat. It's like a beating and as soon as someone moves it grows loud jumping out at you, to waken you, get you more invested in what is about to go down. In the end it's a clever score, with a few nice bits of music that work well with the scene's going on.

The script is very smart as well. The script writer, 'Billy Ray', adapts the true story in very good fashion. While I'll admit, he does add to the story to more fully cinematize the story for the big screen. But, gratefully enough it doesn't do anything to alter the story too much, but instead showcases the heroics of the crew and Captain. It's the true American tale and it's told quite well. There seem to be no inaccuracies here, it looks to me that 'Billy Ray' took some time to research the ship and such to make the film as accurate as possible, and I have to pat him on the back for his work. The script deserved the nod at the Academy Awards for best screenplay. It's a solid and smart script and beyond tense, even if it isn't as emotionally driven as it could've and should've been.

Making use of its solid 50 million budge, the film sports great production values, what with the ships and scenery and waves, it's all put to the best use to make this tale as accurate in portrayal as it is on paper. 'Paul Greengrass' knew what he wanted to do with the true tale, and succeeds in using what he had to faithfully adapt the story for the screen.

All and all, 'Captain Phillips' is a solidly acted, tense, and smartly scripted film from the great 'Paul Greengrass' but I must express my sadness at the film not having been as emotionally connected as it should have been. B+ 3/27/14

P.S: Next up for 'Tom Hanks' was playing another real life hero... just not in the same fashion as Walt Disney in 'Saving Mr. Banks'. I have yet to see the film, but from Hank's performance here, I can hopefully rest at ease that Disney won't go to shame with his onscreen portrayal.


And here we go, another YA novel adapted into a film. They never seem to slow down. After the major successes of 'Harry Potter' and 'Twilight', they did a test run with 'The Hunger Games'. And after that film became a huge success, other studios decided to test their strengths at making young adult novels into films, creating the likes of several disasters including that of 'The Host', and 'The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones' as well as several mediocre yet not completely tasteless films such as 'Beautiful Creatures' and 'Enders Game'. They never seem to slow down. Even when those four films flopped completely, studios still went on thinking they could make that next 'Hunger Games' or 'Twilight'. And after another flop this year with 'Vampire Academy' they finally did. And that success is 'Divergent'. A film that is very much similar to the other adaption's yet somewhat better. Not that better in narrative but in a few other traits. My review of 'Divergent'.

In 'Divergent', a post-apocalypse setting, Beatrice Prior (Played By 'Spectacular Now' star Shailene Woodley) must decide what she wants to do with her life. At a certain age, she and others her age, must choose one of five fractions (sorta like the 'districts' in The Hunger Games) based on their personality traits, to live in the rest of their lives. Learning she is Divergent (Divergence, is in which the person doesn't fit into one faction) Beatrice decides on Dauntless, people who guard the city, and protect the fractions. Leaving her family behind, Beatrice, now called Tris, must survive the initiation process, and try to mask her divergence, or risk being killed at the hands of the cruel Erudite leader Jeanine (Played by Kate Winslet).

A simple plot formula which is used in almost every other YA film adaption. Director 'Neil Burger' doesn't try to expand the interesting world, and try to make something different of the idea. As my father said 'It plays out like Hunger Games'. It does, nothing about it comes out as unique of any kind. You would think with almost 2 and a half hours, you would be able to do a little with the idea, but no, instead we are bombarded with plenty of tests. Which is ok, they were fun enough to watch and showed Tris slowly evolve from a weak and hopeless girl, to a strong and radiant woman.

The plain and predictable plot isn't so hard to sit through when you get the likes of a formidable cast, who dauntlessly (As the characters would say) fought the formula with their talents. 'Shailene Woodley' plays the lead with ease. She is easily believable, and is good eye candy for the audience. Her strengths and weaknesses are portrayed realistically on screen, and she projects a glow whenever she's on screen. Surprisingly, her co-lead 'Theo James' does a better than expected performance as Tris's mentor and future lover. He isn't as useless as you'd expect a male co-star in a YA adaption to be. He plays out more than your average heartthrob. Being there to do more than make out with the lead, and say romantic wooden dialogue. He holds his own and has great chemistry with Woodley. Other than them, the rest of the cast doesn't have much time to shine. 'Miles Teller' does fine, and 'Kate Winslet' plays a civilized villain in a more miner role.

It's too bad that the actors didn't have much stronger characters. Other than Tris and Four, the other characters are lifeless. They are just there. Tris's trio of friends include the suicidal Al, the smarty Will, and the tough as nails Christina. They are all the shallowest characters I have ever seen. None of the three get more than 10 minutes of screen time each. Barely, and that's not even of them speaking, mostly of them just standing there watching events or whatever they do. It's too bad, they had time to improve and become more solid then they had become. I mean, again with an almost 2 and a half hour film, why not spend a little bit more on character development and a little less on constant action. I mean it was fun, but I'd liked more than to characters to leave an impact on me. Peter, the bully, is known at the end as a bully, for no reason whatsoever. I know he's not the main character but why not give him a more clear reason to be such a jackass jerk. And Al, one of Tris's friends, why'd he turn on her? Just because he could? He had to have a reason to do so, so why not explain it. Take a dang moment and explain why. Why?! Gosh darn it; don't slack off on your characters just to satisfy your action hungry hearts.

With a modest 80 million budget, you would expect the film to make good use of it, visually. And they do, the visuals look crisp and clean. And with most of the budget going towards marketing, the film had even less money to use on visuals and I believe they succeeded in making better than average effects. Let's take the City of Chicago for instantance. It looks dystopian and futuristic. The buildings and houses look dystopian, ok, I'll admit some of that want toward good sets but most of the touch ups used to really make the city look the dystopian setting was due to visual effects. Some of the visual effects look abit rough then others but in the end it works fine.

A particularly interesting scene was involving a zip line. I felt the angles and shooting worked perfectly well for the scene. The camera work, was just fine, shooting different angles, that show all the necessary details and action, and that is good.

What bothers me was the rough editing. The film is quick paced, which makes for a pretty fun joy ride, but the editing kind of upsets the fun. Cutting crude, and quickly from one shot to the next, and it kind of hearts your eyes. It's not even small edit mistakes, it's pretty big ones. You're at one area and then at another, and back to the same area, and it just doesn't flow with the pacing. It's alittle too much. The pacing makes the film out to be a fast roller coaster, but with the editing, it became a bumpy roller coaster. And not for the best.

The script includes some moments of pure intellect, but is quickly turned off by some pretty bland instances of wooden dialogue. I mean, the dialogue was in no means cringe worthy, but somewhat tasteless and seemed filled with too many of the same words and phrases. Nothing that makes you think hard, all just one liners.

The costumes are pretty to the point, and in the simplest form, but what makes them stand out, are the slight changes that you see to differentiate each fraction from each other. The costumes define each fraction. Let's take for instance, the Abnegation fraction and the Dauntless Fraction. The Abnegation fraction members wear heavy layers of simple grey clothing. And the Dauntless members wear tight, showy, black clothing. When looked up, the color black means protection. Which in fact defines the jobs of the Dauntless. They are the guards, the protectors of the city.

All and All, 'Divergent' doesn't add anything to the YA adaption genre (yes, it now qualifies as a genre) in plot points, which weakens the film as a whole, but the sold cast and visuals make up for that, not by much but they fix the predictable formula and the shallow characters at least enough to make this film sit - through able. C 3/24/14

P.S: Let's see if the other YA adaption's to be released this year can succeed in accomplishing what 'Divergent' did, or even better, be better then 'Divergent' was. That would include 'The Maze Runner' and 'The Giver' both scheduled for late summer and early fall releases. Until then, we can only hope they do more to the characters then simple have them there, and add a twist or two that don't follow the genre's own playbook.

Beavis and Butt-head Do America

Yeah, I kinda knew going into this that it wasn't going to be great. Actually, I got a warning sign when I watched the show. But as the film lover I am, I was like 'Heck, you like watching movies you haven't seen so just give it a chance'. I did, and I got this. Now, I'm writing this review, as an outsider, the film was probably well received by fans of the series, which I am not, so I ended up going in fresh eyed and came out disliking the film. When you get down to it, film adaption's of television shows and books are usually not very well received by audiences and critics alike. And usually that is the truth but every once and awhile you get your 'The Simpsons Movie' and so and so, but then you get others like this film. Now onto my review of 'Beavis and Butthead: Do America'.

'Beavis and Butthead: Do America' follows two teenage best friends, Beavis and Butthead (Both voiced by Mike Judge) as they travel cross country to 'do' a woman, whom they were told to 'do' by a man named Muddy (Voiced by Bruce Willis). As they travel cross country, they're mischief adventures cause police agents to go after them, as well as Muddy himself as well as the woman herself.

After the first five minutes of the film, I knew these boys were complete idiots. I mean, I'm not even kidding. They are completely stupid. Their stupid was so stupid it rubbed off onto the film and made it stupid. The film is so stupid. None of the movie makes any coherent sense. Nothing happening makes any sense at all! Those boys walk through one situation and onto another and onto another like it's a ride. While I must admit, some of the stupidity is pretty funny; most of it is pretty dumb. If you were to watch this movie, I know your brain cells would begin to burn off. I know mine did, as I sat hopelessly watching this mess. It's random, and dumb, and nothing works.

I have to give points to the film, though. It is pretty entertaining.... If you're drunk. But, I guess even if you're not, you might find at least some part of this film entertaining. I will admit this 'Stupidity is funny'. Take the movie series 'Jackass' for example. Entertainment is watching something you wouldn't do yourself. Or, at least you wouldn't imagine it happening to yourself. That definition of entertainment may be debatable for some, but it is the clearest sentence for me. So, in other words, to sum this paragraph up, 'Beavis and Butthead' is pretty fun to watch, if you enjoy the taste of vinegar the film washes its mouth with the whole way through.

There's no enjoying the characters of the film though. To be exact, there aren't many actual characters in the film, maybe five main ones to choose from.... But really you don't like or relate to any of them. Well, that would be wrong, because you could relate to that guy, Tom Anderson, who sounds and looks just like that other animated character, (Also voiced by Mike Judge) from 'King of the Hill'. How could you relate to him, you may ask? His suffering throughout the film. His frustration. Beavis and Butthead themselves are stupid, mean, crude, rude, filthy, dirty, nasty gremlins. All they do is cause trouble. Trouble, and then more trouble, and then more trouble. Those boys are so immature it's beyond them. All that is on their immature sixteen year old boy minds is sex and violence. Oh, and there's more. There whole life is basically set in stone by sex jokes. That's all they talk about is sex and more sex, and sex. It gets ridicules. Those boys are just bad. They act as the devils creations on earth. Ugg, I hated them.

The animation is just as ugly as the lead characters, Beavis and Butthead. Let me describe it the best way I can. It's like chalk that has been scrap for decades against a chalkboard. It looks rough, nasty, and amateur. Ok, ok, I realize the film was made for a mere 12 million, most of which probably went into marketing and such, but I feel they could've done better. I mean look at other hand drawn movies and such. Like, for example Pinocchio and that, which was made on an even lower budget, but with crisp, and clean animation. This animation style could be purposely imposed but, I really don't know anyone who likes that kind of animation. It's not pleasing to the eyes at all.

The plot is like a single sentence. 'Two stupid boys, go on a stupid adventure across America, and do stupid things'. That's about it. The plot is nothing beyond the basic road trip formula; it never takes a side road, and simply takes the safest route. Nothing new is worked up, creating the script. No twists or turns, everything is just played straight. I'd like to infer that the film takes the usual formula from the show, which just doesn't translate well from a 20 minute episode to a full lengthed 80-90 minute movie. It doesn't translate at all actually.

All and All, 'Beavis and Butthead: Do America' features a few decent laughs, and is mildly amusing, but suffers from stupidity, poor animation, and unlikable characters'. D- 3/22/14

P.S: For fans of the show, this is a plus, but for anyone else, this film fails to live up to anything worth viewing, for a second time. It's a one and done deal (If you actually get through it the first time)

The Big Wedding

Yikes! I just now realized I watched this film 4 days ago before reviewing it. That must tell you how important the film was to me. Not a bit. This film definitely takes a spot on my ever changing Top 10 Worst films of 2013 list. And not even at the bottom, it's got one of the top five spots. Nothing about this movie was good. But I should have guessed this would have been the case from two warnings I received. First off we have the large change of release dates from October 2012 to April 2013. I would normally shrug this off, as post production trouble, or marketing strategy, but the film was already receiving ads on television marking the October date when it was moved. I then began to fear that the study was trying to rid the film, as they were worried it was going to fail. The next warning was the ensemble cast tag that spread across the trailers and posters. I hate ensembles. I wanna like them, but I usually don't. Some work (Expendables, at least for the most part) and most don't (Valentine's Day, Movie 43, New Years Eve, etc). The point is, from the beginning I knew the film wasn't going to be good, or evening ok. But I never thought once that it would be this bad. But it was. Onto my review of The Big Wedding.

In 'The Big Wedding' long divorced couple Don and Ellie Griffin (Robert De Niro and Diana Keaton) are once again forced to play the happy couple for the sake of their adopted son's wedding after his biological mother comes to attend the wedding.

Let me talk about the script. The script is complete garbage. The script reads like a how-to manual, but just the first draft of that how-to manual. The writers swung out with supposed jokes, but each missed the impact and fell helplessly into the dark abyssal of which this film is. The film try's to be funny, and act as a romantic dramedy but the drama and the comedy is stale and tasteless and nothing seems to work here. Of course there isn't much materiel to work with. The script basically reads as follows 'Please insert 10 stars and have them do all sorts of random things, oh and also end the film with a wedding'. Yes, that is how the film acts. The script, makes little sense, and is very brainless as to what would really go on in those situations. I know they make the things different to be funny, but it's not, it isn't. The script just isn't funny whatsoever.

And ofcourse we get those weird lines, as if the script wasn't already hard enough to swallow, we have to gauge down those completely ridicules lines. The dialogue is cheesy, weird, awkward, and self-centered at times. Not to mention the lines laid out by the priest, that come out offensive.

The characters are beyond unlikable, it's unbelievable. What I'm saying is that you'd think with such a solid ensemble of a cast that the characters would at least be likable and relatable, but they're not. Best examples of this are Topher Grace's and Robert De Niro's characters. What's wrong with these guys is that they were probably meant to be nice guys, but they aren't. Grace's character is a weird, stalker like, sex obsesser, not to mention acts like he's going to rape the girl he wants to have at it with. De Niro's character on the other hand is just a clean old jerk. He is supposed to love Susan Sarandon's character a lot, but sleeps with his ex? And then when confronted about it shrugs it off and acts like it was no biggy. And all this time the viewer is left thinking 'That schmock'. I mean how bad can you character's be? Not to mention Seyfried's parents in the film. Those to have some major issues, but it's not so bad, because they were written out as jerks, but De Niro and Grace's characters weren't. That's what makes them bad.

The film is highly lazy. When it gets a chance to take a wildcard, it doesn't. That's what makes the film so predictable. Nothing we watch in this film is anything but what we saw already before in the last rom-com Katherine Heigl starred in. Plot twists or so they call them, are predicted well before we are informed on film of their existence. Not that it would have made any difference if we weren't aware of them; they aren't of any spectacular mind blowing 'I did not see that coming' ness. Stale, stale, stale, stale, stale.

It's a shame how bad this film was. It spoiled the overly talented cast. Well all except for, say Katherine Heigl, and Robin Williams whose careers are already in the bag by now. Actually Heigl's career never even got out of the bag, and that's not very good. But who I'm saying was spoiled here were Robert De Niro, Susan Sarandon, Diana Keaton, and Topher Grace. Actors and Actresses who still had a career. Well, they've all just about lost it, with this.

The film's pace is pretty quick, with the films runtime being an hour and 40 minutes, the film breezes by and when we get to the film's ending it feels like a half an hour special. It helps make this film somewhat easier to sit through, but I felt it doesn't work with plot movie, it just skips around really, and it doesn't help but it doesn't exactly hurt the film.

All and All the film is overly predictable, and spoils the talented cast with a script that is unfunny, and whose characters are unlikable. F 3/15/14

Mary and Max
Mary and Max(2009)

What a weird movie. Not in premise, but just in the characters and the way it's set up. Black and White and Chocolate Hotdogs and such. So peculiar, so strange, so inventive. My father watched this movie with me, his words after watching it "Weird." It is, I had my head turning after the first line came out. 'Mary and Max' is a film that shouldn't be viewed by children; it deals with a load of mature subjects and is completely inappropriate for children. I just thought I might as well say that before starting my review. Onto my review of the weird 'Mary and Max'.

'Mary and Max' tells the tale of a young girl, Mary (Voiced by Bethany Whitmore) a lonely girl, who befriends a man named Max (Voiced by Phillip Seymour Hoffman) via penpaling. They bond, and learn more and more about each other through the years.

I donno how else to explain the film. It's a film you need to watch to get the plot in full form.

Something I enjoyed a lot about the film was the switch between color (Mary's side) and black and white (Max's side). Visually, it's interesting. The tone, you'll notice switches as the color switches. From light (Mary's side) to dark and gloomy (Max's side). I liked that idea, because it better sets the mood, and feeling you'd be going through as well as the characters emotions. And that one slice of color on Max's head is something to look at. A single star on a bleak sky

The animation is spectacular really. The tiny bits of detail in the characters s there, and their worlds look completely real. The animation has dull shades of color, but it sets the mood, and works overall. Its clay-mation that you know has been worked on for a long while. It's sharp, inventive, and show's craftsmanship and hard work.

The character designs are sharp to the tip. Max is expesically interesting in form. His fat, pardon, is well detailed, as well as his facial expressions, which run out quit well.

'Mary and Max' is never really engaging; it just plays at the same speed, and bores along. It's not very original, but has surprises that I had not thought of, but never really make you tense up. The film tends to become dull at moments, it's never exciting. Or thrilling, or full of life. It's just plain old dull. Colors, and story, and dialogue. It's all dull to the point of depression. The film loses you midway through after picking you up, because you get bored with the same picture of a bleak, bleak world for those two leads. You wish it became light and fun but it doesn't, even the jokes, which do make you laugh come out as creepy and sad.
The dialogue is of its own, good. Some of the dialogue is witty; other snippet's sad and depressing. It's all good and doesn't come out corny or cheesy or however you want to put it, the dialogue, which runs the whole movie, is pretty sharp.

In particular I found the character development to be very solid. You learn more about the characters then you'd thought you'd have, and by the end you know about everything the character thinks or does, and how they act and why they act that way, you understand their opinions and emotions. That was solid work, and in the end you do become emotionally attached to the characters in some weird form.

The problem is the plot. It's just not enough to keep you tuned in. The plot, is just so thin and unoriginal, you are not kept interested from it. The film sports interesting ideas, but overall it's squandered by the way to easy main plot.

All and All, 'Mary and Max' is a very weird film, with beautiful animation, and solid character development but squandered by the overpowering dark and gloomy tone, and thin plot stretched its limits. C+ 3/7/14

P.S: The film may not be for the mainstream film audience, but it will delight the more art-house filmgoers. So, I separately rate the film a 4 Stars rating. As a film it's good, but as for me I didn't care much for it.

The Grey
The Grey(2012)

Released in January, at first glance you think this is going to end up being a bad movie. Because previous experience tells you, that January is the dumping month for movies, the month only bad films are released in. But, that is not always the case. And I should have known better being as 'Liam Nelson' stars, and his films are usually always decent. Except for his very forgettable 'Taken 2'. So, due to the very unusual bad weather, I had nothing more to do, then to Netflix the day away. And one of the films I happened to watch was this, 'The Grey'. A film that keeps you glued to the screen until that very heart-clenching final image. Now, onto my review of 'The Grey'.

'The Grey' follows a group of oil men, who become stranded in the middle of Alaska, after their plane crashes, who are forced to adapt and survive the cruel weather, as well as a pack of viscous, gray wolves who stalk the group, helping to pick them off one by one, in a joint effort with the environment.

Together, 'The Grey' is a simple survival movie; it's just the way it is told that keeps you interested. Instead of lingering at one place for a long period of time, 'The Grey' moves at a swift pace, stopping for a breathe every once and a while. It keeps you on the edge of your seat. The pacing slows when it has to, and runs the whole rest of the way with more and more obstacles popping up to try to block the path. And with that, the viewers become intertwined with the characters. You become more and more involved in the story. You sense the urgency, which is presented with the pacing.

Along the way during those times when the film feels it needs to take a breath, you learn more about the characters who are thrusted onto the game board. While it fleshes out the characters, in the end, you really have lackluster feelings about them. While you do become emotionally connected to a few of them, the others, you could care less about, they're just there to build up the body bags, and add up the sense of necessarity for the important, more emotionally connect characters to survive. In the end, as the characters start being pulled out of the game, you feel little to nothing for them, as they end up just being pieces in a puzzle.

However, while the characters are lackluster, the actors try their best to better themselves. 'Liam Nelson' leads the film with veteran ease, quickly becoming necessary for survival, as well as, emotionally connected to him. He played out as the kind of guy you want to lead you, the kind of hard guy with a sad past. The rock. Nelson again proves he has a great ability to lead a film, as well as to make chemistry with his co-stars out of thin air. Of his co-stars 'Frank Grillo' comes to mind, as the scared, aggressive, mean, and sarcastic survivor of the plane crash, who questions Nelson's leadership qualities several times. He has a way of coming off as unlikable, and then turning slowly into a more insecure, sad guy. He plays off well enough and holds his own up until his end. And as for the rest of the cast, well they did decent performances, just not ones I'm willing to take the time to note in particular.

The direction from, 'Joe Caranhan' works well. Coming off of 'The A-Team' he tackles his follow-up, 'The Grey'. And succeeds in creating a fairly good film. He knew exactly what he was doing and how to do it, and the film ended up coming out completely how it might as it would in reality. He knew what angles he wanted to take, and where he wanted his cast and crew to be.

A problem the film has is the editing. Some of it comes out as glitchy, and when you watch the men fight the wolves in a few of the scenes, the shots kind of go too quickly or to slowly, and don't roll out perfectly smooth. Some of the shots come off rough, and not smooth and flowing.

The film does feature of the note music, composed by 'Marc Streitenfeld'. The music fits the scenes, and raises the thrill level. It adds emotional depth when necessary but doesn't go overboard, or get too deep and loud, as most survival movie music tends to go. It underplays the film, coming in slowly, and never getting very loud, but just high enough to help make your heart jump.

Some may agree but others may disagree about the subject of the film's abrupt ending. Our lead ends up face to face with the leader of the pack of wolves, he takes out his knife and they stare down each other, and when he's just about to charge the beast, the film cuts to black. I have to say I was left bewildered by the ending, as I expected the usual, of which he gets saved and bla-bla-bla unoriginal ending. But instead we get this, and the viewer is left to guess the fate of its lead. It's a bit disappointing for someone interested in seeing the lead finally reach some sort of peaceful resolution after so much hardship and suffering, but no. We never know what became of him. If he survived or if he died. Now I have to say it works and doesn't. It seems to conclude the film, but not. The film ducks out of the fight at the last moment, when it could have had a more drawn out conclusion. It is original, and keeps you in, but seems disappointing and lazy as well.

All and all, 'The Grey' works as a solidly built survival movie lead by an impressive performance from 'Liam Nelson, and good pacing and character development, but we all wish the characters were alittle less unlikable and the editing more smooth and clean. B- 3/3/14

Escape Plan
Escape Plan(2013)

There were always those action stars, who you watched countlessly during the 80's as they pumped out actioner after actioner. And you know just as much as I did, that you fantasized about the possibilities of having those two actors in the same film. But it was just a fantasy, a dream that wouldn't reach reality until more than 30 years later with the release of 'Escape Plan'. Generic title aside, the film features the epic mash up of our Rambo (Sylvester Stallone) and our Terminator (Arnold Schwarzenegger) as two old dudes trying to escape from prison. I must say, I had a great time with this brainless popcorn film, but might as well share what I felt about the film, besides the entertainment level. My review of 'Escape Plan' below.

'Escape Plan' follows Ray Breslin (Played by Sylvester Stallone) whose profession is literally escaping from prisons. He walks in disguised as a convict and eventually breaks out. His job is to test prisons to make sure they are escape proof. And finally he meets his match, accepting anew prison named The Tomb, Breslin walks in just as he usually would but in this case, he isn't meant to be allowed out. Aided by fellow prisoner, Emil Rottmayer (Played by Arnold Schwarzenegger), Breslin attempts to escape The Tomb.

Yes, I'll admit it's an interesting idea, but once you watch the movie, that idea unfolds rather predictably. It's just the fact that the plot doesn't have enough meat to make it tough to break through. It's basically one layered. Once you finally pick off that layer, you reach the bone, and once you reach the bone, you're basically done. The plot is, because by then you know what's going to unfold to the end. The plot isn't anything you haven't already viewed before in countless other brainless action flicks. It's too lazy, too predictable. It plays out just how you would expect, which isn't necessarily a bad thing but it's far from being good. Nothing you see makes you say 'Wow, now that's something I've never seen before'.

The dialogue is somewhat lazy and very much expected in this type of film. You have three main action movie dialogue. First up are the cheesy one liners, which were ushered out of the mouths of both Schwarzenegger and Stallone. Next you have the grunts and moans, which passed out the mouths of many characters. And lastly you have the vast shouts of foul language that is the seal of action film approval. Nothing here is more than average dialogue; nothing is said that stimulates your thought train.

But I must admit we have two talented leads that ride this tale along with ease, as they are in facts veterans of the genre itself, you could even call the two, two of the founding fathers of the genre. I refuse to praise one over the other, clearly there is a more prominent one of the two throughout the film, taking the possessive lead role, but both hold their own, and in t he end tie for the lead awards. Schwarzenegger and Stallone work well together, they play off each other. Both have great chemistry with the other, and when they meet on screen for the first time, ever, the room goes silent. A small smirk appears across your face at that moment, victory, at last dreams have come true. Schwarzenegger coming off a so-so return to the genre in 'The Last Stand' redeems himself in this film, and Stallone still convinces the audience that no matter his Weighing age, he still has what it takes to lead an action film, convincingly. As for the supporting cast, 'Jim Caviezal' comes to mind. In the recent years, Caviezal has reduced his bigger budgeted film appearances in favor of more independent film work. In his return to the big-budget genre, Caviezal plays the sinister, villainous Warden of The Tomb. Every scene he was in, he stole the show. He held his own to the more experienced leads, who were much more acquainted with the genre then he was himself, and he ends up played a formidable foe to Schwarzenegger and Stallone. While I wished he had more screentime then he was given, he manages to make the most of his time, and till his end, he was the most interesting of the lot, both his performance and his character.

Speaking of characters, we don't have many unique ones in this lot. Back stories would have been taken kindly, if only there were any. Only one do we receive and that is for Stallone's character. Now, I must admit the character's back-story is heart wrenching and somewhat emotional, but not very much surprising, once you get to know him. Still never the less, he is one of the few characters that isn't just there to be there. The other interesting character is the film's own villain. He is sophisticated, clever, mean, crazy, and calm. He is everything at once; it's a lot to take in, in the few minutes he has per scene he's in. But man, do you solute him off with awe. A spotlighted character in a sea of unmentionables.

The sets were pretty marveling. The prison itself was pretty amazing, the cells, and the reckroom. The prison just was perfectly designed from head to toe. The clear glass cells were pretty well set up, and seemed to go on endlessly. They glowed in the darkened area. The different rooms came out looking like a real prison, just more high tec. It was just amazing and how precise the designers were.

What makes an action movie, an action movie is of course the action itself. And when you get to the bottom of it, there is plenty of action, more towards the climax but still there is action. And I must admit it was pretty well choreographed. In the shot that watches over the prisoners as they fight the guards toward the end really comes to mind. That action shot looked to include roughly 33 prisoners and 200 guards. And with smoke blaring, and guns firing and men hollering, you need to make sure it comes out just right. And with relief they do succeed in doing just that. You get perfectly quick and practiced punching and fighting and I just loved every moment of it.

The editing is so-so. At times it comes out roughly, which at the most part occurs during Stallone's quick plummet into a pile of water after discovering where he was. And sometimes there is a glitch during fight scenes, some shots of the cells weren't angled perfectly but overall it comes out fine.

I must spend a moment to praise the entertainment level the film had. Not during one moment did I stop, and yawn. I was wide awake and chewing down on my supply of popcorn. That's what the film is, a popcorn film. Brainless, as it was, it was still very entertaining. And to the common moviegoer that's exactly what they want. Something that distracts their minds from the stress of reality, and the film does just that. It entertains you, and leaves you happy in the end. So that only makes it hard to hate the film.

All and all, 'Escape Plan' serves you what you want, brainless entertainment, and with that sacrifices an excellent cast, with an uninspiring story and characters you'll end up forgetting in the end. C+ 2/27/14

The Lone Ranger

Remember, way back when during your childhood when you'd flip on the television on that particularly humid summer day and watch an oldie western show? Yeah, well I sure do. Well, at least my old man does. And do you remember that western that was always on during that humid time of the year? Yes, yes I do, and it is called 'The Lone Ranger'. The Lone Ranger, which lasted for almost 8 years, with well over 200 episodes to boost. And now on the big screen, at last, we have 'The Lone Ranger'. Now, when the first trailer for the film was released I was fairly skeptical, as I didn't find the trailer enjoyable at all, just a bunch of nonsense and stupidity thrown together with a bunch of dialogue from Johnny Depp as the indian. And then when the film was released to very poor reviews I decided to skip on seeing it at all at the theater, and then the film bombed fairly badly and I thought things couldn't go worse for the film. And then it was released to DVD in December, and I finally came around to renting it now, in the middle of February. And, I must say, I fairly enjoyed the film (Bracing self for worldwide loath). Anyway onto my review of 'The Lone Ranger'.

'The Lone Ranger' follows John Reid (Played by Armie Hammer) a man of the law, who joins forces with an indian (Played by Johnny Depp) to take down two outlaws who thrive to create a new world of transportation, by way of trains, and strike rich with metal, and when Reid's brother is shot down and killed by the two and his brother's wife and child captured, Reid is forced to become.....The Lone Ranger.

Yep, that about sums up the premise of this film. Nothing special about it, as you might suggest. The film is actually pretty much by the numbers. Nothing really inventive is done to surprise you, and you may become bored by how simple the film becomes as the minutes roll by. When I watched this film the only thing that came to mind was True Grit + Jonah Hex meets Wild Wild West. Yep, I never say 'Wow, didn't see that coming!' as I did. It just how braindumbingly unoriginal the film is. A whole bunch of other films came to my mind when I watched this movie, but never once did I say to myself 'This is The Lone Ranger' no, I always said this is 'Such and Such', but never 'This is The Lone Ranger'. The script just wasn't very creative.

You wanna know what the script was besides unoriginal? Long. The film ran for a rough 2 and a half hours. I mean, in the end you get what you paid for, but seriously that is just way too long. Avatar had a reason to be long, Titanic had a reason to be long, but this, this had no reason to be so long. The film ran through at least half a dozen climaxes until finally reaching its final climax.

While I felt the film was overlong, I did feel that we could have been stuck with worst company from the screen. 'Armie Hammer' in his first leading role is likable and convincing enough as our leading ranger, John Reid, and he shares good chemistry, (comedically and dramatically) with 'Johnny Depp', our Tonto. While some debate whether or not Depp should have been cast as the Native American rather than an actual Native American, I felt he filled the moccasins rather nicely, coming off convincingly as an actual Comanche Indian. The supporting cast also deserves praise, with 'Tom Wilkinson' and 'Helena Bonham Carter' coming to mind. Wilkinson offers a convincingly wise and innocent performance as one of the two villains the film presents, and really comes off as a civilized villain. Carter, in a fairly marginal role, gives off an excellently sweet devilish performance as a madam of a playhouse, if you will, and steals the show for the petty minutes she's present in. 'William Fichtner' is also of note, as the second of the two villain's, coming off, (Unlike Wilkinson) as a dirty, no good, jerk, who you beg to feel pain, up until his fatal end, and I feel he scores points for just that portrayal.

Also of note, are the visual effects. When the film was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Visuals, I was skeptical to say the least, but when watching the film, I realized how solidly crafted they were. I'm not meaning to say they were the best of the year, but when you watch the train sequences. Your eyes widen, and your mouth opens wide and you gasp. It is just unbelievably real. It all looks real to you. Every piece is in place, and when the train crashes you watch the tiny pieces fly out at you, stunningly perfectly. And when The Lone Ranger on his white stallion, jump from one train onto another, you just are left speechless beyond belief.

The cinematography is also just beautiful. Foreigner 'Bojan Bazelli' knows what he's doing behind the camera, sending us beautiful camera movements and angles. And when our leads are on that train fighting, while trying to keep balanced as the train's race on, the camera moves up and back and sideways and up and down with ease, guiding us as we watch the fight.

With a good cast, we are thankfully allowed to forget about the relatively thin character developments. The cast outshine their respective characters, which isn't what films are supposed to want to accomplish. You want your characters to stand out, as it is they who lead the story along, not the cast, but in this film's case it's the other way around. By the end of the tail, we have forgotten about our lone ranger, as he hasn't much of a back story to him by the film's end, he's just a lawyer who doesn't like weapons of any sort, who's lost his brother, but seems to be relatively ok afterwards. I'm not sure if that's the direction you want to go with that, but, whatever. Tonto unfolds a bit better than his counterpart, with so-so back-story, with a so-so explanation as to why he is what he is. The villains have the same motives as most villains, nothing new to add. And our Hero's lover is about as bland a character as possible.

The costumes the cast where's are surprisingly well made and detailed. I expesically enjoyed the costumes of the Indians, including Tonto himself, which relatively resemble actual Indian wear (if I ever laid eyes on them myself). The Lone Ranger's costume is simple, but it works, he ends up looking exactly like how he looked in the old 50's television shows, which will relieve the older viewers of the film, with nice memories of the past. The outfits fit the period they're set in, and end up accomplishing what they set out to do.... Cover the cast's bodies with style.

The make-up is also convincing. Most prominently with Tonto's face. The dirt on the cast's faces is applied perfectly, and in the end detail is shown.

The last of the praises goes to the score from the always perfect, 'Hans Zimmer'. Zimmer gives the film style, excitement, drama, thrills and chills. And in the end his score sets the mood of the west in just the right way. Not anything hip or jazzy, just what you'd expect to hear from an old western if you were watching one. He never once tried to modern the music, which I felt was perfect.

All and All, I felt that this adaption of 'The Lone Ranger' was under appreciated. With a top notch cast, eye popping visual effects and a solid score to boost, 'The Lone Ranger' was a success for me, even if the film is pretty unoriginal and very lengthy. B- 2/22/14

The Monuments Men

'The Monuments Men' was originally scheduled for release back in December 2013, but was later pushed back for unknown reasons; I have to admit I was curious of those reasons, of which I no longer am. The film was probably saved from totally bombing, by the move, as December was pretty heavily stuffed with films, already at the time, but I had to wonder why it would move to February, instead of, say May, and try to market the film as a Summertime fare, like another studio did with 'The Great Gatsby', but now I understand why, the studio was afraid of the film. It wasn't working, and while the perfect trailers made the film out to be great, the film itself just wasn't. My father went with me, and enjoyed the film for what it was, I myself just couldn't. I had previously read the reviews of the film, as I always do, and I was shocked at how poor the reviews were, and now I'm not, even if I feel the film was a bit better then the ratings say, the film just isn't that much better. Anyways, onto my review of 'The Monuments Men'.

Based on the true story, 'The Monuments Men' follows a group of museum directors, curators, and art historians, who are grouped together with the task of entering Germany during World War 2 and regaining stolen artworks from the Nazis and returning them to their rightful owners.

Sounds interesting doesn't it? Well, that's what I thought too, but when watching the film the story turned from interesting on paper to just plain boring on film. The story itself is amazing, but when you watch the film all you see is talk and walk, talk and walk, and nothing ever gets done. Plain and Simple nothing happens in the film at all. The plot is anything but cinematic on screen.

The script itself is truly unremarkable. Simple dialogue, with a few strands of witty dialogue that just doesn't seem right, with the overall serious tone the film has. I'm not even joking when I say that my audience laughed a lot more than I thought they would, I have to also admit I laughed a lot too, but it just seemed out of place. The film's script mixes in some witty jokes, and mashes it in with a largely serious tone, and it really just doesn't work. Most of the dialogue is pretty tame, and nothing special, not moving or anything of note. The script is simply average, nothing to it that's new or special, or clever.

The characters presented come off thin. Nobody gets developed, nor explored. The cast, as good as they are just was given nothing to work with, character wise. The lot is just emotionally useless art lovers, just there. I never once felt any sorrow when one of them is killed off. What with the large runtime you'd think the characters would slowly gain depth, but no, they don't. They love art and hate Nazis, by the end that's all you'll remember them by.

The cast itself is prominent. I just regret that they weren't given anything to really work with. 'George Clooney' who's made out to be the lead, while he actually isn't (with this film ending up being largely an ensemble) gives off a decent performance, yet I'm a bit disappointed by it, with his 'Gravity' performance definitely coming off more of note. 'Cate Blanchett' gives off a solid performance as a French woman whose knowledge of the whereabouts of the stolen art helps the men. She shared great chemistry with the charming 'Matt Daman'. 'Bob Balaban' and 'Bill Murray' play well off each other, giving us wit, even if not necessary they play well together, and are enjoyable enough to watch, both giving the viewers something to enjoy. 'John Goodman' also gives us a good performance as a somewhat bewildered oldie, more so then the others, who doesn't seem to catch on as quickly as the others do; he as well is hilarious, even if again that is unnecessary. Overall the cast is solid, as is the acting, but they were all put to waste by their mediocre plotlines, and characters.

The cinematography is beyond beautiful. 'George Clooney' has proved he knows his way with the camera. Everything is just beautifully shot and angled. I loved every moment of that.

The sets and locations are majestic and beautiful. I loved the different places the group went into; they were just so ancient, and full of detail. Lots of color to the locations, made the film come off light, and easy to the eyes and it works overall. The shooting in Germany was a great decision, and you felt you too were in Germany during the war, it was amazing.

The explosions and visuals were sharp as well, even if few, what visual affects that were needed were pretty good and realistic.

The pacing the film had was too slow. The film ended up dragging along leisurely, as if there wasn't any real threat at all. This really weakened the film, and made the film seem even more anti-cinematic and lazy. The film ended up with a running time of 120 minutes, but the movie felt like it was going on for 3 hours. The discussions were long, the waiting was long, and the admiration of art was long. It was all too long.

The film felt uneven, with the action sequences coming out cheesy, and abit unedited. Most of the film I felt was cut together too lazily.

The costumes though, were still neatly done. I felt they fit the age the film was set in and looked pretty well designed. The clothing all looked like they were from the 40's. Prefect designing.

All and All, 'The Monuments Men' doesn't work. The script is too witty for the serious tone and seems out of place, the characters are too thin, and emotionally unavailable, but with the solid cast, locations, and costumes, the film doesn't come off as terribly horrible. The film itself is just average and nothing to boast it's just a lengthy film, that's tale just wasn't meant for the big screen, at least not this way. C- 2/9/14

P.S: This is the first film of the year I've seen in theaters, and from the looks of it, we're in for a bumpy ride like last year. Let's pray that 2014 ends up better then I believe it will be, all we can do is cross our fingers and hope for a silver lining.

After the Dark

I wish I had liked the film. I do, because when I viewed the trailer about a month ago it not only intrigued me, but felt as if it was genuinely new. So when I was given the chance to an advance screening of the film, I took it ahead of its February 7th release. I walked in with a fresh face ready to see a good film, and what I got was a less then extraordinary film. A horrible film, in fact. I know most of you'll disagree with me, saying it's good for what it is, but I just felt that nothing here worked whatsoever. It was a total waste of an interesting idea. Well anyways here's my review of 'After the Dark'.

'After the Dark' follows Mr. Zimit (Played by James D'Arcy) a philosophy teacher at an international school in Jakarta. On the final day of school, Mr. Zimit challenges his class of 20 students to choose of them half to survive an atomic apocalypse.

At first thought this seems somewhat unique a film, concept wise. But if you look at it really closely you can tell it really isn't. The film starts off well, but ends up coming short 30 minutes into the film. I found the first half an hour intriguing and enjoyable but soon afterwards the film changed into a bland and predictable piece. The concept just wasn't solid enough. The concept was turned into a full 100 minute film, and the result is a rather tiresome, confusing ride.

Something I didn't like about the film was instead of staying in the apocalyptic area for the entire length of the film; we instead switch back and forth between a classroom conversation and the apocalyptic setting. This proves to be confusing, distracting, and it brings the film's tension level down. Why the film couldn't continue the struggle between the surviving nine teenagers trying to escape from the bunker and ending the film back in the classroom is beyond me, all I know is I found the way the film progressed back and forth between the two different environments distasteful.

Another problem is the fact that the film is basically three chapters. Three different situations, but what's wrong with that is that it doesn't feel different. All of the three situations seem the same; except for the difference in locations, and surviving characters. The problems and what the people do are relatively the same, and the film ends up becoming boring beyond belief, with only a few surprises in store. When the film switches set ups, it basically pulls you out of the experience you had been having for a half an hour, and it makes you tired.

All the issues come from the poor direction from newcomer 'John Huddles'. He doesn't seem to know what to do, and the way he directs just comes out sloppy, and tiresome. I can tell he put effort into the film, it just he didn't have beginners luck, and the film looks like it was stitched together. It looks like a prototype of the real film, which we all know is never going to happen, because this is the real film.

The characters are as thinly written and confusing as the script itself. Of the 20 students in Mr. Zimit's classroom we only really get enough characterization for one of them. And that is all. By the end of the film, the students leave the classroom just as invisibly as they entered. The film spends much more time on dialogue and the concept then it does on characterization. The characters come up say their lines, live or die, and then we move on. The only real character that left that classroom characterized of the students was Petra (Played by Sophie Lowe). Maybe it was just good acting, but I felt that character's emotions and feelings, and knew her from the start. She left the classroom perfectly visible and colored. Mr. Zimit, himself, also left visibly. Mr. Zimit was characterized pretty smoothly even if it came farther apart then you would have liked, you still got him.

The visual effects on this film were beyond bad. They looked as if they had come out of one of those 1950 films. The details were few, and the visuals ended up coming out plain and simple, as well as blurry, actually.

The scenery were very un-appealing, I donno if it was real location's or just bad greenscreen but whatever it was, the locations outside of the bunkers were just ugly to look at.

One of the sole benefits from the film was the talented cast. I'm sorry to say that the film squandered the cast's talents, and appeal, but we still do get to see some sort of their many dynamic acting abilities. While I must say they look alittle too pretty, and polished for teenagers and maybe just abit too perfect, they are able to get away with it, under the circumstances the film presents. Of the talents I have to note the performances of the following. 'James D'Arcy' who gives us a charming yet sociopathic performance, he is able to not only be clever, and sophisticated, but also crazy and dangerous. 'Daryl Sabara' of 'Spy Kids' fame gives us a nice performance as one of the twenty students, and turns out to be quite funny, and dramatic. 'Freddie Stroma' also plays one of the students and is equally funny, but realistic and smart. 'Bonnie Wright' as one of the students is smart, yet what I liked about her performance is she made her character not only smart, but also sometimes grim, and mean, but overall tones of kindness. 'Rhys Wakefield' does well in one of the leading roles the film, creating a leadership quality, as well as tension, and excitement. However the other lead 'Sophie Lowe' kind of gives an annoying performances as well as a dull and wooden one.

The music also is engaging and dramatic, and really fit what's going on and the mood of the film. The score is original, nice, and just get's you pumped up for the oncoming event.

All and All 'After the Dark' squanders a talented cast with a poorly conceived concept, and just miss direction from the newcomer 'John Huddles' who sees in capable of making a film. Nothing much can be enjoyed here at all. F+ 2/4/14

The Running Man

I'll be back is too right. And he's back in this loosely adapted film version of book of the same name by Stephen King. This is one of the few Schwarzenegger films I had not seen before now. I never even knew this existed until I saw it in a film store while searching for a few good films to buy to watch at home. I looked at it and thought 'Well, it's Schwarzenegger so it has to be good', but listen to me, just because the king of muscle is in a film doesn't make it good. I learned that watching 'The Running Man', a film that's bad at best, and when it is bad at best, then we must have a pretty bad movie on our hands. Now for my review of 'The Running Man'.

Released during Schwarzenegger's golden decade, 'The Running Man' follows Ben Richards (Played by Arnold Schwarzenegger), a man wrongly accused of murdering over a thousand innocent civilians. Sent to prison but escaping, he attracts the attention of the famous Damon Killian (Played by real life Family Feud host, Richard Dawson) the television host of the extremely popular reality show 'The Running Man' in which a convict is sent into an arena against a handful of men in a battle to the death. Killian forces Richards and his companions into competing in the game with only one choice kill or be killed.

While the concept of 'The Running Man' is pretty fresh considering the time period the film was released, it just wasn't justified from book to film. In all fairness I felt the concept could have been executed better then it was. Director 'Paul Michael Glaser' handled the film as a simple popcorn movie instead of turning the solid concept into a smart film that sends out a message on the subject of today's world, being that there is too much violence in the stuff we see. What he makes is a poorly constructed, cheesy picture that down tones the message for more brainless action.

The characters in the film are very thinly written. When we come into view of Ben Richards, we get the typical tough guy convicted of a crime he didn't commit, a guy who easily kicks butt, kissing women, and slaying bad guys, he is as thin and un-original a lead character as it comes. His two buddies from the prison are as thin as he himself; being on the trip simply as damsel's in distress as well as distractions so ol' Arney doesn't get chopped off while in the arena, instead taking his place. Amber Mendez (Played by Maria Alonso), plays out the typical lover in distress, adding nothing new to the film, and not much of an interesting tale, she's mostly just there to panic, bicker with Arney, scream, and repeat that whole process over and over again. The stalkers in the film sent into the arena one by one to kill Arnold off are very one dimensional villain figures. Big, Strong, and Stupid guys that do little but steal ten minutes of screen time each, doing nothing to kill the characters in the arena until they themselves are eventually killed off by Arnold. The only truly interesting character of the film is the villainous television host, Damon Killian. He was new, eccentric, sure of himself, and pretty lively, he was a fun character two this dimwitted character, giving off a few tricks off the sleeve.

Cast wise, we get a few decent cast members. 'Arnold Schwarzenegger' does what he always does, kicks butt, and takes names, as well as punch out one liners at rapid fire speed, he simply accomplishes what he's expected to do, without much effort, he is average as always acting wise, and fits the character well enough. While most of the rest of the cast file in as average, we do get one exception in that of real television host 'Richard Dawson'. 'Richard Dawson' plays it realistically and lively enough to entertain, and actually can be said to play a solid villain, without the muscle. You can tell he's having fun in one of his sole film appearances, giving off a particularly interesting performance making him stand out more than that of the leads.

The script is the typical actioner type. Filled to the brim with a plentiful supply of one liners, and cheese galore, we get a below average script, that skips on the meatier parts of the book for a boney film. Its cringworthy how effective less the script makes the film.

The editing is pretty bad. The action shots are put together one blow at a time, with us viewers having to pick up the pieces of that fight, and glue them together for them to make even a bit of sense.

The film fails to pick of speed and tension. The film goes by at a record speed, but fails to slow down and build up some tension; nothing is exciting about this film. The fight scenes lack energy and real urgency, and us viewers are left watching them thinking 'Wow, those bad guys could seriously kill Arnold if they wanted to but instead they stumble about like total buffoons with two eyes shut waiting to be bashed on the head by Arnold'. It's just the fact that Arnold never get's beat upon himself and the stakes are never raised very high at all.

The film is extremely cheesy, with that dialogue referencing Arnold's previous acting work, as well as the basic simple action based language. And most of the sets are unrealistically built and ugly including the Subzero zone which I found in particularly lame and basic without any added touch. The set in which Damon Killian hosts the show inside, is sparkly and dazzling however. The costumes are also pretty lame, especially, the Dynamo costume which was so cheesy, and not well designed. The running suits worn by Arnold and Co are also pretty average and lacking in originality and design.

All and All, 'The Running Man' is your average dumb action film with no brains. The concept is great but not well executed in this overly cheesy dosage of Arnold Schwarzenegger fighting people. D 2/2/14

P.S: If you don't in particular care for the film, just skip to the parts with 'Richard Dawson', I sure wish I did.

The Spectacular Now

Ok, I'd be lying if I said I wasn't anticipating this film, because I was for at least a year sense I read the plotline, it seemed sweet, but I never came around to viewing it until it most recently hit DVD, so here I am January 21st watching The Spectacular Now, finally. After reading reviews I was sold, I was all like 'Shailene Woodley' and 'Miles Teller' are in the same movie together, this could be great. Was I right? Was it great? Well it's time to find out whether or not this film was spectacular or not. Now for this spectacular review (The jokes just keep coming) of 'The Spectacular Now'.

'The Spectacular Now' follows stud Sutter Keely (Played by Miles Teller) a cool, popular, social, party dude who follows the motto of living in the now. Failing at school Stutter winds up meeting Aimee Finecky (Played by Shailene Woodley) a sweet, smart, sensitive girl who believes in planning for the future. Sutter begins to hang out with her, they both begin to help each other and form a tight bond, and eventually Sutter begins to fall in love with her.

When you get down to it the plot is very simple. While it overall works, I just feel it's a bit too simple, too unoriginal. Not much is brought to the table, plot wise. When I watched this I never felt surprised at the twists as I knew I'd seen it before, nothing really jumped at me as un-expected. But you see, it was how they forwarded the plot that overall made it worth watching, and new. The situations all seem very real, and the plot somehow manages to use that to help twist something new together, ad overall it helps make this seem like something new.

Now the casting is what makes 'The Spectacular Now' spectacular. Instead of giving us glamorous, beautiful, spotless, squeaky clean people we get a cast of teenagers that (honest to god) look like real teenagers that you might see in real high schools. We don't watch any Marilyn Monroe on screen or Zac Efron's. We get real looking teenagers, that look, and talk, and feel like teenagers. Excellent is the casting of the two young leads, 'Miles Teller' and 'Shailene Woodley' both of whom are up-and-coming stars of the future. Both of them, even with their 20+ age give off perfectly realistic performances as two awkward teenagers just trying to find their way in life. 'Miles Teller' gives us a very emotional performance as a boy wounded by his lack of a father-figure, and just downright not good parenting. I really feel that 'Miles Teller' can lead a film, he's impressed before with his solid supporting work, but now he's shown he can lead a film by himself, and carry the weight of giving the audience someone to look forward to seeing, to root for, or to feel for in this film's case, and I'm just glad they saw that and cast him. 'Shailene Woodley' has always impressed me. She can play an innocent, nice character who you feel sad for, if that character gets her feelings heart or something. You love her, always; she just can play an awkward, yet kind and compassionate character, as she does here. Shailene (as always) I tip my hat to you, you are indeed spectacular, and your casting was an excellent choice. I also feel that Miles and Shailene had great chemistry with each other, and made for a realistic and sweet couple. And with our supporting cast we get solid performances from 'Brie Larson' who plays the hot girl, who is very pretty, but doesn't come off as a too hot to be in high school type character as usually happens in these kind of movies, she is pretty but not freaking 'Beverly Hills'. 'Kyle Chandler' also gives nice performance as Stutter's drinking dad in a small, cameo like appearance.

The script is actually not too deep as I would have liked it to be. What I mean is, I would have loved for it to have explored more of Aimee and Stutter's every growing relationship. I feel it was a bit underdone, and wish there would have been more story there, as well as with Stutter's father. I wish Stutter got to better know him, and for his father to develop better senses in the way of getting to know his child, and who his child is. But while the script isn't as dark as I wished it was, the dialogue is actually pretty solid. I loved the dialogue it was witty, and sounded pretty much like something teenagers would say without all the annoying uses of the word like.

The character development both works and doesn't. While I feel Stutter developed rather nicely and solidly throughout the whole film, I feel like every other character never really progressed like Stutter did. The script usually forgets the supporting characters as to spend more time with the main one, and while it works to develop his character nicely, everyone else comes off as just there. Aimee somewhat gets some development but not as much as you'd definitely feel she needed. And as for the rest of them, well they're all for supporting and not developing farther beyond their types.

The direction from 'James Ponsoldt' is really solid. The film walks down the right path every time and never starts down the exact opposite way, 'James Ponsoldt' directs his cast and crew with ease even if he hasn't had as much experience as he should have.

The music is spot on, it engages you and really emotionally tunes every scene that plays in the film, either nice, or sad, and I doubt 20 years from now it will sound dated, I really do.

The editing is sharp, with every shot coming along smoothly and professionally, and in the end it all flows perfect.

All an All 'The Spectacular Now' is spectacular even if I feel it's not anything you'd never seen before, but with the help of an amazing cast, and a very solid, likeable central character, the film ends up leaving a mark on you, in a good way and it will overall be the original film you wanted to watch, even if it isn't, it is. B+ 1/21/14

P.S: To end this review, I'd just love to wish my father a very happy 50th birthday. His life has been spectacular so far, and now he's lived half a century, while I'm writing this in advance, by the time this is released it'll be his birthday, so Happy Birthday Dad! To another 50 years of good health!

Phone Booth
Phone Booth(2003)

If you'd like to make a call please hang up and dial again. Listen to that when you call a number not in service, and listen to it over and over again. That's how I felt when I watched 'Phone Booth'. Now, honestly I can't understand, (and was shocked by) the highly positive rating Rotten Tomatoes gave this film. I didn't like anything about it. The only reason I sat through this disaster, was because of my Mother who had enjoyed the film and wanted to view it again with me. I wish I'd said no, because I ended up wasting an hour and twenty minutes on this mess. At first, I felt this could be somewhat enjoyable, not award winning, but still enjoyable. And I never thought that such a film could flop so hardly on its back, but that all changed as soon as I watched this. Now for my review of 'Phone Booth'.

'Phone Booth' follows Stu Shepherd (Played by Colin Farrell) an arrogant, publicist, who after making a phone call to a young lady he's courting, even when he's married, he receives another call from a mysterious caller (Voiced by Kiefer Sutherland) who threatens to kill Stu, unless he does everything he tells Stu to do, while inside a phone booth.

Now plot wise this is a pretty plain and simple film. Guy is stuck in Phone Booth, and must talk his way out of a situation. What can go wrong with such a simple set up, you may ask. Well, in 'Phone Booth' case, anything and everything. Why? Well it's basically because of the lousy script the film was handed by 'Larry Cohen'. This is a film basically run by dialogue, but when the dialogue starts rolling out you have to cover your ears, that's how painful the lines are. It's as if a 15 year old grew bored on a warm summer day and decided to write the screen-play for this. The lines basically tell the whole story. The film doesn't progress itself the lines progress the film, and basically what we get is a step-by-step instructor throughout the whole film. We aren't able to fill in the dot's ourselves, instead they basically give away the whole plot themselves. That's how predictable the script is and beyond that, the dialogue is just so unbelievably cheesy it's just outright cringe-worthy. And in-between our dialogue used for plot is a whole load of language. Why is that necessary at all? I think it isn't.

Delivering our plot is a bunch of thinly-written characters, stuffed in scenery. First off we're introduced to Stu Shepherd, our lead who we know nothing about as he starts the film, and by the end we still learn little about him other than he is a giant jerk with a capital J. And then we get to hear our mysterious caller's voice, and we wonder, what are his motives for this? We think and hope that they'll tell us by the end of the film, but no, this isn't the truth. Instead we aren't made aware of the caller's motives at all, I guess he just decided he was bored and wanted to get out and terrorize some poor fellow by trapping him in a phone booth. Besides those two, we get a slew of un-supporting characters that do nothing but aggravate the situation and serve only to end the film and annoy the audience.

One of the many things that bugged the heck out of me was the use of split screens. Not the usually split screen mind you, instead whenever someone makes a call on a phone we get a box that appears right smack dab in the middle of the screen, which shows the receiver answering the phone, and talking to the person making the call. I just found that so unbelievably annoying, as well as distracting, as well as un-necessary. I just disliked the use of split-screens on the film.

A miner issue, but never-the-less an issue is the fact that the music chosen for the film, for me isn't really thrilling at all. This is a thriller, which is supposed to have your heart beating, but the music really isn't very energetic, or thrilling. It's a pretty soft score from 'Harry Gregson-Williams'. It never engages you in the film, instead opting for slower music, even when the film itself is more fast paced, requiring the same pace for the music, but instead not given it. It sometimes works, often not, but it sometimes does, it's a mostly below average, hit-or-miss score.

The direction from 'Joel Schumacher' was mediocre at best. Everyone didn't know what they were doing half of the time (even if it wasn't much) with our lead ending up twiddling his fingers in a phone booth for the whole movie, oh wait, and we have Forrest Whitaker's character walking up to the phone booth ever once and a while but that's about all of the movement that's featured in this movie. Yes, I know Joel has some skills with directing just not on this film.

The sole saving grace from this film is the spot on performances from 'Kiefer Sutherland' (Or should I say Kiefer Sutherland's voice) and 'Colin Farrell' as our leads, the caller and the frantic mean guy, I guess? 'Colin Farrell' has some difficulty leading films (As he's shown us with Total Recall) but he puts enough energy into the role for him to come off as decent, in a film that's mostly the opposite. 'Kiefer Sutherland' is just fantastic as the voice that taunts our lead. Kiefer has shown he can play a good villain... on screen, but can he play a good villain using only his voice to intimidate his victims? The answer, I'd say is yes. Kiefer successes in intimidating and scaring anybody who hears his voice, it's just he comes off as a sociopath with a brain, and it works.

All and All what we get from 'Phone Booth' is a cheap, poorly scripted and predictable film that's only saving grace is a voice from someone you never actually get to see... until the final five seconds. This is an example of a film that could have and should have been better. Do I call it overrated? Yes, I do. D- 1/15/14


Ok, I'm not going to lie, I've seen Inception before, but decide to pass on writing a review of it because I felt that I'd not quit understood the film, and now here we are 2 years later, and fresh from re-watching it, I feel like I should finally review it. Now 'Inception' is not your everyday kind of movie. It requires you to really think, or you'd just be lost throughout the whole movie. Usually, I'm not into films that are so complicated you can't watch it; it's as if you blink and you miss something. You have to really pay close attention to every word said, as it gives you information on what's going on. Anyway onto my review of 'Inception'.

'Inception' follows Dominick 'Dom' Cobb (Played by Leonardo Decaprio) who is a professional thief committing corporate espionage by entering the mind of his target and taking their secrets. He is offered a chance of redemption as payment for one last job, doing the impossible, by entering the mind and implanting of an idea into a target's mind.

The script's plot is by far one of the most complexing, and intriguing ideas I'd ever heard. Now, when we talk about originality, it means making an idea that is new, but not only that it makes sense, and isn't completely ridicules. That's the kind of original 'Inception' is.
When I watched this movie, I never knew what was going to happen, everything led to something new, and then something new, and so on and so forth. This plot was beyond good that has something to-do with the script, provided by 'Christopher Nolan' who completely blew my mind at how good he is with script writing. This is one of the most beautiful scripts I've ever seen, and it's so original, maybe the idea isn't but just the way everything happens is. 'Christopher Nolan' wrote a wonderful script. Even if some of it is quit questionable, but what's a movie without plot holes right?

A good script is nothing without a spot-on cast to broadcast the whole thing. And 'Inception' has quit an ensemble. 'Leonardo Decaprio' brings the heart and soul as the lead with an emotional past. Every moment he's on screen (Which is actually the whole thing) he really gets into character and provides a great leader role to the group. His journey through the film, both emotional and realistically, is compelling and sad. 'Ellen Page' is our sole female of the group, and man does she get into her role. She brings the fear that the others don't have quit she was just lovely. Plus, she came in handy, asking the questions us viewers have, and helping us along the way on this complex ride. 'Joseph Gordon-Levitt' always gives off a great performance and this movie is no different, he's charming and witty in a few scenes, and suits his role pretty well. Other solid performances come from 'Cillian Murphy', 'Ken Watanbe', and 'Marion Cotillard' playing the films targeted guy, the business man, and Dom's Wife, respectively. With Marion you never know whether her character is good, evil, crazy, or just needy. She fits into her role as if it was a snug blanket, she just gets comfy cozy in it.

The editing is perfect, everything comes together perfectly and never glitches if you will. When the street starts to turn inward, not one bit of it comes off choppy. The sounds fit in where they should, and it just makes for great editing.

The Visual Effects are beyond amazing, they're spectacular. Every single thing about it comes off well detailed, and thought through, it's just so beautiful. When the streets start to turn over, the details on it are amazing; the people walk on it, and the cars driving in all directions. It is just spectacular.

This film features some great cinematography. I loved the camera work for inside the hotel when the gravity was turned off, it had just 'Joseph Gordon-Levitt' jumping across walls and fighting two men, I loved the different angles used for that scene, as well as during the scene with the van falling off the bridge, beautiful.

The music is just what the film needed something fast paced, energetic, and smooth. 'Hans Zimmer' really gave us a wonderful score, to complement the film itself giving us something to hold onto, and excite us even more, even complex us.

The set designs for the buildings, like the Chinese house, during the first act, which was a beautiful looking set. The house was beautiful and ghostly but I won't tell you why, you'll just have to wait and see for yourself.

All is good, except that the film features a poor blending of pacing, switching often from fast to slow, and back again and it comes off, abit distracting. When we watch scenes between 'Marlon Cotillard' and 'Leonardo Decaprio' which are usually in-between sequences inside someone's mind, the pace is slow, and it somewhat disorientates you, as your going so fast, and then you stop for a short conversation and you're like 'Is the ride over yet'? But it's only a miner issue.

All and All, 'Inception' is breathtaking feet of visuals, an original script, and some solid performances turning this into an excellent tent pole-blockbuster-popcorn film with a brain and I loved every minute of it! A 1/7/14


I, myself truly never expected to watch this film, it was a cold Sunday, and I was rather bored. I've never heard the word 'Butter' used in film as many times as it was in this one. It felt as if it was said once every minute. Well anyway, onto my review of 'Butter'.

'Butter' follows Bob Pickler (Played by comedian Ty Burrell) who after 15 years of butter sculpting decides to hang the towel and step down from his seat and allow another to take it. His wife Laura Pickler, a competitive, power seeking, and socially ambitious woman (Played by Jennifer Garner) afraid of losing her power, decides to join the competition to take over the thrown. However when, a younger foster girl, Destiny (Played by newcomer Yara Shahidi) threatens to beat her, Laura will do anything and everything to win the butter competition.

I must say the script is actually quite good, providing some witty dialogue, but is also the downfall, as most of the dialogue comes out unfunny, awkward, or corny. And I feel that the overuse of the term 'Butter' in the script also comes off as an issue.

The cast is fine; 'Olivia Wilde' is a standout as a stripper, seeking revenge on Laura. The way she acts for me, is not only sexy but intimidating to say the least of her performance. 'Rob Corddry' and 'Ashley Greene' give out fine performances as well, as Destiny's Adaptive Father, and Laura and Bob Pickler's lesbian daughter respectively.

The main issue this film has here is that whenever Laura Pickler walks on screen I cringe. If I had ever seen a more annoying character on film it would be her. The film makes her out to be intimidating and saucy, but really she is a leach, and a mentally challenged power seeking hound. And matters are even worse as one of the most annoying actresses in America is playing her, thank you very much Jennifer Garner. She has the worse traits I have ever seen, she is not only power happy, she is bossy, mean, crude, crazy, obsessive, and will stop at nothing to get what she wants, and not even in a good, clean way. She wants the American Dream, but man will she do anything to have it. She drives everyone nuts, including her husband who eventually cheats on her, and when she finds out does she care? She just nearly kills him, when she hits him with a car. She is so annoying.

Remember when I called the main character annoying? That's not even the beginning. Part of the reason why she's annoying is because of that horrible score made by 'Mateo Messina' which comes out as cartoony, and childish. I know it's supposed to be goofy, but it comes off as un-necessary, annoying, awkward, and very-very weird.

With this film, it's supposed to be funny. Don't ask me why it is, but it is, truly and you can tell. It tries, what with the music, and characters. But in the end most of the jokes fall flat. Most of the jokes that actually are relatively funny come from the always reliable 'Olivia Wilde' as the stripper. Yes, when a stripper comes off as the funniest thing in a movie, you know that movie isn't a great one. And we all wanted 'Ty Burrell' act to work out in this film. But sadly his act falls cold unlike on 'Modern Family'. It feels unwelcomed, and again un-necessary. And while 'Rob Corddry' also lands a few decent jokes while chatting with destiny in a vehicle, he isn't given much to work with. And honest to god, I don't know what they were trying to do with that stalkish, annoying, idiot Carol-Ann (Played by Kristen Schaal). Whenever she says even a word, in her bubbly, unique voice it just seems out of place, and again un-necessary.

And as for characters, we get an ensemble of probably the worst list of characters ever. Most either weird, or annoying. Or both. None of them seem to be in reality. Well, all except for, maybe the stripper, but when she threatens to (No, joke, well maybe it was a joke, I certainly laughed) 'poop' on The Pickler's car, she basically lost all humanity she had going for her. And then she has sex with their lesbian daughter. Yes, definitely not usual. I mean when you're dealing with cheating, you would usual do something about it. But with the Pickler's when Bob cheats on Laura, what does she do? She first rams her car into his, and then he follows her like a puppy. I mean, what is wrong with these people? Did you completely forget what he did Laura? Don't you want to divorce him or something? No, but she later sleeps with a man, just so he could help her possibly win the butter competition. And when the husband finds out, does he care? Nope. There is something very wrong about those people.

One of the few spotlights is the direction from 'Jim Field Smith'. Everyone seemed to know what they were doing while working with the butter, and so, I must say nice work Jim, you tried your darned best.

All and All, but is just un-necessary. If this is what original movies are going to be like in the future, count me way out. 'Butter' comes off as between silly, and serious, and won't pick a side, with the worst set of characters which all won't be saved from a solid cast performance altogether, and direction from Jim Field Scott. I just wish it was butter. Opps I meant better. D 1/6/14


I watch documentaries every year, and once and a while I see a good one. Usually when I watch a documentary it never really makes me want to follow its cause or to think more into the subject. But then there are those few mesmerizing ones that stick into my head. When I watched 'Blackfish' I was stunned and outright horrified really. It changed what I thought about the subject, it really did. The raw footage and excellent interviews really sparked my interest in the subject.

'Blackfish' focuses on the consequences of keeping killer whales in captivity. In particular it focuses on the killer whale, Talikum, who killed three individuals while held in captivity.

'Blackfish' features a ton of interviews from former trainers, who all gave us their opinions on the events of capturing killer whales and turning them into attractions. They helped alot with moving along the documentary, really telling the story actually.

I liked the use of real footage of the events; it helped me get emotionally involved with this documentary, and really helped prove the trainer's points. Keeping killer whales in a habitat is not healthy, or safe for anybody, and it shows you can't be too careful either.

This film uses real events and really explores them. I liked how the topic was truly dissected and explored. The creators of this documentary knew what they were doing, and really put there two cents into their opinions and what came out was a film that not only is entertaining, to say the least, but also informative. The film is compelling, shocking, and just attention grabbing.

All in All, 'Blackfish' is a winner. The film explores the topic, and pushes its message so far that you think you're going to collapse, but you don't because what you're watching is real footage, and with the help of the real trainer's narrating the film, it really makes you think about the topic, in a powerful way. In that this film is a success story. 1/6/14


This is my first review of the year 2014. Not the first film I watched this year but the first film I reviewed this year. To a good year in film! I'll say to you that when I heard about this film it was getting praised nonstop from critics. I truly was doubtful, myself that the film was actually anything to gloat about. Sadly, I hadn't had a chance to view the film until the other day. I was completely wrong with my pre-thoughts on the film. It is and will be a masterpiece among modern film. I've already bought a copy of it as well. I guess you could call me a bias person, as when I read 'Ben Affleck' as the lead as well as the director for the film, I was kinda repelled. It's kinda hard to like the dude who brought us 'Daredevil', and a heaping of other pretty bad movies. But now I've gotta say that I'm sorry Ben, I should of stuck in there for you. I mean if Tom Hanks can make a few bad movies and then come back with a bunch of good ones, well so can you Ben. Anyhow onto my review of 'Argo'.

'Argo' follows C.I.A exfiltration specialist Tony Mendez (Played by Ben Affleck) as he creates a fake film to get six embassy staff members out of the country of Iran, during a large Iranian Protest, which resulted in the takeover of the U.S Embassy in Tehran.

The cast of the film is excellent, featuring a turning point in 'Ben Affleck' career. Among the supporting cast we get a solid performance from 'Alan Arkin' playing a character that always seems to be irritated, but as always that kind of character is the perfect fit for Alan. 'John Goodman' plays a makeup artist who assists Tony Mendez creating the fake film, and gives a performance, in which you know John's having fun. And 'Bryan Cranston' is a good fit in the role of Tony's supporter, and supervisor.

The script by 'Chris Terrio' is very intelligent. In that, I mean it finds ways to sneak in darker jokes while managing to not come off as odd and or un-necessary, they provide a small smile, but nothing that would change the ever increasing tension the film presents. The dialogue the script has, never comes off as corny, or cringe worthy, everything sounds as if it was stuff people would actually say, not just words put down to explain what's going on. That's something I liked about the script as well. It never explained the main idea of the plot; it just gave suggestions and let you fill in the rest as the film progressed.

I have to give attention to 'Ben Affleck' for his outstanding directing in the film, if the Academy Awards don't do it. He found an effective way to not only headline the film but direct it as well, which I feel he did a wonderful job doing so, especially for the opening scenes, which were complete madness.

The character development was pretty solid, considering all the madness going on, you'd think you'd never really get to know your characters as anything more than damsel's in distress. But as the film cut to the six embassy people, it showed all their emotions and panic as they slowly broke down. By the end of the day, when the film ends, you really feel for those stranded people, you want them to make it out of that country. And when you start thinking about Tony Mendez, you most definitely want him to make it back to his family, and his lovable kid.

The film expresses a strong sense of urgency and tension. I was seriously at the end of my seat as I watched the six embassy people walk into that airport at the end. Knowing that in a flash they could be discovered and imprisoned, or even worse hanged. I was yelling for somebody to pick up that phone when the Guard makes a call to the fake studio Tony Mendez created. The whole film will have you at the end of your seat, not knowing whether or not the six embassy people will make it back to America or not. All together it makes the film even more exciting then the film already is.

The plot is great. It's never bland or dull. It's always exciting and original, and keeps you watching, as you never know what's happening until it's happened. The plot, is more sophisticated than most popcorn movies but it will never the less entertain you.

If I'd ever seen anything so unique in film it would have to be during the opening protest scenes in this film. When the film starts cutting through the protesters it blends real footage of the actual event into the film, and I found that to be really neat, even if a bit distracting.

The editing was pretty good, not choppy, and it didn't cut from one thing to another in the blink of an eye, it gave you a good 10 seconds or so, then it would move on. It all was easy on you.

The pacing is actually decent; the film takes a rather slow pace to increase tension in the film. Instead of a high paced film, we get a slow one, which spends a lot more time leading up to the final instead of just jumping to it at any chance possible.

All an All 'Argo' is one of those films you just have to love. A film that works hard, and in the end, achieves its goal. 'Argo' is a great film, and deserved the Best Picture award it got at the academy. It just goes to show you not to underestimate someone's credentials on previous failures. Judge a film on its own merits not on previous films. A+

P.S: Ben Affleck has two upcoming features. The first 'Gone Girl' and the second 'Batman vs. Superman'. While I somewhat disagree with Ben's casting on the latter film as Batman, as this film has shown, you can't judge until you see the finished project, so I'll just have to wait for that one until July 2015.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

"I am Fire.....I am Death" Well folks, we are half way through our trilogy on The Hobbit. Two films down, one to go. Would you say that I'm excited for it? You sure would, why? Well, it could just be how quickly this film ended, it ended without so much as a conclusion and when the screen turned to black, I just thought to myself, 'Is the film broken'? Well, sadly it wasn't that truly was the ending. Another thing you may ask was ''Is this a good film?' And I would say 'It sure was'. Not kidding, the film was actually good, not great, as in 'Gravity' or 'Mud' great, but good. The film still shares the same issues as in the first film, but for the most part this is a good film. Now onto my review, starting with the issues. The issues I had in this film were the opening, script, pacing, and character-development. It is very unusual for me to criticize the opening of any movie, I promise you. And I thought it would be even harder to criticize the opening for this one, sense it was quite obvious that it would start up right where it ended in Part 1, well at least to me it was the obvious opening, but I guess it wasn't. Instead, we are greeted to our lead, Bilbo looking out at a pack of Orcs with their wolfs. And I'm thinking to myself when this starts playing 'What the... Weren't they just picked up by eagles and put down on the edge of a mountain?'. Yeah, and so we next see Bilbo run down to the rest of his company, telling them about the Orcs. During this I'm thinking, 'Um, where are we? Why are Orcs following you?'. You see what I mean? Confusing right? Just what I was thinking, I mean if you're going to start up the middle chapter of a book, why not start it where the first half ended. I mean that's the most logical way to start it. No, instead you start it in the middle of whatever is going on, leaving viewers confused as to what they are witnessing. Another issue I had with the film was the script. The script spends so little time explaining what's going on that it confuses you. I wished the script had spent at least 10 more minutes at Beorn's house, as it makes no sense, so the bear is chasing the company into the house looking like it's trying to kill them, then he's letting them stay in there? What? A little more time in the script should have been spent at Beorn's house, so as to develop his character, as a skin changer sounds pretty neat and it would have been even better if he would have explained it to the dwarfs and did more for them you know? You already know I didn't like the opening, and why is it like that? Well, it's the script of course! The script slips up a lot, as it doesn't know how to distribute enough pages and time to. Like, you remember the spiders? Well, you get like 5 minutes of screen time with them, so it's like 'Why are there spiders?'. It would have been darker and fun if you had more time with the spiders talking and Bilbo throwing things at them, you know? But the script rushes right through that. Plus, the script rushes straight threw 'Lake Town'. The script focuses only a very small portion on the characters of 'Master of the Lake Town' and 'Bard the Bowman'. I mean there was so much potential there, but the script rushes through that so that the company can get to Smaug. The final issue with the script isn't really an issue, it's just something I loved and wish there was more of. And that was Smaug, and Bilbo's conversation, which I found hauntingly dark, scary, funny, and exciting all at the same time. I just wished that that part of the script was longer so that Bilbo would be able to talk to Smaug more, as it was the best part of the film to me. Plus, I felt that the whole part with the 'Necromancer' could have been completely removed, to make way for addition scenes of other more import characters and additional materiel to add at the end of a few scenes. My next complaint is with the pacing. The pacing and script kinda work together in a way. I mean, the pacing is way too fast, you start at the beginning and five minutes later your at the end, it's like slow down a bit, and just talk alittle. Yes, I know that was my complaint with the first film, that it was too slow. Now, this is way too fast though, and there just isn't enough talking. Why can't we just stop for a minute and breathe. You know what I mean? And my final problem with this film, which was one of my serious complaints about the first one, is my main complaint for this one as well and it is.... The character-development. Oh yes, but what can you expect from a film that features a dozen dwarves, two wizards, a couple of woodland elves, a skin changer, a handful of humans, orcs, a dragon, and a small hobbit. The film has done wonderfully to forget it's characters for visual effects, and costumes and sets. But characters are just as important, they are the ones you will be watching during the whole film. What we get from this film is a few developed dwarves (Kili, Thorin, Dwalin, Bofur, and Balin) then you have a few dwarves with alittle development (Fili, Bombur, Ori) and then you have dwarves with no character development (Nori, Dori, Gloin, Oin, and Bifur) it's as if those dwarves were nonexistent in personality, and that they were only there just to be there, for no reason whatsoever. I mean, I don't even think Nori has any lines in the whole entire film. None. Not even one, and he doesn't have a speech problem (I looked it up). The dwarves just anger me because some of them do nothing but occasionally slay an Orc. They get very little screen time, and mostly appear behind a dwarf that does get screen time. And then you have 'The Master of Lake Town', played by the excellent 'Stephen Fry'. That guy has about 10 minutes of screen time altogether, and he's supposed to be a miner villain, he doesn't have any time to show he's a villain. Its ridicules. 'Bard the Bowman' who is played by the ever increasingly popular 'Luke Evans' gets a very small quantity of screen time. I mean, he's supposed to be the guy to slay the dragon yet he get about 30 minutes of screen time? Maybe less. It's crazy, I mean, I know he had a much smaller part in the book but still, I just wish he had a much more important role in the film. Well guys, I'm done criticizing the movie, now let's just get to what made this movie good. The good things with this film are the visual effects, sets, costumes, cast, acting, make up, and cinematography. As it was with the first film it is again. The visual effects are excellent. Everything is crisply detailed, and so are all the animated figures. The Orcs, look wonderful, and look really well detailed to the point. There is one shot, that showed the orcs running down the river to catch the dwarves and it just looks excellent. And when Beorn is a bear, it is just excellent. The bear looks so realistic, you'd actually think it was a live bear, chasing the dwarves and guarding them at night, of course it isn't but still. Probably the best use of visual effects was on Smaug. Oh my lord did Smaug the dragon look excellent. He's probably the best animated dragon yet to appear on screen (Ofcourse the voice helps but, you know). The animators had such a great attention to detail. Every scale on Smaug's back was rendered sharply, his face looked amazing, and his neck- wow what a sight. When, Smaug is on camera I just can't help but stare at his magnificence, he is just so beautiful to look at, it's just amazing, and really it is. I loved how when Smaug speaks his mouth moves at just the right moment, and you can see his slimy tongue and throat and sharp teeth, just wow, they were so great to just look at. When the gold falls off Smaug's body, it looks dazzling, just so beautiful, and so realistic looking. I just don't know how else to put it really. Another amazing visual effect was when the melted gold, (or whatever that was) was dumped on Smaug by Thorin. It was just so neat, Smaug was just golden for a moment, and then as he flew off, the liquid gold looking stuff started falling off, just glimmering down. I'm just amazed at the visuals, even though they may not be the best of the year (No visuals beat Gravity's or Pacific Rim's) it's still pretty darn solid effects. Man, thank the heavens that this film didn't rely intierly on green screens for all the locations, as they have sets for this one ((We're looking at you Oz: The Great and the Powerful, just why so much green screen?). The sets just look fantastic. They are huge, and full of detail. Like, inside The Lonely Mountain, man, was that great sets in the making, just wow. And Lake Town, was also another successful set, it was just so hauntingly full of life, and detailed to the brim. Lake Town, looked ancient, and man did that only make it even more fantastic. Probably one of the best set designs had to do with Mirkwood. Mirkwood was designed so darkly and hauntingly spookily it was amazing. The woods and trees and everything just looked great, those sets looked amazing and realistic, a bit too realistic you might venture to say. The costumes were great as well. I just loved the fabric used for the dwarf's costumes, which looked so rough and just realistic to the characters. A standout costume has to be Thranduil's played by 'Lee Pace'. I loved the silk garment he wore, it was so shiny, and pretty and so smooth looking that it makes you just want to feel its softness. The cast was another achievement. 'Martin Freeman' returns as the delightful hobbit, Bilbo Baggins, giving us a more serious and very dark performance this time around as he handles his weapon more fiercely and takes charge more often than not. 'Ian McKellan' returns as well as Gandalf the Grey, while Ian isn't given much to work with this time around, he still does his best and gives a somewhat decent performance even if its alittle tame this time around. 'Richard Armitage' plays the lead of the company of dwarves as Thorin Oakenshield, in which he gives a very nice performance, nothing of high note, but still he shows his toughness, and uneasiness, and somewhat creepiness during the end scenes, he makes good use of his character. 'Aiden Turner' as Kili, one of the dwarves, gives off a charming performance and gives us some of our more controversial romantic scenes in the film. 'James Nesbitt' as Bofur, a dwarf, gives off a funny, yet somewhat serious performance, and is probably one of my favorite of the cast. And 'Ken Stott' as Balin, one of the dwarves, I still just excellent, and acts as the wise, man of the company. And as for newcomers, we got a whole lot of great ones. The best of the lot, and possibly of the whole cast, solely based on his voice work, was 'Benedict Cumberbatch'. You all know I'm a big fan of Cumberbatch's work, because I am. And let me tell you his voice work is scary, intriguing, original, clear, and a perfect match for Smaug. Benedict's voice as Smaug the dragon just gives me the Goosebumps, I'll tell you that. While not given a lot of screen time 'Lee Pace' as Thrandiul is excellent. He is the perfect casting choice, I mean he can play a villain so innocently and just has such a high authority in his voice, and movements, as well as his actions, he was just excellent in this film, I hope to see more of him as his character in the next film. 'Stephen Fry' though also hasn't had much screen time in this film, tries his best with what time he has, as The Master of Lake Town. He delivers a nice performance, as the overly greedy Master. Plus newcomer 'Ryan Gage' gave an even more villainous performance as Alfrid. He just made me wanna punch him square in the face, which pretty much mans that you're doing a damn great job as a villain in a film if I wanna knock your block off. 'Evangeline Lilly' as a new character, Tauriel gives us a wonderful performances, to the point where you can tell she's into the film, and is having fun getting to punch a few stunt guys in the face. Plus, she shares decent chemistry with 'Aiden Turner', which is a plus. 'Orlando Bloom' returns in his role as Legolas from the previous series, and has a lot of fun doing it, while being extremely grumpy and jealous over Tauriel's new fondness for Kili. Plus we get a pretty good performance from 'Luke Evans' as the familyman 'Bard the Bowman' who thankfully is given much more screen time in the movie then in the book. Overall the acting was solid. The makeup, was also topnotch, with make up for Bard the Bowman ,and the Master of Lake Town being the best of them all. The cinematography was also great. All the angles and camera movements made were done so gracefully that there were no problems whatsoever with that. My favorite use of the camera work was when the woodland elves, had captured the dwarves and led them into the castle, and they have a wide long shot from far away inside the castle, as the dwarves walked across a small patch of brick, with just air on either side of them. That was just beautiful. As well as all the scenes featuring Smaug, I mean they all were shot with grace and ease. Just perfect, all the camera close up's of Smaug's body, and face. All an All The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug, is a pretty decent film, with a great cast, and excellent visuals and sets, but sadly all is not great in middle earth as still the film suffers from poor character-development, and an opening that confuses all, plus a sense of rushing to the end. B- 12/20/13

P.S: There is yet one more installment to go, with The Hobbit: There and Back Again hitting theaters December 2014. Let's just hope this improves upon this one, just a little bit more, we'll just have to wait and see, won't we?

Man of Steel
Man of Steel(2013)

It's a bird! It's a plane! No, it's Superman!! And this time we have "Henry Cavill" wearing the red cape, and blue tights! This was not a movie I was interested in seeing at the theater, but for some reason, I ended up seeing it anyway. And as I expected I loathed it. To be honest I've never been a big fan of Superman, don't ask em why, because honestly I have no clue what so ever but what I do know is that I hated this film. I very much hated this movie, it's not the worst movie I've ever seen, but it's not nearly the best either. I actually liked "Superman Returns" (Preparing myself for the 'boos' from the fanboys) and thought that this one had potential to be just as good. And it actually started out pretty decently... that is for the first 10-20 minutes or so, which had Russell Crowe in the alien world battling to help save our Clark Kent. I enjoyed that so much that I thought this was going to be one of the better movies of the year. Man, was I totally wrong about that one. The film contains a excellent cast, with a few neat/cool set pieces and action sequences, but all that is good is squashed by a bad director, horrible screen-play, little character development, and a middle half of the film lacking in intensity, and excitement of any sort. O.K so let's start with the problems. I (as you all know) have never liked director 'Zack Snyder'. The first movie I reviewed this year was 'Sucker Punch' which was directed by him and I hated it, I gave it 1 Star and F rating. For one thing I've never been a fan of his shooting styles, and his lighting techniques, and camera movements, for me it all comes out as if the film was set at 6PM on a Wednesday night. Mr. Snyder really never knows what he is doing and you can tell it, all the poor crew and actors have no idea what to do during everything and it just doesn't work. Zack Snyder just never works and will never live up o some of the elder directors. The screen-play is a major weakness to Superman's strength. Everything works well up until the film cuts from a baby superman to an adult version without much explanation, I mean you start out with him being sent to earth as a baby, then you cut to him as a 30 year old man? I'm stuck thinking to myself 'What the heck is going on?'. Instead the story of his childhood is told through flashbacks which appear at random moments during the film. I found it a lot more confusing then to simply start with superman growing up as a child on the farm. The major flaw with the film is the lack of character development. Every character was undercooked. I didn't know who any of the people where, that are what will make this film so inaccessible for non-superman fans. Lois Lane, Lex Luther, even the Superman character himself was so under developed! I had no idea who anybody was because they're so called characters were not really anything but random citizens. Kevin Costner's character received little screen time and he was the major celebrity of the film that made people want to come and see this, and also his part in it was just weak! I mean he's brought in as a very emotional father figure for Superman, yet he's just not given any screen time to truly seize your emotions at all, just a thin character who's just there. Lois Lane is just a flat personality with little know background except that she works for the daily planet and has a crush on Superman. I mean you've got Amy Adams and yet you don't give her much to work with. The middle half of this film really drags on and happens way to quickly, it lacks intensity or excitement; it actually began to bore me so much that I was thinking on just leaving. This film was way too long, for the thin plot which has been done, redone, and done again way too many times. They stretched anything they could possibly stretch, out, I mean it could have been a decent 2 hour movie but instead they dragged it out and wasted my time. Now for the good, that will not cancel out the evil! This film sports an excellent group of cast members. 'Henry Cavill' looks like Superman would look like and acts well as the character, but he is nothing more than average in the part. 'Amy Adams' plays Lois Lane and she looked and acted the part perfectly, but sadly enough she wasn't given much materiel to work with, honestly. And 'Laurence Fishburne', while at first glance may have looked too serious for the part, actually manages to pull off the part perfectly as the head of the daily planet newspaper, Lex Luther. 'Russell Crowe' and 'Ayelet Zurer' as Superman's real Father and Mother were excellent. 'Russell Crow' always is excellent in anything you put him in so to no surprise he perfectly leads the first 10-20 minutes, it's too bad he's not in the whole thing. 'Michael Shannon' as our villain is great casting, he fits in very well as our crazy villain general, and I just loved his emotions, and facial expressions in reactions to Superman. I just loved how the actor was able to pull off as very sadistically realistic scary villain. It was great. Some set pieces were also great to look at and a few action scenes were as well. And they where choreographed very well. All in All this Superman film never took flight for me. Any outsider, who knows little of the Superman comics, will not find this enjoyable, due to the shooting styles and the lack of excitement. D 6/20/13

P.S: A sequel is set for release in the packed 2015 schedule. I just hope this one is taken better care of then it was, and in more capable hands, it's supposed to include 'Ben Affleck' as Batman. We'll just have to wait and see what we get.

Ender's Game
Ender's Game(2013)

'The Enemy's gate is down'. Let me tell you a little story, it begins when I was a young boy dreaming as if I could be an action hero fighting off aliens. And then in the summer of 2012, I read 'Ender's Game'. Now, that book changed my thoughts, it was a fantastic book. And then I heard about the film, itself. I was so excited to see it, and when I heard that 'Harrison Ford' was in it, well that changed everything, I knew at once that I was going to see the film. So here we are, November 9th going to see Ender's Game, with very high hopes, and I somewhat was underwhelmed at the end result. Now it wasn't horrible by any means necessary, but it wasn't over the average, you understand? What I mean was I was going in thinking that we might have another 'Life of Pi' or 'Avatar' and then we get this. It was just not great, it didn't live up to my hopes, and I'm disappointed in it. I doubt this film will be remembered in another month. This film just didn't work, and while it could have worked the effort just didn't make that possible. It was only average as a film, not great, not bad, but average. Plus, the film didn't use much of the source material, which was annoying, while they took some parts from the book, most are absent, as the characters have been aged up (A mostly good move, I'd say). So anyways onto my review! For this review I'll start off with what I liked about the film and then we'll move on from there, ok? I enjoyed the cast, acting, special effects, music, sets, and the costumes. The cast is spot on, every actor playing a character from the book fits how'd I saw the character looking while I read the book. Mostly with 'Harrison Ford' as Graff, and 'Moises Arias', as Bonzo. But everybody really fits how I would see them, its fantastic casting at hand. The acting is at best with lead, 'Asa Butterfield'. We see him in almost every scene of the movie, so he has to always be on top of the game and he is. 'Asa Butterfield' gives off the impression of a really smart, wise, guy really well. He makes his characters emotions really fallout on the screen, it's very impressive to me. Again I can say I see a talent in 'Asa Butterfield' as I had previously said that as I watched 'Hugo'. The way he acts during the battle room scenes as well as the last 10 minutes of the film really work, as realistic and emotional. I just felt that 'Asa Butterfield' really got into his role, and I'd love to see him again as a lead in another film. 'Harrison Ford' is another talented actor. His veteran acting chops really help the younger, more inexperienced 'Asa Butterfield' learn more. 'Harrison Ford' as I said before, still has acting skills even though he's getting old, while he may not be able to do all the stunts he once did when he was younger I still feel he can act, if given the roles he's recently been given. 'Hailee Steinfeld' is also another standout from the cast of young actors. The girl is a standout in anything, her acting is on par, with veteran 'Harrison Ford' and when she did 'True Grit' she was on top of that as well. 'Hailee Steinfeld' gave a performance that kinda acted as a wing man for Ender, sorta as a sister, that Valentine couldn't be during Battle School. 'Moises Arias' was the last of the kid actors that really stood out to me. He was by far my favorite character in the movie, believe it or not. I found his performance wicked, even though I felt he was way smaller then 'Asa Butterfield' and could have easily been beat by Ender in the film, I still found his acting intimidating, and strong. 'Moises Arias' brings life to Bonzo, for the short time he is present in the film, he still performs well as a villain, even though I wish he had more screen time to develop his villainous character more. 'Viola Davis' was a standout in her role, as she always is. Her performance reminds me a lot of her character in 'Beautiful Creatures', sorta a mother figure, with authority but just not enough of it. She really brings emotion and reality to the story, and has some really good chemistry with 'Harrison Ford'. For me 'Ben Kingsley' gives hit or miss performances all the time. Sometimes I like him, other times I don't. That's my feelings for him. This year however I enjoyed both his performances in the films he was present in [Iron Man 3, Ender's Game]. I feel he, like most of the other actors, wasn't given a lot of time to give a lot out of his character. The special effects on this film were, (cue the joke) out of this world! Man, the special effects were so detailed it was just amazing, while I felt that they didn't spend enough time in the battle room, when they are in there it just looks amazing. Everything is glowing; it made me kinda sick, because it was so deep and just crazy. Man, I loved the visual effects work on the battle room, it just looked fantastic. The special effects work on the mind game Ender plays with feels abit under done but still overall excellent. It's kinda creepy too; how they made the character Valentine so realistic in animated form it was just scary, really. But still overall epic. I liked the special effects on the alien during the last 10 minutes it looked so realistic it was scary. It was beautiful, looking at it, really it was. Plus when they were fighting the final alien invasion, I liked the special effects on the ships, as they exploded; it was amazing to look at. The musical score is, while nothing amazing, still pretty decent, it aids the scenes, and while I felt it wasn't used a lot, I still felt that when it was used it helped make scenes more, exciting, or dramatic, or however the scene was playing out. By far the sets were one of the best things about the film, I mean they were fantastically realistic, and futuristic, it was so neat. The sets for the bedrooms were pretty cool, as well as for right outside the bedroom, those were pretty cool as well. I fell in love with the costumes. No kidding either, I mean they were beautifully designed. The battle room suits were just so awesome to look at it was crazy. They were just so cool, especially the design for the helmet, that was the best part of the costumes. Now onto the problems, and as we all know, there were problems and they were Aramis Knight, Character Development, Pacing, Plot, Camera Angles, and Dialogue. 'Aramis Knight' was the sole casting misfortune. I don't even know why, I just felt his acting was annoying and weak, and that he just made everything annoying. For me that guy did fit the look of Bean, he just didn't give the performance of Bean for me. The major miss happening of the film was the character development. That was a total failure, for the film. Besides, 'Asa Butterfield' who receives almost all the running time to develop his character, everybody else only has a short time to get a chance to develop their characters, and it just doesn't work. 'Ben Kingsley' sorta get's his character development in there but just not enough. 'Hailee Steinfeld' gets very little character development. And as for 'Abigail Breslin' well she gets no time for character development she's only in like 10 minutes of the film altogether, its ridicules. The script suffers from no character development of its big supporting cast. Nobody gets an edge in really. The characters are just there, that's it, and they don't have their own feelings and thoughts or anything. That's what's irritating the characters are so thin, they just don't feel a part of the movie, it's like all we see is Ender, but the book isn't all about Ender, he isn't fighting this all by himself, he has fellow battle school students with him, but we don't get a real feel of their emotions at all, its ridicules'. 'Moises Arias' plays the films student villain Bonzo, why don't we really get to know why Bonzo is so cruel, and why he's so jealous of Ender, spending time with Petra, right. It's just so angering that the script has a 2 hour runtime yet we can't spend 5, 10, or even 15 minutes to develop or supporting cast. I mean Valentine, is Enders sister! Why not spend a little time, with her, to see her point of view on things, and her feelings of Ender going to battle school. I mean she is his sister!!!!! Just because her name isn't on the title doesn't means he doesn't deserve some screen time. Same thing with 'Ben Kingsley' and 'Harrison Fords' characters. The last major issue I have with the film is the pacing. The pacing is so fast that it makes things feel rushed, I mean it talks place during one timeline yet everything happens in like 2 minutes. He starts out in school, and 5 seconds later he's going to battle school. Battle school happens so fast as well, he's only there for like a minute before he's promoted and defeats the aliens; it's like, what the heck just happened? You don't really no, because he was just in battle school a minute ago and now here he is defeating an alien race. You'd think that it would take a bit of time for him to be trained before finally fighting off an alien race, but no, not for him. It's just so quick paced. I fell that the film should have been closer to 3 hours and had been a long sci-fi epic, then a close to 2 hour short one. I feel that it was all rushed. It takes time you know? It just didn't seem realistic that he'd be defeating an army of aliens so quickly. More time in battle school would have been nice; the film just should have slowed down during battle school. Now I'm going to slow down on the negatives with two minor problems with the film. The plot is just way too simple, I mean it's predictable, and I wish a surprise turn was added to the movie that wasn't in the book, as they did in 'The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 2' which I still hated but still. Sometimes I disliked the camera angles that the film was shot at. I mean sometimes during the battle room scenes they'd zoom out and you'd lose sight of the lead, Ender that's why I didn't like it because you could tell who was who. My final issue was the dialogue. Sometimes the lines got pretty lame especially in the beginning, when Ender is getting in the ship about to head to battle school. I felt all the dialogue in that scene was pretty cheesy. Well, all in all, Enders Game is just average it may sport a great cast, and excellent visuals, but the character development and script bring the film down to be just an average film nothing good or bad. C 11/10/13

P.S: Don't expect a sequel; the film has made good grossing just nothing extraordinary that would market a sequel.


I cannot believe how stunned I am after having viewed Gravity 2 days ago. The film was wonderful in all ways. This is so far the only film of 2013 that I've seen that I have given over 4 stars. The film didn't receive 5 stars but 4 and a half star makes it my favorite film of the year as of now. This was a film that I didn't really expect to see in theaters but when I saw the excellent reviews and the trailers, I decided to check it out. And man, I'm glad I did this is just an amazing film. My dad, sister, and mom also joined me to the theaters to see the film, and their reactions differed. My sister found the film to be excellent, my dad said it was ok, and my mom hated it. I just can't believe how much I enjoyed this film, from a first time director, well at least for an American audience. Well onto the review which is all positive and no negatives. Maybe 2013 isn't all too bad for movies, huh? Ok so I enjoyed the acting, cast, script, visual effects, cinematography, music, pacing, entertainment value, and directing. Yeah, I know it's a lot that I enjoyed so I'll just get on with it. The acting is excellent. The film only has 2 actors throughout the majority of the film and those performances are very realistic and impacting. Sandra Bullock stars as Ryan Stone. She gives a tear jerking performances as the sole survivor, of the space shuttle. She's the emotional character all people can relate to, both male and female. And then there's George Clooney. Man, that guy provides both the comical relief, to the mostly serious film, and the guide, kinda figure to Sandra Bullock's character. You can tell George Clooney was having fun doing the film; by the way he says his liens and just makes it all seem realistic. George Clooney veteran acting chops help Sandra Bullock play better with her acting skills. Sandra Bullock gives us what she's got, giving us her best performance to date besides, The Blind Side. The casting was excellent. I here today that 'Angelina Jolie' almost got Sandra Bullock's role, and I think, no way. I just hated the idea. Sandra Bullock was made to play the main character in Gravity. And while I think 'Robert Downey Jr.' would have been well fit for the role of George Clooney's character, I think George Clooney made the character a stand out. George Clooney just had away with acting in the film which made his character more memorable, and funny. The stand out part in the film is the script. The film basically runs on dialogue throughout the time. I think that the writing for the lines was excellently done every word spoken I thought was clever and emotional in its own way. The lines defined the character. The script is probably one of the best scripts I've ever seen in my whole life. I just found it excellently done. The visual effects are another thing the film runs on mostly. Basically everything you see is CGI, visual effects, I read that even though you see the faces of the actors in the space suits, it's just there face, everything else is visual effects, CGI. I found all the visual effects excellently rendered. The film is just beautiful to watch. Everything you see, even though it's not real is just beautifully made, I ate it up. Just so much eye candy to look at. My favorite usage of the visual effects is when the debris hits the space shuttle Sandra Bullock, George Clooney, and Paul Sharma's characters are working on, and parts of the shuttle start breaking apart and flying everywhere. It was just beautiful to look at. The cinematography in the film was just amazing. Some of the scenes made it so you saw just what Sandra Bullock's character was seeing, which was just so neat. I loved the different angles the film was shot at, and the way it was shot was just amazing. How it would zoom out and in and all this other stuff so quickly was just amazing. Another standout was the music. I loved the score the film had, the music fit each scene excellently, and defined each emotion the characters would be going through it was just fantastic to listen to. The film was paced perfectly. The first couple of minutes had the film in a slow pace, and as soon as mission control sent word of the debris heading their way the pace quickened and then as the debris started hitting the shuttle, the pace was quick, and as soon as Sandra Bullock's character was slowly floating away from the ship the pace started to slow, until it was just moving along turtle speed. The pace just kept you into the film. Not too fast, not to slow, just a right mixture of both, you know? While my dad and mom found the film boring, I thought the film was really entertaining. The film just has enough drama, and fast paced sequences it makes for good, popcorn, entertaining film to watch that won't dumb you down. The film gets you on the edge of your seat during the tense fast paced moments, and basically your screaming to yourself, don't die, and please don't die. It's like, wow, you can really get into the film. The last thing I really enjoyed was the direction, which I usually leave out of my reviews. Alfonso Cuaron is no stranger to directing film, but he is a newcomer to directing American films, and I think he did an excellent job capturing the emotional depths of the characters and supervising the editing and that. I think he's probably one of the best directors out there right now. I don't have any issues with the film, even though I didn't give it 5 stars, I just don't think it's absolutely the best film out there in the world, but it's pretty close to being one. All an All this is The Best film of 2013 so far to em, and is excellent on all terms, thanks to excellent acting, and visual effects, as well as music and cinematography. This is a hit and I think this has a good chance at a Best Picture award during the academy awards! A+ 10/14/13


Riddick is the film that kicks off the Fall 2013 Film Season. And it doesn't make for a good start. I always enjoyed "Pitch Black", and disliked the next one "The Chronicle of Riddick" so when I heard that this was going back to its original R-Rated roots, I kinda got excited. It's one of those small films that I either see or don't, and that it wasn't on my top 10 list. I just decided to see it on a slow weekend. Vin Diesel is solely a franchise actor. You look at his resume, and all you see mostly is "Riddick" and "Fast and the Furious". Vin Diesel has done other films but rarely. Among them is "The Pacifier" a kiddie flick that was very unoriginal and unfunny. "XXX" Another film that was a failed attempt at a descent action film, and "Babylon A.D" which is probably the worst, and looked like it was a failed attempt to start another franchise for Vin Diesel. And then came news that he had helped self fund another Riddick movie. 2 years later we get "Riddick". Now the problems with the film include the script, character development, direction, plot, CGI animation/special effects, un-necessary scenes, and the editing. The script was horribly sexist and cheesy. All the lines the sole female (Played By: Katee Sackhoff) says are sexist comments about women, and are mostly sex based lines. It's really stupid. All the lines are uninspired and extremely dull. I can't imagine anyone saying what they said in the film. The character development for this film is extremely absent. I don't know anybody, in this film. They're just a bunch of random people who come together and are killed off sooner or later by, Riddick, or monsters. It's all very stupid. I don't even know how many characters are there. I really don't all I know is that there's a lot and some of them die and some don't. The direction in this film is poor as well. The actors, except for Vin Diesel, are all new to the "Riddick Universe", and don't seem to know what to do. All the actors fumble around and just seem so clue-less as to what to do. There is this one actor who is as clumsy as everyone else and that is "Nolan Gerard Funk". I mean the kid gets so little screen time and just seems to not understand what to do. The plot is just the same recycled hunters get hunted kind of film and it just has been done so many times before it's hard to really get into. You know? The Special Effects/Animation was horribly cheesy. They were so underdone. Like the dog companion of Riddick. Which I really don't get as the dog is just completely un-necessary, (I'll get to that later). The monsters Riddick fight are just so cheesy, and just not well animated they look like they come out of a 90's flick. Not good. It's just cheap looking that's as far as I'll go with that one. Some scenes are simply un-necessary. Like the scene when "Katee Sackhoffs" character is taking a shower and it shows her boob. Why is that necessary? Does it make the film better? Or is it just for the male viewing audience? I think that last answer is the correct one. Or just Riddick's dog companion altogether. That dog did nothing for the film and just was a burden. Oh and one more, how about the scene with the Prisoner (Played by: Keri Hilson) and her being killed in front of Riddick? What the heck does that have to do with anything? It just doesn't make sense at all, plus what's up with the romance between Riddick, and Katee Sackhoffs character? WTF. .. My last complaint with the film is the editing. The films editing is so choppy, it's unbelievable. Especially during the scenes in which Riddick is fighting the sea monster things. This whole movie yells cheap. And now we enter the good things zone, in which we will discuss the good things about Riddick including the costumes, Vin Diesel, entertainment, and the action sequences. The costumes are well created. I love the bounty hunter costumes and Vin Diesel's costumes. They are well created and crafted. Very eye catching, and original. With loads of detail, expressly Vaako's (Played by: Karl Urban) costume, it was so shiny and eye popping. Vin Diesel really wanted to do this film. You can tell in his performance that he really got into returning to the character "Riddick". Of everybody returner Vin Diesel gave an excellent performance. Vin Diesel even funded the film himself to get it made. That shows great character in Vin Diesel, to keep his franchises alive. This one more than the others as it were the role of Riddick that brought stardom to him. The film, while cheap, and cheesy, is extremely entertaining believe it or not. I was on the edge of my seat during the fight sequences in the end, and the beginning. The film was just fun to watch. A simple popcorn film. And finally I have to say the action sequences were pretty well sequenced. While overall the direction was poor the battle, and fight scenes were excellent. It was well directed and fun to watch. Well all an all, I really disliked this Riddick, but I feel that it might be one of those films made to please male audiences with nude shots, cussing, and loads of action. So I'm going to say that Riddick sucks on a critical level, but for the average male, this is a good film to watch while they drink a beer or two. D 9/15/13

P.S - Pray we don't get another one, because odds are we probably are and I don't think it'll get any better than this. Sorry Vin, but I think you should stick to your Fast and Furious films.


"Maybe tomorrow, we'll all wear 42, so nobody could tell us apart." 42, one of the few good films of this year I actually enjoyed. The film, which stars newcomer, Chadwick Boseman, as our first African American baseball player to make it into the big leagues is a home run as some would joke. I wanted to see the film "42" from the first moment I saw the trailers but was unable to attend when it opened in April 2013. Today, I rented it and finally was able to view the film. And my God, this was excellent, it wasn't great, but man, was it good. Now, what surprises me is that they hadn't made a film about Jackie Robinson before now. I mean, man did it take a long time for him to play ball in the cinemas. I mean I'm not that big of a baseball fan. So I'm not going to lie when I say this film was not made for none-baseballers. It might be ok, for people who don't follow baseball but it sure is confusing (I'll get to that later) for those people. Ok so for our issues today kids, we have too many characters, lengthy scenes, too safe, and the confusing moments (During baseball). There are just way too many characters in this film to comprehend. I mean there are so many characters that we see that appear in one scene and their characters are forgotten, for the rest of the film because the writers forget about them. Because we have so many characters few characters are actually developed. I mean you have 1 scene in which the character has a prominent part and then after that 1 scene, the character is gone for the rest of the movie. What about Pee-Wee? Or Harold Parrott, Dutch Leonard, or Dixie Walker? Those are the members on Jackie's baseball team. They should have been developed more properly over the course of the film. But sadly the film used its 2 hour length in other ways; some minutes were well spent, while others, un-necessary. That leads me, actually to my next conversation, regarding the lengthy scenes. I mean this film is pretty good, but some scenes I wish were cut abit shorter. I mean, some of the baseball scenes might have been a bit longer than bearable. Overall it was a little matter as most of the scenes were way too short for someone to get them, which are an issue that kinda goes with this so I didn't put it as a separate issue. Anyhow onto bigger issues which includes the film is way too safe. I mean it's racy but not racy enough, you know what I mean? It's not gritty enough for me. It doesn't make me yell at the screen as many times as I think I should have. It's just way too in the lines. It doesn't make an attempt to really push people's emotions to an edge where they want to punish t he people who were racist, it didn't make you want to cry. It just was too safe a film to really get edgy. Sadly that was a mistake; this film really missed the chance to make a film that has the "Remember the Titans" meets..... I donno but it had that in it. I guess you could say this film striked out in the emotional field (Man I'm on a role with these puns!). This film is also as I previously mentioned confusing as heck to people who aren't big baseball fans. When the film is in a baseball scene, I was scratching my head as to what the heck they were doing. I just couldn't come to get what was going on, and the characters didn't really narrate what was happening. I think a good idea could have been the film showed extras in the crowd, telling what was going on to their guest, or something along that; line, so that we the viewers could grasp what was happening. I mean its like, why are we watching this, if we can't understand what's going on? Anyway let's get on with what makes this film good. The good things with this film include the acting, cast, script, cinematography, music, and costumes. The acting is excellent. Chadwick Boseman, who had previously appeared in zip, makes his feature film debut in the lead role as Jackie Robinson. He was an excellent addition to the cast. He is similar to break out actor "Suraj Sharma", who appeared in the lead role of "Life of Pi". Chadwick convincingly fits the role of Jackie. He is just what I pictured Jackie looked like. When they show photos from the real Jackie, Chadwick looks almost identical to him. Harrison Ford, is also excellent as Branch Rickey. Harrison, who hasn't been very game in years, appears to enjoy this role, and really makes Branch a very people's man. Harrison put real character into Branch, and I feel he was the real standout besides Chadwick in the film. Nicole Beharie is also a very excellently cast actress that really show's emotions and the horror of being Jackie's wife that first year, it's too bad that she wasn't given more screen time for herself. Other cast members were excellent too but the top 3 were the stand outs. Oh and who could forget, the one and only, Alan Tudyk! Who was the only actor who really made me angry during the film? The acting in the film is excellent as I kinda stated in the cast section so moving on..... The script is wonderfully original! The dialogue placed in the film can both be funny, and heart pounding. I loved the script, but I did feel that it might be a bit to safe and has many characters, but that's not the major things, this script made me feel hope, that films could actually come up with their own lines instead of borrowing from others. I loved all the lines, but my favorite has got to be the one said by the character Pee Wee Reese, which is bolded in black above. The best thing about this film is the cinematography. The film was shot beautifully. The camera movements were graceful and the film was bright and colorful. You could see every little detail possible. The cinematography was just perfect! The music was also original and impacting. The song played during the trailers was exceptional. While I can't say what the songs titles were, the songs were pretty good. That's about all I got on that one. The costumes in this film are excellent, and fit the style and design of the 40's. It brings back memories my Grandfather still tells em about his father in the 40's. I see pictures of Jackie's suit from the 40's and the two look identical. I tip my head off to the costume department for that one. Well All an All, this tale of Jackie Robinson's first year in the major leagues doesn't really step out of the box, and might be a built to safe, the film was excellently cast, and the cinematography is so well done that you forget that you really don't understand what's happening. Jackie swung the ball out of the ball park in this one! B 9/1/13

The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones

Oh. My. God. And I thought this year at the movies couldn't get any worse after the successes of Despicable Me 2 and Pacific Rim, both of which I gave my best film ratings this year to. But unfortunately after viewing this film, I can't imagine any film other than 1 star film that would be worse than this garbage. I absolutely hated this film. Not as much as "Texas Chainsaw", but about equally with "The Host". To be honest I went in with low expectations to begin with. This for me from the look of the trailers just didn't look like anything I'd wanna see in theaters. This film was complete garbage. You wanna know why I went? Cause I was asked to see it by somebody for a birthday present. I just didn't care for this. And by the look of the rotten tomatoes rating (13%) other critics didn't like it either. I also admit I didn't read the book this film is based on before seeing the movie. I decided to read the book afterward, and now after seeing how bad this was, I think I'll just skip it and read another book worth my time. Okay sense we have so many horrible things to talk about with this film, I think I'll start with a little switch up, and begin this review with the good things, which are few, actually there are only 3. So let's get on with it and say the only things I liked were the sets, costumes, music, oh wait and one more... The chemistry between the leads. Yeah 4 I mean. Okay so anyway, the sets were actually pretty well created. I loved the set built for the City of Bones. That was an excellent set. As well as the different Chambers and all that. It was all magically created and eye catching. I just ate it up while it lasted. The costumes I have got to say were amazing in design. They looked gorgeous. I mostly enjoyed the costumes worn by Lily Collins. They were... well sexy and fit her role in whatever scene she was doing. I loved the music. If there was one thing I actually really liked about Mortal Instruments, it would have to be this. I actually liked the music. It was catchy and original, and fit the scenes perfectly. They all rang stylish, Ancient, modern film. I don't know how to explain it but I loved it that's all I can say, is that I loved it. Like for instance, the opening song, I thought it really got me interested. I really do. That got me thinking this was going to be something good, which it obviously wasn't but still. Now, I have gotta say I thought the chemistry between Lily Collins and Jamie Campbell Bower is definitely there. I think the romantic scenes in the film were well executed, while I felt abit forced I still felt they were well enough done. The reason why that is the leads were able to make it seem like they actually loved each other and I liked it. They were well matched. While I do wish Alex Pettyfier was the lead in this one (Who doesn't want Alex Pettyfier in the lead of a teen romantic film these days?) I still think that the two actors were well paired and made the scenes look steamy and nail biting. So a pat on the back for those two. Well now onto our long list of things that I felt wrong with The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones. Get ready for a long ride to come so buckle up and prepared for lift off with these issues including the dialogue, script, supporting cast, plot, character development, length, makes no sense at all, unoriginal, weak villain, and to finish this long list off... The weak Special Effects. I have gotta say the dialogue is so cheesy and unoriginal, it makes me laugh. I mean they basically say the whole plot while there talking, and it isn't a long conversation. It's all bla-bla-bla, "You're a Mundane" bla-bla-bla "No you're not a Mundane". And you know what it goes on forever and ever and ever. The same cheesy crap. I swear I can't take it. It's all cheesy lines, from previous films. It's so stupid. The script basically goes with the dialogue. It's unoriginal, it's stupid, it's lazy, it borrows so much from other movies, that it's totally a rip off. I swear, if you want to see 50 movies in a short time, see Mortal Instruments. That'll help you save your cash. The supporting cast is terribly, not supportive. Kevin Zegers was excellently cast but was given such minimal screen time that his character is basically worthless. I love the actor, and I love the different approach they are taking on the character but my god why can't he be in it more! All the other supporting actors are worthless. I don't even get what Jared Harris is doing in this. His character is worthless and not supportive at all. The supporting cast is mostly a misfire. Nobody's really where they should be at the right time. So basically what I'm saying is that the supporting cast is worthless, and it's up to the leads, Lily Collins, and Jamie Campbell Bower to carry the whole film with no help, which begins to fail slowly and slowly. The plot is mediocre at best. I mean if you're a person (like me) who has yet to read the book you'd have no idea what's going on. I mean it's so confusing, they never tell you anything about shadow hunters and that. It's like... Whaaaaaaat. Anyhow, the characters are so thinly written that, we basically understand zip about any of them, by the end of the movie, such as let's say Magnus Bane and our supposed Villain who makes little appearances till he last hour. I don't understand anything about Magnus, and as for our villain, Valentine, I don't even know where to start with that character. The two characters that really bugged me because of such lack of development have gotta be Isabelle Lightwood, and Hodge Starkweather. I mean we know zip about one of the shadow hunters, Isabelle, and her relationship with her brother, Alec. She just appears. That's all I can say, because I know nothing about her by the end of the film it's like. OK THAN. And as for Hodge, well I think I already talked about this but Jared Harries basically has nothing for his character to do threw out the movie but stalk our lead in the library room and have worthless chats with her, until stealing the cup for Valentine (Why? I really don't know). That character should have been cut for pacing and length. That brings me onto another subject which is the length of the film. I love long movies, I really do, and that's when I know that the movie has something more to tell. This film was 2 Hours and 10 Minutes. I mean this should have been shorter. The characters really have nothing to do throughout the film. I wish parts of this film were cut. Such as for example, the vampire scene which was about 20 minutes. Why was it necessary? It wasn't it was just there to keep everyone awake for a couple minutes instead of asleep from boredom because of the lack of anything to do. And what's up with Simon, getting bit by a vampire? Was that necessary? No. Well maybe in a sequel which I'm sure won't happen due to the fact this is going to bomb, Beautiful Creatures style. It's all just uh. Too long for me to sit through I couldn't enjoy this. I already talked about why this made no sense so let's move on shall we? This is the most unoriginal film I have seen. This borrows from particularly every film out. I mean they even tip a hat to Spider Man for heavens sack. The lines are all taken from a various lot of films. This sickened me. It made me think isn't there something new that could be brought to the table. Anyway let's get on with this and move next to the villain. The villain whose name I actually kinda find fit for a wicked villain. Well anyway the villain is named Valentine (I know, I know this surprises you all), and he doesn't really get major screen time till the last hour and that still isn't enough. The villain is weak, because he just doesn't seem scary. He doesn't seem like a villain at all. He's just a joke. A big joke that's all e is. Oh so apparently he's all big and bad. Well where is all of that? Because the funny thing was I couldn't see anything bad about him. Oh wow, he can do sword play, oh wow, he comes up with a bunch of one liners. Oh freaking wow. The villain was just not what I was expecting. I had high hopes for the villain and he failed me greatly. My last issue with the film is the special effects. The special effects just don't seem finished. They look cheap and fake and that the best way I can describe them. The animation is horrible, mostly for the scene involving the dog turning into a creature beat. Man was that unrealistic and cheap looking! I was disappointed by that due to 2 things. One, they had a year to create and finish the visuals. And two there aren't a lot of things needed to use special effects and animation for so come on. 4 or 5 scenes and this is what we get? Give me a break. Well All an All this was a disaster. I mean "The Host" sized disaster. This was pretty bad. And when a teen sci-fi romance film gets a lower rating than that of "Twilight" you know that the film is bad. The film suffers due to unoriginality and while Lily Collins tries to make this a good film she's over whelmed by the poor treatment this film was given. When I watch this I feel like I'm watching 10 different movies in one. I just hated this film and even Diehard fans will find this a bit under-whelming as well. D-

P.S: Next in a string of Teen Sci-Fi Romances films we have The Maze Runner, The Hunger Games: Catching Fire, Vampire Academy: Blood Sisters (A film that reminds me a lot of this sadly), Ender's Game, The Giver, Fifty Shades of Grey, and finally Divergent, a film I have high expectations for. We'll see if any of these make the cut and which ones fall into the dull, Host, Mortal Instrument genre. 8/24/13

Les Misérables

Les Miserable's a film that I wanted to see when the trailers were airing on TV but then in January they stopped and I kinda forgot about this film, to be honest. But then I was surfing the internet for the latest casting update, and I found a young boy, Daniel Huttlestone's name, saying he's been cast in "Into the Woods" so I decided to look him up, then I looked at his resume and I found but a single title. Les Miserable's. I decided to order it on Netflix at the top of my queue and check it out. Man, I was kinda worried about this. I'm not very much into the musical genre so I kinda was worried about whether or not I'd be able to sit through what has been described as a lengthy opera. And as such I braved into this not thinking as to whether or not I'd like it, and at the end of the movie, I turned off my television and went to bed, not thinking about what I thought about the film until now. I finally decided this was good, above average for the musical genre, and all of you probably agree with me. As the reviews for this film are pretty solid. Well anyway onto the review. The negatives for this film are the length of music, length, so many characters, plot, Amanda Seyfried , and the 3rd Act. Now, I know this doesn't really make sense, but I found the music a little lengthy. I felt that the actors sang each song for about 5 minutes per, and as such I felt this too long. I started to really lose interest in the song after about 3 and a half minutes. I mean how long can you sit there listening to a person sing the song over and over again for 5 minutes? I can't do it. I just can't. Don't get me wrong the songs were excellent and were sung perfectly it's just was they could have been less lengthy. Now altogether I felt this film a bit too long overall. I felt that besides cutting down the length of the songs sung, I also felt that some scenes weren't necessary and made the film's length altogether Unbearable for a 2 hour movie. I mean I love long movies, but this is a musical and musicals shouldn't last longer than 1 Hour and 40 Minutes. I mean I felt that they added many un-necessary characters (I'll address that later) and dialogue that could have been cut. For example, I felt instead of having a scene involving the priest they could have simply shown him doing something similar which would have allowed for fewer lengthy songs. Another issue with this film is its many characters. There are simply too many characters in this film to comprehend. Half of these characters should have been cut, including that of the priest and a dozen others. There was so much going on that half of the characters seemed to lack development due to the large quantity of characters. There are way too many characters, and many were un-necessary. I just couldn't comprehend it all. The plot is of good and of bad, and the bad, is that with all the singing the plot becomes muddled. The film is full of more songs then of plot. Nothing really makes much sense. All these characters singing different stuff and I just couldn't find this films plot anything original. The plot is a man chases after another man for years who raises a child (Catch Me If You Can Anyone?). It's really a game of cat and mouse which we've viewed many times before, and it's all just bla-bla-bla. Oh my gosh if there's anyone who's least wanted in the cast I'd have to cast my vote on Amanda Seyfield. While I find her acting in most films average and ok, for this film I just think she was miscast. I mean I felt that there is a relatively unknown actress out there that could sing and act better together than her. I mean I can't hate on her for everything, as it's probably the script writers fault for not giving her a good amount of screen-time to develop her character but Jeesh. She did a miss performance. My final complaint is with the third act, which for me began after Hugh Jackman's Character and a young Celeste, played by the talented young actress Isabelle Allen (who's as an adult is played by Amanda Seyfield) find themselves hiding undercover for another 9 years. I don't know, it's just for me the third act wasn't as strong as the first and second ones. I felt they introduced way to many characters in the third act, and bombarded us with sub-plots to the main plot. The third act for me was confusing and absurd, as to the very quick and very ridicules love at first eye site. That was a very stupid sub-plot, which I hated. Well onto the good stuff with this film including, the cast, acting, costumes, music, music, set pieces, plot, special effects, and character development for the leads. The cast is excellent! All except for Amanda Seyfield fit their roles perfectly. While I feel Russell Crowe didn't put in as much effort as he did I Gladiator and could have been replaced, I still feel he tried his hardest. The best of the lot, which is a lot in fact, has got to be Hugh Jackman, Sacha Baron Cohen, Isabelle Allen, and Samantha Barks. While I fell everyone did excellent jobs, these I felt gave the most outstanding and memorable performances. Hugh Jackman, who I always find excellent in every film he does puts loads of emotions into his characters and makes him a thrill to watch. Hugh makes you feel the characters motivation, and Hugh's singing. Unbelievable perfect. Uh gosh I never thought I'd love anything from Sacha Baron Cohen, but I now do. His performances made me laugh and he gave a very splendid and unique performance. I loved his acting skills in this role, and feel he was made for that role. Oh, young Isabelle Allen. Her performance was heartfelt and very emotional. I loved her little heart to death. Her singing was excellent and you really just wanna hug her. Her acting is decent and she just really made the character look innocent. You know, I feel that she should audition for the role of the young version of Cinderella in a bit part from the 2015 Cinderella because she'd ace it. And finally I welcome newcomer Samantha Barks, who had no previous acting experience in film except for theater. She was perfect. You felt her pain, and anger, a jealousy. Her character comes to a very poor end and she never gets what she wants more than anything, the love of a man she knows will never feel that way for her. Her performance was great, and I felt she was perfectly cast. The costumes for the film are excellent. I mean and I'm not joking. I loved Sacha Baron Cohen's character's costume. Man that wig thing and hair were excellent and his costume very realistic. You feel that he characters are from that time period because of the look of their costumes which were excellently created. The music is great. I loved the original songs which I felt were perfectly sung and very moving. There is this one song in particular I can't forget and it's one that Anne Hathaway sung, and was "I Dreamed a Dream". I just felt that song in particular was more loving and self telling then all the others. I can't and won't forget that one. The set pieces are excellent. Everything looks like it should and the rifles, excellent. The plot as I said is good and bad, and the reason why it's good, is because everyone can relate to this telling of a man on a run. It has the same idea but it's just different and people just except it as that. People will forget about what the plot is in all the excellent music. The special effects are but one I can remember the opening. I man I loved the opening with the men pulling the ship in. That was excellently and believably shot. I loved that moment as well as the snow falling down on Russell Crowes character. Those were excellent shots. The character development on the leads was excellent, the writers spent a lot of time developing the main 3 or 4 characters and left everyone else to fight for their own characters. The best of the character developing has to be Anne Hathaway's and Hugh Jackman's characters. You get all their feelings, and there past lives. It's just like you know those characters. You know them and know what they're thinking and saying. Well All an All, this musical may be a bit lengthy in stuff and maybe a bit lacking in plot and a weak 3rd Act, but it's all saved by excellent acting, and cast, as well as costumes, and the music. This film is emotional to the bone and has very great character development of its leads. Everyone can relate to this film somehow. B

Pacific Rim
Pacific Rim(2013)

"Today we are canceling the apocalypse". One of the many one liners this film had. I enjoyed this, and I knew I would. The trailers showcased robots fighting monsters and b then three films came to mind. Godzilla, Real Steel, and Transformers. And it does actually resemble all of those. I read a few reviews for the film and was sold, as they were all mostly positive reviews so I went and saw this. I mostly enjoyed this for all its worth but I still had issues which I'll share with you know; the problems were the plot, character development, and Ron Pearlman. The main issue with this film is the plot. The plot is nothing really. Just a mix bag of fights, and talking about fighting. No plot. It irritated me, because I just didn't get it. I didn't get the plot at all. Theirs monsters all over the world and now only for robot things to fight them somehow. There's a scientist who goes inside a monsters brain and then has to hide as they search for him, the monsters that is, and bla bla bla, Ron Pearlman cameo, bla bla, Robot vs. Monster fight again, bla bla the end. Yep that's the entire plot. No, plot at all only fights. It's pretty sad and well uh. The character development is very poor as well. Charlie Day's character is as far as we know a scientist, who likes the monsters, and Idris Elba was a monster fighting robot operator but stopped after getting a never ending nose bleed, and Ron Pearlman is a black market monster parts guy? Plus we get a lead actor who all we know is that he lost his basically twin brother in a fight with the monsters. How did he get drafted into the monster fighting robot men guys group? How? Did he have a love interest? We don't know anything. My final issues are with Ron Pearlman. Ron Pearlman who I think was excellent as Hellboy in Hellboy 1 and 2, but this time he just feels un-necessary in the film and very much annoying. Ron Pearlman's character didn't need to be in this film, and neither did Ron Pearlman. Ron's acting is horrible, and I hated everything about his character, I hated his screen time with Charlie Day who I did enjoy. I hated his character all together. The good things with this film include the acting, cast, animation, visual effects, music, lighting, attention to details, and entertainment value. The acting is just fine for me. This might be considered debatable, as I have heard that's some people found the acting average, as did my father who attended the screening with me thought."The Chinese girl's acting was terrible" my father said, which I don't agree with, because he acting for me was excellent scents she was foreign, and I was able to understand her English, which is good. Her acting was good and so was Charlie Hunnam, whose acting has been poorly received but I found it great. The major cast members include Charlie Day and Idris Elba. I love Charlie Day. I always have loved his acting. It's excellent. This film is serious most of the time so Charlie provides us with the comical relief we need. His voice work in Monsters University earned him praise from me and his acting in this is earning him praise from me. He's one of my current favorite actors, for his acting ability. He could play a realistic version of a scientist as well surprisingly. Idris Elba is also a powerful cast member. I viewed him in June 2012's "Prometheus" and loved his realistic portrayed of a captain of a group. Idris Elba was excellent as the lead of a resistance against the monsters. He's an excellent actor and portrays the character realistically. The animation for the robots and monsters are excellently done. It's all beautifully rendered and very sharp and realistic to the point I just loved it. The water was rendered beautifully realistically and everything was just perfect animation wise. The visuals are the same word as animation and it was perfectly done. The music was engaging and very fit in the scenes they were in. The fight sequences with the monsters and the robots had perfect musical scores. They were engaging and original, and very load too. Now another controversial thing with this film is the lighting, which people found poor and too dark to see the fights and that. I have to disagree. I saw the fights excellently with the street of china filled with glowing colors and the monsters mouths filled with blue lighting. It's impossible not to see what's going on, because everything that's happening is filled with lights. It was beautiful. This film has loads of details in the film. The animators and staff detailed everything from the water to the teeth of the monsters and the hands of the robots. Everything is well detailed and just so realistic to look at its amazing. This film is very much entertaining to watch. The fights are well staged and exciting till the end of each one, the lights are colorful and entertaining to look at, and the leads keep your attention from start to finish. You could spend ten minutes just looking at a scene featuring the robots, it's just so cool and amazing to look at, and so dang realistic looking. This is the film for fan boys and young teens and boys. Now as for the entertainment values for women I have none. Women and girls will most likely not enjoy watching this film, but men and teenage boys will. This is like what every boy dreams of. It's got everything to entertain the minds of kids for 2 hours. This is the movie to let the kids watch for 2 hours while you have some down time to yourself, it will keep their attention I will say that. All an All this is a film with no plot at all but is so entertaining and fun and cool to look at that you really don't care all you want is more fights, cause of the excellent visuals. B 7/13/13

Despicable Me 2

The minions are back for the 2nd time! I remember seeing Despicable Me in theaters, back in July 2010. That was a long time ago. I have to admit I was a little disappointed by the film when I first watched the trailers, cause I felt that they were gonna over use the minions and spend less time on the human characters, including Gru. They didn't which surprised me but I was happy that they didn't over use them. The minions. I love em, they cranked out a few of the jokes, and while the jokes don't come out as many as you would wish this film still gives out a few decent jokes. I've only seen 3 animated films of this year out of 5 that have been released, and this is by far my favorite. Also I tip my hat off to the trailer creators who gave us minions, and no story, which helped keep what would happen in the movie a mystery, even though I was angry at not seeing any footage from the film till March 2013, I was still happy. Let's start with what's wrong with this film which includes the jokes, plot, and villain. The jokes as I explained earlier don't come flying out and we only get a few at a time, which is but a miner issue to note. I still found the film funny in the most parts. The plot has got to be the weak spot in the film. The plots simple, too simple to follow. I get that this is a children's movie but please why not make it a little trickier to follow, because I started to get bored by the overly simple plot that barely grabbed my father's attention who attended the movies with me. The major issue is the villain. The voice acting for the villain is excellent and the character himself, it's just they didn't make him a very good villain. I have to say this is a weaker villain than from the previous movie, believe it or not. If they showed more of his scary and macho ness, he would make for a less tamed villain, but he's not and it really makes his character kiddie appropriate. It's really disappointing because he seems pretty cool with the shark and the grenade but not after that short 5 minutes. Well after that short bad moments let's get on with the many good things with this film, which includes the voice cast, animation, characters, minions, music, script, switch of voice actors. The voice cast is excellent! Steve Carrel truly knows what he's doing as Gru, and his voice acting is excellent! Kristen Wiig who was excellent in the first film as Mrs. Hattie, is back and bubbly as Lucy Wilde. She was excellent. Ken Jeung and Russell Brand are excellent too. The big additions to the cast include Steve Coogan as Silas Ramsbottom, whose voice is very convincing and excellent and finally the best of the newbie's and the second best of the cast behind Steve Carrel, is Benjamin Bratt as the incredibly tame villain, Eduardo/El Macho. Originally Al Pacino was cast as the voice of the character and had recorded all of his lines and animation for the character was already complete too, he stepped out because of creative differences on how the character should go. I was upset at first due to being a fan of Pacino, and I still am, but I have got to say congratulations to Benjamin who was able to easily voice the character and his hard work as he had a week or two I believe too record his lines because the movie was going to be released in two months. Bratt did an excellent job as the character and I couldn't think of anyone who could have done it any better. Top notch voice work from him. The animation is excellent! I loved the animation done on the mall and characters; while cartoony it's excellent and sharp. A beautifully film to watch, while he Monsters University film I felt had better animation this comes close to it! And better yet they used less money to create the excellent animation costing the most amount of money Illumination has ever spent on making an animated film which is 76-79 million that's not bad. The characters are great! Lucy Wilde is funny and yet annoying at times a heartwarming character that I truly enjoyed watching. Floyd Eaggleson is also funny. The little wig making Chinese man is besides excellently voiced, is excellently funny and while his role is small, he is still one of my favorites. I've already talked about the minions, but I think another word or too will do it. I think the minions are perfect; they are funny and my favorites. The music is while not as memorable as the first films soundtrack is still excellent! You have to love the "Despicable Me" song. I loved it! I was fairly disappointed that this film didn't include the song from the trailers, which played while Lucy kidnapped Gru. But oh well you know, it's just to catch people attention. The script includes loads of excellent dialogue that we get from El Macho and others. A few clever one liners and things like that, some dialogue that mimics other things and stuff. Now I already talked about this but I have decided that all of Benjamin Bratt's hard work deserves more recognizing and praise as he truly was excellent. He worked hard to match the mouth movements for the animated character and matched it perfectly! An excellent cast member. All an All Despicable Me 2, is not better than the first film and is more tame, and less enjoyable for adult audiences then the first film but still manages to contain the magic with an excellent voice cast, excellent colorful characters and those loveably funny minions. B+

P.S we will see in December 2014 a spin off featuring the Minions solely. I'm not interested but we'll see. Are too many minions, too much? We'll know in December 2014. Expect another Despicable Me movie because of the excellent box office performance as well. 7/13/13

Identity Thief

Identity Thief! It sure does bring out the awareness, about your identities being stolen. When I first saw the trailer back in January I thought this was going to be very funny, and while it was funny, it's not that funny. Melissa McCarthy didn't look like Melissa, which was neat. I was disappointed at how the film failed to make the best of its actors, and ideas. The film doesn't really give out that many good jokes. Well anyway let's start off this review with the negatives, which include the jokes, script, sub-plot, supporting cast, miss - use of actors, and dragging. This film is just not funny. You'd think that with Melissa McCarthy, break through actress from Bridesmaid, could make this film a truly funny film, which was said to be proven when the very funny trailer premiered, well most of the sole jokes were in the trailer. Jason Bateman is a wooden stick, that if used right could be a comedic relief, but most of the time he wasn't, and he appeared as a thin, anti-funny person. I am sad to admit this but this is just not funny, and should have been funnier, and could a been too. The script started out decent but started to get bland as soon as we meet Marisol and Julian. It kinda gets boring and insulting as well. Nothing really works in the middle. We have an idiot tracker who kidnaps the fat lady, whose real name we don't know till the end, but everyone just calls her Diana. What we receive is a pretty gloomy, middle with very little jokes, except for one moment in which Diana sings tunes from songs in a car. The sub - plot with the tracker, and the two people going after Diana. It's pretty dumb, and boring, and I really wished to fast forward threw those parts as the characters are not that important to the film, and they appear pretty randomly threw out the movie. The supporting cast, really don't help the movie and the worst examples include Jon Favreau as the UN - necessary and UN - funny boss of Jason Bateman's character. Jon, just didn't belong in the film, he should stick to his Elf and Iron Man roles. And Robert Patrick as the bounty hunter, well he's just plain annoying. I hated the actor, and his acting, and I hated his screen time. This film miss uses its cast. Melissa McCarthy, is given very little funny dialogue, and Jason Bateman isn't made fun of enough. John Cho is an excellent cast member not seen enough at the beginning! This film drags a lot, during the middle section of this film. The film can't come to decide what to do and often bores while trying to decide what to do with its self. The positives for this film include the leads, make up, message, music, and the plot. The leads are excellent! Jason Bateman is the hardworking, family man, whose identity is stolen, and Melissa McCarthy is the tough and funky identity thief. Melissa McCarthy is very funny and energetic in her role, and while she doesn't share much comedy with Jason Bateman, she still is able to pull off one or two, and Jason Bateman's character is a truly good dude, and a person who provides for his family whose life turns upside down. The makeup is excellent, and Melissa looks very - not her actually, and she looks instead like Diana. Very detailed her and make up, and she looks colorful and ugly. The film's message is a big deal. The message is this, don't trust anyone. And that you can lose your job, most of your money, be warranted for jail, and have no car. So the message, while spread out wacky like is still strong and legit in a stupid way. The music is funky and fun to hear. It is original and just lively. The plot is original, well sort of; it has the same formulaic, capture and road trip kind of deal with it but it also is supported by having a crazy lady and a guy who goes to get his Identity back. It's a plot I hadn't heard of before watching this. All an All this film is few in jokes that work, and drags but Melissa is funny, and the music fun, making this not so much un enjoyable. C- 7/7/13

Beautiful Creatures

I read Beautiful Creatures, as a book, back in September 2012. I found it intriguing, and fine, not great, but fine all the same. And I was very excited to see this film. I was even planning on seeing it open night but my plans changed, and I didn't see it till it came to Netflix, and traveled its way to my mailbox this June night. After previously viewing "The Host" and "The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 2" I was a little worried, watching this film, that it would turn into one of those films, which I definitely didn't want. After viewing the trailer back in September, I found myself irritated by the southern accents, which actually, when you watch the movie aren't that bad. Compared to the likes of Tom Hank's in "The Terminal" anyway. This film will do some harm to the book though. So I warn the book readers, who read the book to NOT view this film. It trails, deeply away from its source material, which made me mad of course. Well anyway, let's start with the dark, which include the character development, differences from the book, rushes the plot, and chemistry between the leads, flashback sequences, awkward moments, and the climax. This film feeds us little character development from anyone besides the two leads Ethan, and Lena. I mean I would have liked to see more screen-time for the character of Link (played by the excellent, Thomas Man) to develop. As well as the beautifully, sexy Ridley, to develop. Also Macon, Emily (whose story sadly was never concluded), Amma, and Aunt Del, and Larkin. All those excellent, book characters came to the screen almost disappeared, really. Plenty of the book characters never even made it to the screen, being axed from the book. These excellent characters were given way less screen time then they needed and deserved. It's disappointing. As I have talked about before the film was almost completely different from the book. For starters half of the characters never made it to the film, Larkin, instead of being a dark caster, is a light caster, Ethan's dad appears not once in the film, Amma, is the librarian, Macon, is not an Incubus, he is but a caster. Plus, half of the humanity from the book and love scenes that show Lena and Ethan, together falling in love are absent. And the ending is almost completely redone. It's a big disappointment. This film rushes its plot along as if it had been running late for a very important date. Instead of having Lena, and Ethan, slowly falling in love, they are rushed and fall for each other in days, it takes time, and it lost its cute romantic story, by rushing the love. I hated the flashback scenes, it just looked fake, something you see in a b rated documentary on the History channel. Ugg. This film includes a few un-necessary scenes. While I found the scene where Emma Thompson's character brings Alden's character brownies a powerfully acted scene, and creepy, I didn't find it necessary. The climax, oh the climax. The film, suggest threw out, that the choosing ceremony, for weather you'll be light or dark, seems to be a very edge of your seat scary thing, but what happens isn't what you had been waiting for threw out the film, or what the trailers suggest. I thought of Ridley's character, a complete badass, looking for a fight, but what we see at the end is a cowering mouse that runs away at the first sign of Lena, getting claimed. What the f***. Wow, like that's what I was waiting to see. And the evil Sarafine seems to promise, that she isn't going down without a completely epic battle, to the death, with magic, like in Harry Potter you know? Well what we see is a little talk of what love is, pain of course, Sarafine says. Then she gets taken out of Emma Thompson's body and disappears. Completely disappointed with that. I would have, liked to see Ridley get her butt beat by Lena, then watch a 5 minute battle with Sarafine, before she dies. Well anyways onto the lighter side of the story... The light stuff include, the costumes, cast, acting, chemistry, sets, opening, special effects, and the music. The costumes. Oh the costumes are beautiful. They are well detailed, and very much pretty to look at. I love Ridley's costumes the most. They are sexy to look at and make you just wanna look at em, and pause the movie. Aunt Del's costumes are also festinating. The cast is spot on. Young, and beautiful rising stars, Alice Englert, and Alden Ehrenreich are great as Lena and Ethan. Just how I pictured them looking. Viola Davis makes the perfect Amma. And Thomas Mann the best Link. The real other star studders and the third and fourth best cast (besides the leads) have got to be Emmy Rossum and Jeremy Irons. Emmy Rossum looks beautiful, and stunning as Ridley. And Jeremy makes the creepiest, shut in version of Macon possible. And of course Emma Thompson, Margo Martindale, and Zoey Deutch, are excellent too. The acting is good, not great but good. Emma Thompson has got to be the best out of the lot, on the acting part. She makes her evil character scary and creepy as well as a funny villain. She was probably the most into her role. Emmy Rossum also seemed to be having funny as the showy beautiful villain. She had style, and stole the screen. Alice Englert, and Alden Ehrenreich are excellent as the leads. They can pull of good chemistry with each other, and deepen their characters. The chemistry in this film is great as Alice and Alden, share greatly realistic looking attraction to each other. The settings were neat, and while they might be considered a rip off of Twilights location's I just don't think that way. The locations are beautiful. I love em. The opening is good, it's introducing Ethan's narrative, and he, himself. It starts fleshing out his opinions. It started out slowly well the first five minutes. It was good. Just him. It works well. The special effects I hear were mostly practical. And they were pretty neat too. Like when Lena and Ethan were in the theater and the smoke started pouring in, and the screen turned into a battlefield and no one but Ethan and Lena can see it, well it's pretty cool. Plus, when the glass shattered in the classroom, which was pretty cool to watch. And knowing that the glass sequence was real made it neat to watch even more. The music in this film is great. I loved the trailers song as well as a few others that were pretty nice to listen too. Well all an all Beautiful Creatures, isn't beautiful. It's one of the better films of the year and definitely better than Twilight and The Host, it's still cheesy, and could have been made better. Also I can think of at least a whole better movie, I think I shoulda directed this, thoughts? C+ 6/28/13

Escape From Planet Earth

We come in piece. This is the first animated movie from 2013 that I have watched. As well as this being the first animated movie off 2013, which was released. Well I don't know how to start this review. I can kinda tell you that this is sort of a "Planet 51" kinda take. It's different from Planet 51, but only in who goes to the other planet, as in alien goes to earth, instead of human goes to mars deal. Escape from Planet Earth, I never actually thought the movie was ever going to be released, I mean I've heard about it scent's 2010. That's a long time. I thought this movie was going to be shelved, which thankfully it wasn't. The movie was sold off to audiences as an actually funny movie, which according to me and my father (who viewed the movie with me) was a lie. This movie is not that funny. The only thing I found funny was in the trailer which showed the alien voiced by Craig Robinson, eating something and burping, which actually was a deleted scene. Talk about false advertisement. Well anyways let me do the honors by giving off the problems with the film, they include the voice cast, jokes, dialog alignment with characters mouths, plot, product advertisements, and characters. The voice cast. Wow, I never ever thought I'd criticize a freaking voice cast, but I did have issues with the voice cast, not everyone, just some. I mean everyone works, but I think the voice cast could have been chosen better. Ok, I mean this is something that gets me angry, you have really talented unknown voice actors, who would better perfect the characters but instead you pick up a bunch of random known actors who have NO idea how to voice act, and throw them into the movie. That's what I hate about it. Studios all ways do this. They think it will get people to see the movie, which it will but...... you know what I mean? I have no issues with Rob Corddry, Ricky Gervais, Steve Zahn, and William Shatner. But it's the random addition of actors like Craig Robinson, George Lopez (who isn't horrible, but could have been replaced), Jane Lynch (yes, I know I loved her in Wreck it Ralph but not in this), and Sofia Vergara. The others are all ok they are not perfect, and could have been replaced but I didn't feel they needed to be mentioned. Craig Robinson, as the alien, named Doc, who is a neat, small little mousey alien. I felt Craig didn't fit the small little, cared, furry ball that Doc, is. And George Lopez, who had previous voice work, could have been replaced as well. Jane Lynch, while her voice fit in well in "Wreck it Ralph", she doesn't sound right as an alien, and it's just comes out ridicules as alien IO. And as for Sofia Vergara, she is horrible as the alien love interest to Brendon Fresher's Scorch Supernova. Her voice is so ugly and bland, and uninteresting; it is like ahhh, whenever her character is on screen. This movie, from the trailer looks like a decent funny kid's movie, well it's not funny. At all. I never laughed once, during the movie. The only thing I think anyone would find funny is when the fat guy's towel is blow off, revealing his doddle and butt. But even that isn't that funny. My dad who watched with uncomfortable eyes kept a straight face threw out the movie, and my dad is the kind of guy who laughs at a lot of stuff. It's sad really. This is new too. I really had trouble with watching the movie because, the characters lips talked and shut and the dialog would come out right when the mouth is shut, and it's very distracting, and a sign of poor work, from the animators. That was annoying for me. This plot is a simple, - strong guy gets stuck somewhere, and weaker one has got to save him. It's a basic, kid friendly plot, which isn't always that good. I've seen that plot a million times over before. But little kids will love it. Man! I never thought a movie could feature so much product advertisement! I mean Escape from Planet Earth features a lot of product placement for 7 Eleven. I mean both aliens, end up landing and going near 7 Eleven and one walks on in and get's a slushy from two alien fanatics. I have no idea what this has to do with the movie but... ok? That was annoying. These characters are one dimensional basically. Almost every character is thinly written out, and has no back story, basically. It makes for a less spectacular journey. Now onto the good things this movie was able to pick up they include, the animation, and Rob Corddry. The animation in this film is beautifully rendered. I mean everything looks beautiful, I mean like the ship, that Scorch travels in at the beginning is beautiful. Everything is so well detailed, it's crazy. I mean the 7 Eleven is well done as well. Even the slurpee used in the film glimmers. The alien planet "Baab" looks magnificent! Everything is brightly colored and lit well; it's very cool to look at. That is something kids would enjoy. Lots of eye candy to look at. Very - Very beautiful. Rob Corddry. Man, that guy, was (for me) an excellent choice for the voice of Scorch Supernova's older, and over shadowed brother Gary Supernova. Rob, put an extra effort into molding Gary's voice, to perfection. Rob Corddry is an actor to lookout for cause he's excellent in almost every role he's in. He's a star to be! His voice is excellent. It adds flesh and tone to the character that is Gary. All in All, I know that I said a lot of bad things about this movie, but most of it is miner and is over shadowed. This film may be best for little kid's, and was made more to attract money than to attract decent rating, but it's not the worst animated movie out there now a days. C

The Last Stand

Man, Arnold Schwarzenegger is getting old! And believe it or not it shows! A lot. I don't know why I liked this movie so much, I really don't. This movie warrants a 2 and a half star rating yet I switched it to 3 and a half star review. I just liked this movie for no reason. It kept my attention span. Arnold, who is now I believe 60, and when he filmed this at 58, seems to be taking serious damage at every step he takes. Sadly, it might be time for this old man to hang in the towel soon. This film isn't that great, this movie isn't even good, it's bad, and really lame, and laughable but for some reason I liked it. Not because of Arnold, Arnold, hangs on to this film like a dirty towel basically. Well anyways let's get on with this review, let's start with the negatives. The negatives include the cast, plot, Arnold Schwarzenegger, action, music, character development, the acting, and screen time. O.K didn't I tell you that there's a lot to hate? Yes, I know this is going to cause a small controversy from my fans. Well anyways most of this cast are just very poorly chosen. While I love Arnold, I really think he should have been recast with someone like maybe Bruce Willis. Yes, I know I critically bombed Bruce, for Looper, but he wasn't right for that rule, I think he would have been perfect for this one though. And then we have Ms. Genesis Rodriguez, who was poorly cast, as well as comedian, Luis Guzman. For starters Luis just doesn't look serious enough to be a deputy. Well I can kinda see it but he doesn't seem right. And as for Genesis, how convincing can she seems as a cop? Not too much. This movie's plot is very weak, and a bit loose. This movie falls threw a couple plot holes. Such as having too villains and neither really having any reason to do anything. I mean the plot is a group of people must defend their small town from a lot of invading bad guys. Wow, plots now a days are getting really thin. How far this go / a guy can tries to get to Mexico and with the help of a dozen dudes with guns and his 100 mile per hour car a lover hostage he can do it! This is nothing we haven't seen another hundred times before. Arnold, Arnold, Arnold. Dude I think I have said enough about you, so let's move on. The action is very minimal, for a film that has little else to do then for explosions and action. The plot has nothing to do, it's so bored. I think they should have added more action, for the actors to do. Everybody just looks lazy in this film. The action is poor even when it happens, it's not well done and the action is 5 minutes in between each other. The music in this movie is very minimal, and not very well chosen. The music adds little to the action, and makes everything happening less exciting in my opinion. Man, why couldn't they pick up some of the soundtrack to Fast Five, and Rango and mash it up and turn it into "The Last Stand Soundtrack". Now that would be music to remember. But here we have a bunch of UN admirable music to add. Man one of the worst things with this movie is its character development. I mean i really just don't get any of the characters. I mean we have Johnny Knoxville as Lewis, and I really don't get who he is. All I know is that he has a museum and has a relic gun which he has named. I mean what? And also we have Frank Martinez, the villain who I really don't understand at all. Why, the heck is he in prison to begin with? I don't really get it. This film gives little screen time to the people involved including Johnny Knoxville's Lewis who we see only for about 20 minutes altogether, which gives us no time to develop his character as I have already talked about. Also they should have shortened, Peter Stormare's character, to add more time for the main villain to develop some more. And shorten Forest Whitaker's character so that we can have more time for Sheriff Ray Owens, played by Arnold, to develop. Now onto the positives with this film including, Rodrigo Santoro, ending, visuals, car stunts, and just that I liked it. Rodrigo, was excellent as this film's villain, even though he was given a very small time on camera he was excellent in all of it. He really can act like a villain. He scared the heck out of me, he did. He was very devilish. The ending was an epic car race between Arnold and Rodrigo's character; I felt that Rodrigo really had a chance of getting away until Arnold's Sheriff showed up at the bridge. The race and battle at the bridge were really suspenseful. I thought Arnold was going to kill him and the same for Rodrigo. The visuals were spot on as well. Even though there wasn't much visuals needed, when the car crashed into the polish vehicles it looked really good!!! The car stunts were epic, when Rodrigo's character crashed into the police car and flipped it over that was really cool. Believe it or not I just liked this movie. I know it doesn't justify why I would rate this 3 and a half stars, what with all the negatives with this movie. I just liked it and that's that. Everything I said is kinda miner for me. All in All, this is a pretty big disappointment, but I liked it anyways. Arnold is getting way to old and it dragged this movie down a lot maybe he should go back to politics or better yet - retire. D+

The Blue Umbrella

This has got to be one of my least favorite Disney Short's. The plot is way to weird, and formalic, and while the animation is half way decent it's way to long for comfort. Not one of the better shorts, i'm fairly disappointed with this one. C-

The Host
The Host(2013)

This film is better than i originally thought it to be, which was Twilight. Thank god it was no Twilight. At first thought it seemed to be Twilight well the first 20 minutes or so. This film is not that bad people. You gotta quite stereotyping films like this. You ruin their chances for sequels. And you chose Twilight over The Host- wow. Lets start out with whats wrong with the film before we get to the good stuff. OK lets see the first 20 minutes or so is weak, Chandler Canterbury, script, plot, and thats about it actually. OK for me the film didn't pick up speed until Melanie, or Wanda is found in the desert half dead. The beginning for me makes no sense and is quite unreal. Its all clichés and bla- bla- bla, and lame. I mean the beginning drags on with Melanie just being so bland and boring. And there is just nothing to like about the first 20-30 minutes. No real energy. Nothing to enjoy for people. Its just you meet this girl and the first thing she does is unrealistically punch a few people , and jump out of a window a few feet above concrete and what do you know she survives. How does that work? I don't get it. She would have been long sense dead. It just didn't spark my taste buds and probably anybody else's. I'm sorry but Chandler Canterbury, who plays the kid is just bad. He is such a bad actor. He is just so poor, and his acting is like so unreal, and he is like "oh hi there" and everyone else is like " shut- up kid, we don't like you". Its true he is such a tick. I usually try my best to enjoy kid performances, because they're young but with this one i just could not like. He is a bad actor, he rings fake all over himself. He is so like"i wish i didn't get this job". His haircut in the film is the worst, and i'm serious when i say it. He is so freaking ugly in this film. The lines in this film are very corny in the worst of ways, they are like bla bla bla, bla bla bla. Its like shut up everyone The liens seem like they came out of a trash can for a brain. Its horrible. I swear the script is so under develop and weak, with no new ideas. The plot was way under developed, and thought out. So you have these little alien things that can be put in your head and control you OK. Their is no real drama to be seen in this. The villain is not really a villain, more like a sad little girl. The idea is just romance that can't b. We've already seen that in lets see Twilight i think it was. Yes , nothing new is really brought to the plot. Its basically Twilight, but with aliens. Now onto the good things about this movie, which include the acting, cast,visual effects, scenery. I felt everyone except for the kid's acting were excellent. Saoirse Ronan's acting is as great as ever, as well as Diane Kruger, who makes her character feel vulnerable, and weak, yet scary, and leadership worthy, well until she turns crazy. Its all well he acting is the two lover boys, Max Irons, and Jake Abels were okay, but they were throw aways, basically. There to just make out with the lead girl, mostly. Yes, that was rude but it is the truth with these movies now adays. the cast is well picked for the rules. I can feel Saoirse Ronan as Wanda/Melonie. She was perfectly cast, and looks the part. And the small cameo by Emily Browning as the new Wanda was excellent. Even though she is ugly the actress in this film i can still see her as Wanda's new body, i seriously can. What an i say? All visual effects now adays are top notch a beautiful, while these are small additions they are still really good. I like when they are sealing up the kids wounds how it looks so realistic, yes i'm weird but come ion give me a break guys. Its all fair and good , and well detailed stuff. I also like the cave, and the scenery. The cave is so beautiful, and the desert so good. and the cities ruled by souls is really well made and the whole locations and that are just beautiful to look at for me. All an All, The Host is not a home run, while it is better then Twilight its not far off from it. D+

Dark Skies
Dark Skies(2013)

Dark Skies wow. I was expecting a little more actually. This has a sort of 80's movie vibe going for it. I was a little disappointed by it. While I felt it would probably be better than a few other recent horror movies, by bar level wasn't very high for it, and I proved correct. The premise seemed very simple, but yet the trailers kinda pulled me into the theaters to see this film. I enjoyed that Keri Russell was in this it kinda intrigued me even more. Congrats to the studio for pure spooky trailers. Now onto the review. The problems I had with the film are, the script, cast, ending, and the suspense level. The script is good, well fairly, but I don't really get what Daniel getting a new job has to do with the plot of the film. I mean we have so much wasted time in the script, with stuff that has nothing to do with the premise. This is of aliens, haunting the family. I don't get why they put a bunch of stuff that has nothing to do with this. I mean so we have the boy, Jesse and he's in this house and he's cupping this girls boob and then her kissing him for the first time. I mean what does that have to do with the premise? I know that it adds an emotional statues for Jesse, but I mean it literally should have been shortened to include just the two kissing, I really don't find the part where he's cupping her boob very appropriate for the movie subject. It would have been sweeter, and a sort of calming notion and to slow the pace, that the beginning had started to give the audience time to relax a little. Plus it's sad that the script spent very little time with J.k Simmons character. He stole the show. Well now onto the cast. I mean you have a few wonderful cast members and others more head ache prones. Well J.k Simmons was great as well as Keri Russell, and Kadan Rockett, as well as Dakota Goyo. But the problem with the cast is, Josh Hamilton, as Daniel, and L. J. Benet as Ratface or whatever they call him. Josh is just a headache. He has no idea what he's doing, and poor Keri has to do all the acting for him. He can't make anything realistic if it killed him. His acting is so wooden, that the only thing I liked about his time on screen was when he beat on the other actor I hated on screen, Ratface. L. J. is just plain old ugly, and his acting is even worse you can tell he's faking everything he says, and acts like he was rushed into a bus. Its ridicules! Now onto the ending. I really don't get it. It's set three months after the other ending. So Keri and the little boy are in his room when the little phone thingy goes off and starts saying who knows what. That's the thing that got me; I didn't understand anything it was saying. It was way too much jumbling and static. Well at least Keri understood it, because the viewers surely didn't. But what I did like about it is that Keri finds out that they wanted Jesse all along. That I found wrapped up the mystery. As I've mentioned is that the script added scenes that didn't really belong, which brought down the suspense level, of the movie. It did pretty well over all but the suspense went up and down way too much. Now to get onto the brighter side of the movie, which includes, cast, length, character development, scares, and suspense. The cast is included on both the worst and best. Because half the cast is great. Keri Russell and J.K Simmons are the high lights of the cast. Dakota Goyo is also good. Keri Russell picks up the slack from half of the cast. She adds much of the suspense, and she actually seems like she is enjoying every minute on set. She was excellent, and kept this movie from going to 2 stars. Keri Russell could not do everything you know, J.K Simmons also steamed up the late middle towards the end, with a horrorific performance. He freaking scared me to death, with his creepy kinda alien informer kinda cat dude. Loved him. Also overall the kid performers in this movie were a bit above bad too. They weren't great but with a little bit more acting classes and they'd be stars like Keri and J.k! The length is suited very well. I think they knew how to not make it too long, so as to not lose viewers. But not too short, as to include more chills. So that was well spot on! The character development was spot on for all the characters. You really feel for every character even the less well acted (Daniel, Ratface). I felt a lot for one character more so then others. That would be Jesse. I felt how much pressure he had on him, and that he was very emotional. I felt when he was happy; I felt his character so much that I cried at the end. While the tear was small it was still a tear! I never do that during most horror movies. I just don't feel anything for the characters in horror films except for them being another body bag to add to the pile. This film promises some really good scares, and I feel them. My arm hairs stood up when Daniel went into the room to check on Sammy, and Sammy had no eyes. It was scary as hell. And when the birds flew into the window, man that was an original fright, and unexpected actually. The part with J.K Simmons was also pretty spooky. The suspense level is good and bad. Bad, as I already explained, and good, because I felt the chills even to start. Even though the suspense went up and down it went up more than down for me. All an All this horror movie is smarter than the average horror film but not that higher up. C+


Beastly. Wow, I never that would be a movie title. Wow. But the title my dear readers, is not the problem with this film. Nope, we have actually worse things to tell about this film than its title. Well this film has issues, but anyways let's just get to the bad things with this film; they include the cast, acting, script, plot, and ending. This movie fails to cast a group of actors that actually want to be in this. I mean you go and look at Mary Kate - Olson and she looks like she would just love to get shot in the head rather than put on the costume's and wigs and be all witchy. I swear I can think of at least 10 other actress's that would have been way better and more excited in the rule then her. Alex Pettyfier is not a bad actor. It's just that while he's good in the role, he and Vanessa Morgan share no chemistry. Its way unrealistic. Zac Efron, however CAN share chemistry with Vanessa and make it believable. Alex, even though he's probably the best cast out of the lot, could have been replaced. It might have saved Vanessa, from suffering with poor acting. The script is very mediocre, and cheesy. I find all the lines un-inspired and repeated threw out the film. It's like the writers couldn't find anything for the actors to do except call Alex "ugly", and for him to say "she will never love me", and "I'm so hot, and I'm so ugly" it's like shut up we get it. None of it really works. It's all bland, bland, and bland. And product advertisement, product advertisement. That goes with the plot to. It's so UN - original. Okay, so I get it your trying to rip- off of "Beauty and the Beast" okay- okay. Now what's new here? Where does this story go? I mean I feel like I'm watching a darker version of Disney's Beauty and the Beast. So what do we have, that's new. Okay so we have a guy, a handsome guy, who knows he's handsome. Who pisses off a witch girl, and gets turned into a monster. And so he needs a girl to turn him back by falling in love with him, and bla bla bla. What's original about that? That's Beauty and the Beast, but with a less attractive title. The ending was so ugg. It was unsurprising let's say that. Alex ends up saying a very cheesy line from the cheesy script, the two falls for each other they hug, kiss. The end. Oh and the dad ends up getting the same thing his son got. Wow, I was so surprised by that very quick ending. Poor. Now onto the good things with this film which include, the make - up, opening, Alex Pettyfier, jokes, music. Okay so probably the highlight of the film is indeed the make - up. It is very well detailed, and very good eye candy. When I look at Alex's face after he turned into a ugly beastly character, he looked so neat. And while he looked d like a freak, he looked very well detailed. And realistic in the make - up. I loved it, I just love the different tattoos and silver scars on his face, and neck, and arms. It all works very well. The opening which was with Alex Pettyfier announcing how rich and beautiful, was very well acted, and even though the lines were very cheesy in that scene, and so very much absurd, it still was able to start the film out with the main idea on why he was so beastly, and it was just well a good introduction into the dastardly character Alex played. This leads me into my next topic which is about how Alex suited the role. While I think he should been replaced with Zac, he wasn't a poor choice for the role. He was very convincing as the self - centered jerky character that is Beastly. And very convincing I really liked him. The jokes in this film are very good. While the jokes were definitely not supposed to be in this film and were done by accident (apparently) this film did hold me over for those few jokes that snuck their way onto the scripts. And I loved em! I loved the opening music, which was catchy and got people's attention, Well All and All, this film is not a successful romantic film, and fails to become the classic "Beauty and the Beast' was, but with the help of a few detailed works, and a very attention grabbing trio, we don't have a miss either. C-


This film was really an interesting film to watch. And I mean it. When it was released back in September 2012, I had no such interest in watching it. For me the film just looked lame. I know you should never judge a book by its cover; I was just totally uninterested in this film. For starters it had that gangster's vibe going for it. And I just don't like gangster movies, for one and the fact that it involved killing people randomly, which I like, but this film kind of (for me) seemed to go over the edge and get a little too extreme. When I watched it, it had a very realistic and dark thing about it. What got me threw it all was the mesmerizing performances, by lead Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and supporters, Noah Segan and Emily Blunt. Okay so the issues with this film include Bruce Willis, length, and ending. Bruce Willis. The man behind Die Hard. I don't know what to say, the guy has lost it. He just can't act anymore, why he does it most likely now is to put food on the table. Whenever he's onscreen he just doesn't seem to be n it, he doesn't have the same momentum he used to have. The dude unlike Sylvester Stallone just can't do it anymore. He's given up trying. His scenes were very poorly acted. The length of this film is way too long. I can think of a couple of scenes that should have been cut, or shortened more. It's just way too unbearable. This film could have made for a decent Hour and a half film, but instead the people behind it added un- necessary additions to the film such as the half naked women in the bed scene, and the "kid blue" getting his knuckles cracked scene. Those were lengthy additions that made little difference to the story. The ending to this film was also a bit of a disappointment for me. It ended with Joseph Gordon-Levitt's character killing himself so that the crazy future him, Bruce Willis wouldn't kill the kid. It was a very poor ending. The kid should have just been killed and Levitt's character ending it by killing the future him. The kid was freaking nuts, and would end up being a ruthless killer. The kid killed people, he was already a lost cause, and Emily Blunt's character man was she a freaking air head. She should have killed the son. Heck with it, I would have, he was nuts. Well now to the good things. It includes the acting, special effects, and character development. The acting as I already explained was very good. Memorable you could say. Joseph Gordon-Levitt nails another role in the head. He is most likely one of the best actors of today. Every film I see him in is more un- forgettable then the last! He is excellent in his role, and adds depth to his character. And a few supporting cast members as I've already stated were excellent as well. The special effects, while minimal, are excellent and sharpened to the tip. The character development is by far the best thing. All of the character's back stories are told neatly and well. All of the character's had an emotional back story, and you felt something for each one, good and bad. You felt their issues and problems, big and small. Every character was proven to be realistic and had something about them that at least one person could relate to. All in All, Looper might not be a big success, but it puts its characters in the right place and just seems realistic, and emotional. C+

Star Trek Into Darkness

This review has been deleted 2 times, so i'm just going to start my review with the dang negatives, and say this film has been a slight disappointment based on the fact that it is one of my highly anticipated list of the year and my most anticipated film of the summer. Now i most say the negatives include, lack of tension, poor opening, lack of screen time for villain, and the length. Now to start this review off by saying that the film began with action, instead of starting off the same way the first film started, and starting off slow and building momentum leading up to action then starting over again. By starting with action, i was still trying to comprehend what the hell was going on, and when spock almost got killed, i should have been at the edge of my seat. Was i? No, i still was trying to understand what was happening. And the action never stopped, for a long enough chunk of time for me to feel tension, and emotion at what was happening, this film just didn't build up. I just was never able to feel anything during the spectacular action sequences. There was just to dang much. Thats why i criticize the opening, which featured Kirk running threw a forest of red trees. That scene should have been cut out of the film, or shortened, so we could include more story development, and more screen time for our villain,, which leads me into my next argument which is of the amount of screen presence of our villain. Our villain should have had alot more time on screen then he received he should have caused alot more destruction before fleeing to another planet and being captured by Kirk. I felt he was well enough characterized but he should have received more time to do his evil stunts, and to add to why he is a bad ass villain. As well as more screen time for Kirk and Spock interacting before space. This film should have been hobbit sized, and 3 Hours. That leads me into my complaint of the length. This film just had too short of a length too accommodate all of it's needed materials, as i have already explained to you all. I suggest cutting, or trimming the opening which featured Spock in a volcano, and Kirk running from wild animal creatures. This scene to me felt un - necessary. Now that we have discussed the issues of the film, lets move onto the positive side of the film. That includes the acting, casting of the villain, special effects, humor, screen- play, costumes, and direction. The acting in this film, is spot on. It's all very realistic and well toned. Zachary Quinto as Spock is once again excellently acted, and performed, i believe his seriousness and he is an emotional draw. Benedict Cumberbatch, is another splendid actor, who gave his soul to this film, he played a believable villain, and seemed very much sinister and scary. He is a very impressive villain, and one of the best actors of the now. Other actors to mention include newbie Alice Eve, and Chris Pine who both perform a bit above standards. The special effects of the film are spot on, and realistic too the point of believing they are really there. They make this film glimmer, and shine, and polish this beautiful film. This film is very humorous, which plays very well to this mostly serious film. This lightens the story and makes it less dark, and more fun to watch, which has worked very well with this particular film i must say. Now as for the screen play other then the lack of more screen time for the villain and some un necessary scenes, the script is pretty good ta making suitable lines for the film, this was pretty good, and was not cheesy at all. The costumes in this film are very original, and very well detailed to the point where they seem like they had come off of the actual t.v show. They were well designed , and pretty cool to look at for me, i want one. And finally, we close this with a dedicated thank you to the director, for bringing us another winner in the end- J.J Abrams. He has accomplished himself, as a very excellent director of science fiction films, and has earned a place with James Cameron and Steven Speilberg among my favorite directors. Without him helming this film, i think this film would have fell over and died just like that 2003 Hulk movie, which failed because of choosing the wrong director for the job, Ang Lee, while he is a fantastic director super hero films are not his thing and it shows in the film. Well All an All, Star Trek Into Darkness may not be anywhere close to being as good as the first film, it does make it into the fresh list, with the help of a solid addition to the cast, Benedict Cumberbatch, excellent visuals, and great direction this Star Trek sequel holds up to expectations. B

Oz the Great and Powerful

Oh where to begin. You know i heard that Johnny Depp was asked to play the role of Oscar Diggs. But he sadly left to do The Lone Rangers. I mean this film has work put into it and too everyone surprise i actually found this film better then "Alice in Wonderland" which i found stupid and spent to much time centered on Mad Hatter when the lead is Alice not Hatter. This film is turning out to be a success so we might see Malficent moved back to March 7th 2014. Because of the success of "Alice in Wonderland" and "Oz: The Great and the Powerful". Oz is another 2013 film that was not that good. Most of 2013's films have been pretty poor for me. The highlights that i've seen are "Hansel and Gretal: Witch Hunters" and "Warm Bodies". This film is ok too i guess. Now onto the bad things with the film. They include the cast, acting, script, make-up, Michelle Williamsand James Franco Chemistry, scenery,safeness. Ok so as i started this review i think they miss casted a coupple actors here. Including James Franco and Michelle Williams. James Franco is good in the role of Oz, but not nearly great and powerful as the films title suggest. I wouuld have rather have choosen Johnny Depp for the role as previously suggested, heck with "The Lone Ranger". James Franco just does not complete the wanted image. And that goes for Michelle Williams. She just looks weak for a witch i would have cast Rosie Huntington-Whiteley she would have been perfect for the role. I mean come on and that goes for Mila Kunis. She is great but she is not the only one i would think deserves the role, i would have went for Emma Stone. The casting is just really poor in this film none of these actors are great. The acting is a flip and toss. Half of the actors perform wonderfully, half not so much. The good half are the voice cast, Rachel Weisz , and even though i said he is not my pick for the role he still gave great effort James Franco. Mila Kunis is just well she's not horrible she is just not great in acting. She just was not in it. While she tried for the second half because she probably found the part of a green witch fun to play she was just bland as a good witch at the beginning she didn't try hard enough. And Michelle William she is just bla. I didn't like her much at all really she was just as the kids call it "lame" and "tame" in the role, she looks like a good pick for tinker bell in a peter pan movie just not a oz movie. The script is weak. The supporting characters like the animated Finley and China Girl are not given lots of attention and screen time. I liked them alot more then much of the live action characters. And Mila Kunis's character is not in alot of the film as a human which upsetted me. The lines are also pretty much one liners and cheeso's. I mean Finleys lines are good but everyone else mostly Oz's lines himself are pretty cheasy. The make- up for Mila Kunis's character is pretty unartistic, and unrealistic, as well as the old witch''s make up effects. The chemistry for Michelle Williams and James Franco's characters is pretty poor. They don't look at all like a good match which is a reason for the casting miss happenings. Its just sad really. The scenery as you know is all animated which is a mistake, because it makes the film look fake. Thats why they should have build sets and filmed on location instead of on a stage. It was just a sad move. The movie plays it way to safe for a movie like this, way to safe. You could have tryed to risk some scenes alittle. It was a movie that played by the rules. Now onto the good things which include the voice cast, animation, Zach Braff, entertainment, and beginning. The voice cast in this film is really good and they unlike the live action cast try and try to do well. They wer well cats and lively voiced actors. Zach Braff was perfectly cast as Finley the funnest character of the lot, and Joey King the 12 year old little girl was perfectly cast as China Girl, the brave little one who's very fragile.They put in the extra magic that made this film worth conntinuing to watch. Sadly they are not in it all as i hoped because they were the best of he lot. The animation is spectacular as always. Finley the monkey is great and well detailed in animation so is the flying bad monkeys, they too are well animated and detailed. The animation people put in lots of effert for the final character designs.The characters end up looking great. The film is entertaining enough, not wortyh the trip but the film is still opretty entertaining in its own way. The beginning of the film plays a homage to Wizard of Oz when it opens in black and white. The opening was wonderful, it was well acted, and perfect. I loved the openin g, it got me too think was the rest of the movie just as good? Well sorry kids it is not. All an All Oz: The Great and the Powerful is not so great and powerful. It's weak and not that good, it's ok but not great. C

Jack the Giant Slayer

This film is just one of those films where you know it's not going to be great but its not going to be horrible either, thats what i thought when i went in to the theater to view this film. I had previously heard about the film being pushed back almost a full year from its June 2012 release date. But it didn't make me think twice about going and seeing it. What i saw did not impress me a all, considering all the time the film had to be made perfect.This film had major issues and major successes thats why its 3 stars instead of 2 and a half which i was originally planning on giving this film.Ok now to start actually reviewing this film. The first things are the good things and they are the acting, cast, characters, comedy, story, and suspence. Ok to start with the acting. The acting in this film from the trailer seems cheesy and fake, but its not it is actually good. The best of the lot are Nicholas Hoult, Stanley Tucci (as always),and surprisingly Ian McShane. Nicholas Houltis on the verge of star status , for me that is, because it seems like this film is going to bomb at the box office. But never the less, he seems to always dig deep into his characters as shown in his performance as R, a zombie with a heart in Warm Bodies. This timehe digs deep to find his brave, farm boy self inside. He does well, he isjust one of those actors who actually can act well. And making it seem like its not acting , that it actually is a person, or monster. And Stanley Tucci, heck who does not always enjoy his fun performances!? I mean i gave him praise for his stand out performance in The Hunger Games, and The Devel Wears Prada. He just makes me laugh all the time he makes me like him, and hate him, depending on his roles. He can get me to feel him. Now for the last one Ian McShane does well surprisingly as the brave king, who instead ofbeing cowardly and hiding in the castle stands out to fight. He is wonderfully cast and acted in the film. And as for Ewan McGregor and Eleanor Tomlinson well they didn't stick out. Their actring was normal, same old , same old. It was not special nor horrible either. Now ontop the cast. This film as i said before has an excellent cast, of mostly unknowns. The Highlights are Bill Nighy as the voice of the lead giant, Fallon. He puts great effort into his characters and succeeds in becoming a tough leader like voice fore a giant. He was well chosen for the part. And Ewan McGregor and Nicholas Hoult were also well cast in their parts. Even though Ewan McGregor's acting was not anything special he is still the only one i can see playiong his part actually. And Nicholas Hoult, well he is epic, in the part of Jack. He is a genuine, brillent casting. I can think of knowone that could play Jack as good as he could. Now onto the characters. The characters are very good. Though few in characters i, tend to like some of the characters and would hate to see them die referring to Jack, and Elmont. Now not all of the characters are develpt that great, but i'll get onto it later on in this review. The jokes are really good, they are very funny (while childish i may add) these jokes are just super goofy and perfect for this film. The stroy is really interesting and original. I never thought about Jack ever slaying giants or them com ing down here to eat people, or a crown controlling them. They brought interesting ideas into this film.The suspence in this film is high. I was on the edge of my seat as the bean stalk fell, and when Isabelle almost got slabbed in the head. I was like OMG, it was really crazy, and when the first giant appeared and the water started moving it kinda gave a Jurassic Park vibe to it. Now with every good thing comes a bad thing and this film has a few which include the screen- play, ending, animation, lodgic, PG-13 rating, and running time. Ok so the screen -play as i previously stated is pretty much a weak script. I mean you have like the bald guy come over, look down and say "where , where" i'm like wtf, and then he gets pushed over the cliff and killed. Wow. That is not good. The script is just way weak, and it effected the poor ending. There is not alot of giants, which caused me to turn on the running time as an issue. It also effects the character develpment of the supporting characters like Ewen Bremner as Wicke, Ralph Brown as General Entin, and Eddie Marsan as Crawe. Those characters are given very little develpment and are killed off like nothing. Come on whats with that i mean i know nothing about them and feel nothing for them when they finally meet their poor deaths. The screen-play includes mostly poor writing, with a couple cheesy lines thrown in for effect. The endingin this film is horrible. The whole film leads up to whats surrposed to be an epic battle between giants and man kind, but all we get is a couple tree throwings and thats it before they are all heading back to the sky? What the heck , it is a big disappointment to me. trhe film ends with no battle or anything. The whole film leads up to something but fails to deliver anything at the end. The trailers promise a epic ending but the actual film gives us non of the above. The animation is um, not great but not horrible. There was not alot of differences between all of the giants except for Fumm, Fallon, and the giant with its hair standing up, all the others are just bald and tall, they just didn't spend much time to different one giant from another. The animation also to me looked way to cartoonish and not very relistic, they just used way to much animation on their giants, way to much, it was overloaded. This film is anything but logical. I mean when the humans and giants are playing tug a war the humans almost won. And it went on for nearly 10 minutes. I mean two think that these huge big giants can't take on the ant sized weak humans is crazy. That part really upset me. This film seems way to tame for a PG- 13 film. I mean they could have shown the people being eaten like Ewen Bremner's character, and shown alittle blood coming out, they didn't half to show tons but you know atleast show it. Don't have all the eatings happen off screen or so fast that we don't catch it. It makes me wonder what happenes to those characters. Wow PG- 13 ratings have become really strict. Almost all films now get R ratings. The running time is way to small for this film. It should have been around 2 and a half, 3 hours, people could make it i know it. The script could have added more giants, and a long battle sequence, and more character develpment. And youknow more small scenes like exploring the jungle in the giants world more and finding giant monsters , some fun if you will. All and All this film had its highs and lows. It was really difficult to come up with a proper rating too. And finally alittle more praise on the wonderful, Nicholas Hoult, who was the star of the show. C+

Texas Chainsaw

This film is one of the worst films i have seen in the past 3 years. This film is just, just a big waste bucket of a film. No wonder this is the first film to be released in 2013, its horrible. How can it even get a 19% on Rotten Tomatoes this film is just horrible. All it is , is a piece of gore, stitched together with a number of bodies, and horrible everything. God this film is just a waste. Yes, i know i am critical about most horror films , but you gotta believe me i try to see the best in them and i just can't see anything good in this film- nothing. There is nothing i liked about this film. It left me wanting my money and time back in the end. Ok now to talk about all the bad things this film has to offer the audience. Lets see.... Ok we have a weak story and script, plain and stupid characters, wooden acting, no scares, horrible ending, and horrible special effects . Ok now lets start with the weak story and script. The story here is basically this girl who brings some friends to this house and leatherface kills them all well at least thats the first 30 minutes then we have basically the surviving girl in the police station and getting kidnapped. Thats about it for the story. The script is bad it is, i mean every line each character delivers is just idiotic and cheesy. Its all like been there seen that. I mean i knew this film was going to be a B- Movie, but everyline? Give me a break. As you may know with a weak script and only a half an hour with the group of 20 year olds there would of course not be any character development. Its true the first character dies when he goes down to a basement then he dies , then another guy goes down there and he dies. That's basically the first 10 minutes of the film before we get 10 minutes break before we see the black guy crash the dang car and die. It's all very "yawn , yawn" boring. We don't learn anything about the characters before they are brutally cut in half. You don't really like the characters anyway they are mostly self centered. The acting in this film is just as bad its wooden, unbelievable. Yuck, the worst here is Shaun Sipos are, hitch hiker. His acting is just bla , bla , bla, you know what i mean? This film is surpposed to be a horror film, but i didn't even shiver during the death scenes. They didn't surpirise me, or scare me, it o me just looked like blood and gore, and cheap effects. It was lame. I just shrugged the horror scenes off as a joke, which it basically was, a poor old man joke. The ending in this film was just horrible, after her "cousin" leatherface kills all her friends including her boyfriend, and trying to kill her, she saved him and just killed the cop, and now lives with him. What the heck is wrong with this stupid girls brain. Hello? Your cousin is a seriel killer who wears really faces skitched together on his face, yet you love him? Oh god its just sick. The special effects in this film is just as cheesy and horrible as everything else. I mean is the stuff coming out of the fake bodies surpossed to be blood. Its so fake looking, did anyone try to make good gore. And the chinsaw is surpossed to fly threw the air at the police officer, ya right i can tell it's fake the CGI is horrible. All an All this film is a horrible film that's not even able to scare a 3 year old. This film is just yuck and a horrible start to 2013. F-

House at the End of the Street

I can't really understand this poor piece of film. I don't get it actually, what was the point in this film, it was a waste ofthe films talented star, I mean this film is just garbage. This film was filmed in like 2010, the only reason they even released this film in 2012 was because of Jennifer Lawrence's recent raise of fame, so they thought this flm could scope up plenty of cash. This film is just yuck. I mean this is surpose to be a horror but i didn't get scared once. This film truly is a modern example of a B- Movie. Ok, lets begin with the one good thing sents everything else is bad. Ok so the one good thing in here is... Elisabeth Shue. Ya i'm not talking about Jennifer Lawrence she sucked in this film i guess she didn't want to put an effort into acting in this film unlike her decent acting in The Hunger Games. Elisabeth Shue plays the mother of Jennifer Lawrence's character, she put in her best efforts into this film but as you can tell they were not enough, i mean do you think one person can make a good film- no, it takes most of the but for the most part everyone was probably sleeping or goofing off. Now onto all the bad things in this film. Including the wooden acting, script, cast,music,scares, and directors. Ok now except for Elisabeth Shue, everyone in the cast had very unbelievable and cheesy acting. Hated it. I mean come on am i suppose to believe this film? I don't think so its just so plain. The actors are rookies having little or no experience acting. Take Max Theriot for example the only other film he was in is My Soul to Take wow. Its just sad. Jennifer Lawrence acting in this film was so poor and just bla that i didn't even know it was her at first, i'm not kidding this was bad. The script is god horrible. I mean they had one scene in which the two main charactors are looking at a tree, and see a face- come on give me a break. And the script contains many cheesy lines yuck, man this script was just so under developed and cheesy to the point of throwing up, god i mean so this guy kidnaps girls and locks the up - wow have not hsaw that before, am i right jeesh so lame and unoriginal. The cast where just not right for the roles i mean Jennifer Lawrence- wtf come on they should have had like Jennifer Stone in the part not some 20 year old lady, and Max Theriot he is like 30 now come on give me a break, yes the guy can seem scary but please. The music in this film is just so little and produces no atmosphere like tension during horror scenes or any such atmosphere at all it is just wrong and very poor. This film is anything but scary, during horror scenes i just sat there and actually laughed at the poor horror quality. This film is just nothing and the directors are the major part of it. The two directors can't decide with each other what this film is, is it a horror, or a romance, or even a mystery, what is it? We will not know because of the worst directors ever made this film. All an All this film is a major disappointment, and i sit here surprised that not even Jennifer Lawrence helped the film reach anything. D-

Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters

Once again critics have just under estimated this film. Yes i know this film is not great but its pretty darn good. I admit walking into the theater i had low expectations about this film i really did sadly. I mean it did not look great from the trailers but i went in and came out happy that i skipped The Last Stand to see this.There were problems with the film i have to say but not many. I don't get how critics came down wand said this film is one star worthy and horrible crap. This film looks like Van Helsing and Abraham Lincoln : Vampire Hunter wait that sounds interesting hum the title is way similar to Hansel and Gretel : Witch Hunters. The problem is i hated Abraham Lincoln so now you see why i came in thinking this film was going to be bad. Yup. This is the first 2013 i have seen this year, and thank god the first film i saw was good. OK now onto the few bad stuff i had with this film. The few things were well the cheap look of the film, language, character development , the open scene, and the length. Ok so this film had a look i didn't like this film just looked cheap like a cheesy B movie which it was not but it just looked like it sadly which kinda took away the class and that with the film. Maybe if they spent more time with detail stuff would look less cheap and better like the candy house and the troll. The language in this film was unnecessary. I mean characters (mostly Hansel) says the F - Word as a joke i mean whats with that how can that be funny. He is all like F this and F that and F F F . It was not needed to make this film good it just was not. It made the film seem stupid like that it was just not needed. This films characters were under developed i mean we needed much more scenes with Edward the troll he was not in enough of the film so we don't learn a lot about him and the same goes for Hansel's love interest Mina plus the teen boy Ben. There was just not a lot of those three and sadly one of them we will never see again in upcoming sequels which i expect will happen due to a decent box office gross. If they don't make sequels we will never know what each of their stories are. But this film was made to set the stage for the oncoming films in the series which it did well enough. The opening scene which had the young Hansel and Gretel coming to the ginger bread house and burning the witch. Well the thing with this was it was just not right. I mean why would the kids just walk on into a strangers house, this part i think should have been at least 7 or 8 minutes longer to better set the stage for the older Hansel and Gretel. The opening was poorly written with little lines spoken and the witch could barely speak English it was just a poor opening. Onto the last thing i did not like which was the length of the film. This film was just too short for this story. this film is an hour and a half which is not enough. Maybe adding an extra half an hour would have been way better so they could extend the opening, add more scenes with Edward the troll, more scenes with Mina and Hansel together, and finally more scenes with Gretel and Ben together (not as a couple but you know what i mean) and well more scenes with Gretel period, sadly she was over shadowed by Hansel due to such a popular actor they had. So naturally she was left out in the rewrites. Ok now on to the good things which include the acting, cast, visuals, action, entertainment, plot, characters, and gore (R- rating) . Ok lets begin with the acting. This film was well acted including new talented actors which are Gemma Arterton , Famke Janssen , and Thomas Mann. Everyone acted excellent in this film you can tell everyone was having a great time doing this film. Which caused the acting to be really good, which surprised me actually. Everyone acted as if it were real and it made me feel like wow is this actually happening. The cast was really good. Everyone looked like their characters mostly the young Hansel and Gretel which really did look like the older versions of the characters. Which really got me thinking wow these people look just like the people in the book. Wow. That was very interesting. The visual effects are not award winning by no means but for only a budget of 50 million i think they did quite well with what they had actually. Which was very good. Like the troll looked cool and that and the flying bullet was cool and well detailed. The action is very good and well paced out we have story then action story then action then more action and story it is just interestingly fun and entering my next subject entertaining. This film is just a dumb fun entertaining film that will keep you at the edge of your seats screaming in excitement as Hansel and Gretel fight witches and that its just so much fun which is rare in a January film actually. The plot i hear has not received good reviews which i don't get whats so wrong with it, yes its simple but its all the same good , am i right even when i took my dad to see this he said the script was weak. Why? Its pretty good to me. The characters are good they are very interesting and they make you want to know more about them. They are characters that if they died you would cry, i am not lying these are good characters. The gore in this film is good, i know i usually go for less gore and a PG- 13 rating but i actually believe that the R Rating for this film made the film better then expected it really did i say so anyway. All an All critics under estimated this films potential. While this film is not a award winner it is still a really really good film. So check ti out in theater if you want to be entertained on a cold January day. B+

Sucker Punch
Sucker Punch(2011)

Yuck what a piece of mess this film was man did i hate this film it was completely the exact oposite of what i thought this film would be. This film is just bad. One of those trashy films that directors think will make money so they put it in a good month instead of January or September where this film should have been. This is on my Worst Films Of 2011 list by far it is probably in my top ten now it is just yuck. How could a Director with a good acting and visuals mess this film up? Well i'll tell you starting with the good to bad. With the two things listed above being the only good things that kept this film from completely taking number 1 as the years crapiest film of the year. Ok so the two good things include the acting, and the visuals. Ok so the acting was really decent but the actors just looked to pretty as action stars there acting was excellent but as said before its not convincing if you look like a model. The only actress that gains both points for her acting and looks is... The Rising Star Jena Malone. She looks just like an action star and she acts perfect while acouple others to note are Emily Browning and Abbie Cornish while neither look totally action star worthy ( Emily Browning the main problem in looks but great in acting) they act excellent, Emily Browningthe better of all of them she just does not look the part , she did try her best but she is just to sexy and hot. Some actress's including Jamie Chung are not given alot of screen time to act in the movie they are just not in the film enough for me to recomment them or highlight their acting sadly. And so we move on to our next and last good thing which is - The Visuals. Ok so the visuals are excellent probably the reason why the film got a Solid March release date instead of an end of January release date. I mean the visuals look fantastic, they are probably the main use of the budget actually. The visuals are not ground breacking but they do look magnificent and the 3D shots with the visual effects is pretty neat too. The visuals were well detailed as well with the creatures looking realistic in a cool and slightly desturbing way. Now on to the bad stuff people which include the script, the cast(i already talked about this so i will not say anything for it) the title (a rare catagory) the run time, the release date, the poster (also a rare catagory), the parts that are not action scenes, the director , and its sexist. Ok the script is by far one of the worst things to be included in this film, i mean the lines are stupid and one liner alot of times i mean god why did you give us this dreadful film that has little action scenes and takes place in a mental hospital a where women dance almost naked for men then the men pay for them and do it with themoh and girls are raped often. Yes that is the script and the action scenes take place when she is dancing for men Oh My God this films script sounds pretty stupid and dull to me and yes this film has alot of Sexist and Rape i hope you decide to skip the movie now its a waist of time which could be sent living and watching a good movie like The Hobbit which was amazing and actually good. Yuck !!! The Title for this film is just something horrible, thats why i decided to say something about it. I mean Sucker Punch wow its just stupid and has nothing to do with the film itself its just bad yuck i could have thought of a better title even my dog could have i swear!!! The run time for this film just dragges on and on i just can't handle it ,it is just way to long i now of some scenes that could have been cut to save time, alot of scenes actually to get the film to 1 hour and 20 minutes which i rarly support actually i usually critisise a film for being to short never for a film being to long but this film is just so dull and gloomy that it makes me want it to be shortened and thats saying something. The release date of the film was bad to i mean March 25th a solid release date and month no way nop don't waste the date on thi \s crap, instead give it a late January opening where i'm shere it will make decent money against a mostly weak month yet still stay away from the good months which are for good movies not this. The Poster for this film was just such a lie most of this film does not have any action yet the film is being marketed as the next expendables movie. Come on who are these players playing this is just like the poster for Bednobbs and Broomsticks where they advertised the film as almost all animated scenes yet the film features about 10 minutes of animated scenes at the end of the over long three hour film come on, the best scenes were the animated scenes any way so wow. All the parts in the film that take place in the mental house place are dull, boring, and the worst thing yet i pray for the awesome 20 minutes of action that takes place all throughout the film man this film is just so boring. I never liked Zack Snyder at all he is just a horrible excuss for a director and it just so happens he also wrote this films script which i hated as well his films are just made to make money and are as boring as can be i swear !!!! And this film besides Mulan and anoher film whcih title i forgot was sexist. Men abuse the women in this film attempt to rape, and hit women and shot them and do any horrible thing they can think of to the women in the mental house it just is not right. This film needs to get burned its horrible !!!!! No women should watch this mess andthis film should only be sold at a xxxx store not at walmart this film does not deserve walmart at all. All an All this film is just crap and i hate it and i wish it was never created !!!!!! F

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

Wow this film was a great rather long adventure, but its only the beginning, ha!!! This film unlike what everyone else is saying is trully a work of art. This film is sadly under estimated. Everyone is really just angry because they had to sit through a 3 hour film, but hey my motto is the longer the film is the more money its worth. Unlike the "Lord Of the Ring" series this film can be easily understood by people (like me) who have not read the book.I understand this movie might be alittle to much for everyone to like but if you clear your thoughts and just think to yourself "this is going to be the best", then it will be the best, but if you don't go in open minded you are going to find everything wrong with the film. Now on to the actual reviewing, i only have good news to review to you all. The good stuff includes the acting, cast, visual effects, length, costumes, new frame rate, and much much more. Ok the acting is excellent i loved it, the spotlight is on Martin Freeman,Richard Armitage, and Andy Serkis. Martin Freeman plays our funny little hobbit man in this jorney out of the three he is the best i loved him and his acting skills in the film, he put lots of effert into this film and he did well just as in Sherlock he is great in acting, and even though Andy Serkis is only in the film for about 20 minutes he uses his time wishly to make an impression on the audience , and he succeeds very well he is the most memerable acting of the three, and finally Richard Armitage, who gives a very realistic proformance, sorta a sad, angry man with mixed emotions , he really expresses his charactors emotions. Don't get me wrong everyone elses acting was great too, but those three stood out the most to me. The cast was.. Super, Peter Jackson knows what he is doing when casting the actors, every actor matches the charactor's personalitly , which is often rare but Peter knows what he is doing. The dwarf's actors looked like they would as dwarfs and its just great casting. The visual effects are so great, they are so well detailed, i meanman Peter score two , you made the monsters look so real, it is just so cool ,the animation is beautifully done, they looked like they were worked on for close to a year, it was just Oh My God great like Life of Pi. It was really good visual effecst that look so real, and well detailed that it looks like they are really getting thrown , or coming after the dwarfs. I don't know why everyone is always so angry and hating Peter Jackson's length in his films, everyone hated that King Kong was 3 hours, but i didn't i just thought it was even better, that we'd be able to see more excellent film. This film needed the longer running time to give us enough to walk out of the theater feeling like oh my gosh i must see more, ad its true that how i felt. The costumes were like really cool and well detailed , they looked really old fashioned and neat, they just blended with the actors really well and fit with the time period . Most people hate the new frame rate, saying that it looks to really or the charactors move to fast, well you want to know what i say? I think it makes it look great and more clear and realistic looking (in a good way) i just loved it. Really i don't care how fast the charactors can pick up items i don't pay much attention to that, i mean does it really matter? All i know is that it works - well. The only other things i have to mention is the goblin king scene , and the dwarfs. I found the line the gobin king says stupid as well as him being so easy to defeat. He says"well i guess it is that easy" when he takes a swing and Gandalf hits his head and then slits his belly like he was nothing but he was like huge. The other thing is they didn't spend any time really on developing the dwarfs, there are just to many, maybe if they had acouple die by the end then it would have been better but they didn't and that is not good. Well All an All The Hobbit was put in the hands of excellent people who knew what they were doing and actually cared about making this film a winner, (P.S i recommend seeing in theaters). A+

Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter

Hum this film is ok. Its well i don't really know i sm a bit mixed here. This film had good moments and then bad moments but as you can see the bad moments were a bit more strong then the good moments sadly. The bad moments include the running time,script,faithfulness,confusing,and much more. The running time is just short , the film needed more time for abe's life to better unfold, we learn nothing of his suffering actually, in the book he suffers horribly in the movie his son's death is the only sad part. This film needed a longer running time or cutting down some of the stupid footage like mary todd shotting the vampire girl, they could have made a part 2 and had her in it and more suffering for abe and it would have been better. That helps me to move in to my next subject with the faithfulness to the great book. This film just like The City Of Ember , is not faithful, it uses maybe acouple charactors and the main idea which is Abraham Lincoln Vampire Killer and thats about it. Most charactors are new, if they are not then the charactors took out of the book have been given the same name just different stories which is just not good not good at all. I was sad with it, it jumped about 50 pages each scene making it very confusing and might i say stupid which i just don't understand being the fact that the person who wrote the book wrote the script for this movie which inda gets me wondering why would he get rid of all those charactors and add new ones skipping through the book so fast it is speedy, i think he thought he was writing a sort of revised Abraham, maybe a new won but why do that he could have made a decent two part movie and made lots of money. That leads me into my next discussion, on the script. The script is well as i all ready talked about disappointing it really was being the author of the book wrote the movie script. He i guess thought little of the book he wrote himself and wanted to rewrite it, well here was his chance to- big mistake. This films script had a huge chance of doing well if the author cared more about the book. This movie is very very confusing , as i said before it jumps about 50 pages and it just does not fit well. Stuff is pushed way to hard ,way way to hard. Now onto the good stuff including the visual effects, cast, and the acting. This film's visuals are by far some of the most magnificent visuals i have seen this whole year, i'm not lying this is in my top two with Life of Pi. Every scene that includes visual effects look beautiful and great. Everything in this film look polished and cleaned and well just so Pretty to look at i mean it is just great. The visual effects were put in the hands of really good people because they made it look real yet something from a wild dream. I just wanted to watch the special effects alone for a long time. The cast was well cast, Rufus Sewell,Mary Elizabeth Winstead , and Anthony Mackie are the highlights but Benjamin Walker was a great casting choice for Abraham Lincoln, he looks and sounds like Abe would have , this film was just perfectly cast. The acting was great as well , Mary Elizabeth Winstead was just great to watch and our new Abe Lincoln was also a delightlully talented actor he was. All an All you can tell that everyone involved in this film tried their best (but the author himself Seth Grahame-Smith) this film just was not given the right script to deliver the film. C-

City of Ember

I just don't understand why. The book was a masterpiece which could have been made into a good exciting movie series if they had a better group of people working on it. The cast not included, they did the best they could with what they had, which sadly was not enough. This film just had little effert put into it and is not even close to relatable with the book, it uses very little from the book its based on. The only thing that it uses from the book is the title, charactors, and main plot ideas, but everything else including the little details, charactors, and lines are missing. This movie gave me nothing to like besides the cast and acting but thats about it. I didn't like the visual effects,diologue,excitment,faithfulness to the book,the charactor development, the script and well thats about it. I didn't like the visual effects because they were B-Movie cheap and thats sad the mole didn't look real,the animals and boat flying down the water didn't look real, it was all cheap to cheap for a film that cost what it cost. I mean little effort was put into the visuals, it is truly sad. The diologue in this movie really sucks its all so cheesy , B-Movie style. Who wrote the script for this movie i mean who did it i want to slap him silly so hard that his cheak bleeds i swear i am so angry with the diologue. The excitment is very little, i know that the idea of this movie seems really exciting, well it is in the book anyway the movie does little to excit the audience at all and that left me saying "not worth my money to see unless on t.v for free" i swear thats what i felt when i rented it, this film is just soooooooooo bad and boring. The worst part of this movie was that this film was not faithful to the book in any way, shape, or form. There was so little that this film included from the book besides the obvious i swear this film could have had a solid 2 hours running time , and maybe i would give it a 4 star review , thats all it needed is alittle more from the book, maybe another half an hour or so, to make this film good, but it didn't include that so it sucked. The charactors are really flat i swear. Meaning the director spent little time on charactor develpoment i am just soupset by how little we know about doon's father , and lena i mean those charactors needed more charactor develpoment so we could better understand their feelings. Lena i know has feelings for Doon somewhat which she barly hints at in this film which was sad, and her charactor development with her grandmother was also sad. And as for Doon's father well we barly even see him, we learn nothing about his past , like his mother, Lena's father, its sad we don't learn much about his past it would have been interesting. The script was rushed including little from the book and alot of stuff that just does not make sense. Like how they knew all the words on the map so quick and were able to find out all the clues so fast its really weird and stupid. Oh and we can't forget the worst director in the world everyone meet Gil Kenan , possibly the worst director in the history of directors. He poorly directed this film, making everyone clueless ugg, i mean he sucks they should have had Peter Jackson come and direct this film, he could had made this film somewhat good. Now onto the one good thing with this film.... The cast and acting. The cast is Brillent !!! Including Saoirse Ronan (who is possibly one of the best and upcoming actors) Bill Murray, Toby Jones, and MacKenzie Crook. The cast was great. Unlike the other people on the set the actors actually wanted to make a good film they really did, they acted perfectly the way their charactors would have and should have i loved them, they deserve all the credits at the end heck make Harry Treadaway the new director, am i right? The cast is great love them. All an All this film sucks featuring workers who basically don't care weather or not the film is good they only wanted to get paid cash and move on to their next projects unlike the great cast. This film's lights turn off sadly. D-

Life of Pi
Life of Pi(2012)

A Beautiful Masterpiece !!! While it starts out very slow and boring it gets exciting and scary and dramatic - very dramatic !!!. Ok sents their is only two things about this film that i didn't enjoy lets start out with that ok lets begin. The beginning of this movie well lets say the first um 30 minutes of the movie were pretty ugg slow. I was bored out of my mine with it i swear. It was so slow and boring that i thought about leaving the theater and seeing Red Dawn but i didn't. The beginning was just um well it didn't fit with the rest of the film and was not very nessesary to me. I mean all of that story about religion and falling for a girl for about five minutes then leaving her i mean come on was all of that nessesary really???? No it was not. The acting in the beginning was great but all together unnessesary. It was boring with only the part with the tiger being interesting. But after that half an hour the film started to get great, i mean really really good. The huge storm scene with the ship was epic, it was really, really cool. Actually there were lots of scenes that i found amazingly beautiful like the part with the whale and the animals who looked infact real but they were not they were animated but they were done so well they looked real.The second thing that i didn't enjoy was the removal of Tobey Maguire. Tobey Maguire was like way better at his acting as the writer then Rafe Spall was way better and sents the director decided to cut tobey like 2 months from the films release they had to like rush the reshoots and it made those scenes look well bad it was sad they cut him. It was a really bad move. Ok the good stuff well you already heard about the beauty in the film but i will still talk more about it, the acting in particuler the newcomer Suraj Sharma who to me did a realistic and great preformence, the cast,The director , the animation, the scenery , and everything else. Ok almost every scene int his film looks like a diamond all sparkly and well pollashed, i'm not stretching the point they made every scene look better then the scene before it was just so pretty and man did i want to eat it up loved it. It was just so cool. The acting was very very good outside of Rafe Spall everybody looked like they really were enjoying filming of Life of Pi, Suraj Sharma in particuler gave a 101 % in trying he was great i loved him. I thought sad to say i thought he was going to give a really bad preformence but when i saw the film he was just amazing. Man Suraj Sharma has real talent in acting he does i hope the best for him. In the future i hope he is able to get more good leading film roles cause he deserves them he really does which leads me into my next conversation about the casting. Man i'm sad to say that now adays directors only cast well known actors in their movies like Will Ferral or Kevin James but the director who is really greatchose a cast of well newcomers who had little to no acting experience which worked for everyone but for the cutting of tobey who we already talked about.I believe directors should cast no more then 2 well known actors and put them in supporting roles with little advertisment on them sort of like Alice in Wonderland but they advertised the Mad Hater who was played by Johnny Depp like he was the main charactor and put him on the posters but they rarly advertised alice who IS the main charactor and she is not even on the poster i mean whats up with that its really stupid!!! The director was very good with casting which leads me into my next subject on the director. I rarly talk about directors when i review a film but i believe this director deserves some praise from me. The director was Ang Lee he was outstanding he was. The way he cast the film , produced the film , and brought the charactors onto the big screen , were amazing he is now in my top five best directors list he is, i loved him, he is great !!! The visual effects of the film are top notch. As i said before all the animals look real even though they are not and the water and the ship sinking and the whale flying and the meer cats were so real i mean it was so good the animation was !!! The scenery was pretty awesome to like the island and india it was so cool to see it really was. All an All Life of Pi is an amazing award winner that is so Beautiful and all the Effert put into making this film makes this film an instant hit for people all over the world !!! A+

Baby Geniuses

Um i'm quite embarressed that i watched this i am. This film is a mess. It is just bad not horrible but bad. The jokes make me want to throw up i mean people say Diaper Gravy 5 times i mean can't you come up with something else thats funny then repeating the same thing over and over again ugg. The one thing i found good about this film is maybe its voice cast who provide voices for the charactors they were good but i mean the real actors on set were horrible they just didn't care weather the film was good or bad its really sad. They all just did it to get paid and to add a title to their resume its upsetting it really is. Oh yes there is one other thing i enjoyed on this film is believe it or not its plot. Well really idea because its new , original as silly as that sounds it really is original and interesting to think that babies know everything up until there two its quite interesting it really is. But evrything else including the dubbing , jokes , charactors , Christopher Lloyd ( and all the live action actors , acting , music , and anything else you could possibly think of. The dubbing of the babies mouth which is surpossed to make it look like the babies are really talking is horrible we see the mouths moving before sound actually starts coming out ugg its really annoying!!! I just wonder where all these people's time and money went to making this film i really do !!!! This film is a sorry example for a film. The jokes are the worst of all he films problems probably as i said before they say the same jokes 4 times then move onto anew cheesy joke and then say that joke 4 times its really upsetting ugg. The charactors are so flat and unexplanned and just weak. They are all so under developed its really bad i don't understand any of these people at all in the end i have no feelings for any of the charactors at all. Christopher Lloyd is horrible he used to be a great actor in the days of The Addams Family ,and Back to the Future but now he is just plan out bad this is probably the worst film i've seen with him in it is swear he did not even try to be good in this film he just did it because maybe he lost a bet and had to follow through on the bet which apparently was joining this films cast to add a bit of star power to this low budget film. The acting is really bad its so bad i hate it i do its so lame and cheesy ugg. The music is really bad having no real excitment in it. Well all an all this film gives basically zero effert to be a good film its just an example of a good idea gone bad - with this film really bad. D-

Paranormal Activity 3

Loved it. I did it was a good special treat that i ate up but man did i spit out the ending part it did not taste good. It just didn't make sense and was quite a stpidand orgettable ending hated it. All the good scares and stuff building up til te ending just fell threw holes i swear it was so good until the final ten -twenty minutes which wee the worst, they were horrible i an't believe how angry i was at the ending not to metion confused. Like where the heak did those zombie like people come from and what happened? I just don't understand i really don't and it upsets me ugg. Usually i hate films that use the "found footage" type camra which usually just makes my head hurt trying to figure out what i'm seeing. But not this film i understand everything i'm seeing and unlike other films (The expandables, Apollo 13) this film mixes lighting and darkness perfectly. I can actually see everything i really can. Which really helps to get scared cause you actually see the scary stuff. Ok this review is pretty weird because i didn't stat out the way i usually do ok lets startout right didn't like one thing which you know aready was the ending. Now on to the good stuff including well as you know the lighting,scaryness,acting,length,plot,casting, and about everything else you could possibly think of i swear i'm not over exaggerating it !!! The lighting i already explained to you so now i'll get to the scaryness with this film. The scaryness is very good i was sceaming at multiple moments with this film i swear i'm not joking i was basically jumping out of my seat during this film it was scary my gosh. This film does not walk around old jokes and recycled ones from the previous films it creates new ones, good ones. It was so scary i was very happy with that part. The acting was well not great but it was not horrible. I mean who expects good acting in a Paranormal Activity film? Hum yeah no one does they watch Paranormal films to get scared not to get a real great film i mean man what do you people expect. As far as i'm concerned the acting was A+ for a film like this. The length is perfect it is it startes by speeding up then slowing and doin really good by the end i was ready to stop the film and man was i glad that the film was ready to end right when i was ready to stop it. The plot is very well interesting it is i surpose not well new but i thought it was an interesting plot so i decided o put it on the good side. And finally the casting. The casting was perfect the casting of the two sisters was really good i swear it had perfect casting. The dad was cast really good and his friend was really really well cast if i most say it was A++++i'm not kidding. All an All this film was really a successful experiment very good until well that stupid ending that is i think they just rushed because they needed time to edit the film for release like 2 month later. A


I just don't understand this film at all. I don't i'm sorry to say. Why did such good director put out this garbage i swear it is just garbage no meaning in it just a film with pretty animation thats it pretty animation and a good voice cast. But if you don't have much of a story and good music and length what will good animation and voice cast do ? What can they do ??? Hum i don't hear a reply so you all most be just as baffled as me myself am. This film is just a waste of time,money, and talent it is. Only two things kept the film afloat from drowning the animation , and voice cast. The animation is beautifully golden waxed beauty i loved it sharp perfect animation pretty nice charactor animation. Don Bluth knows how to do animation as proved with previous his work. Good animation now on to our second subject... Voice acting. The voice acting is great except the voice actor Toby Scott Ganger whos voice is not even cute its annoying and off pace and jus ugg. However everyone else mainly Glen Campbell,Christopher Plummer, and Eddie Deezen voices was perfect just perfect A+ you can tell that they all tried their best to make the best film they could but in the end it failed but there voices were music to my ear (when they are not singing that is). Now onto the bad stuff including its music,live action scenes, screen play, length , and about everything bad you could possibly think about is this film i swear i'm not over exaggerating !!! The music is pretty bad considering this film to be a musical well it does a pretty bad job as that it really does i swear. The music is just so annoying it makes me cup my ear and its so unthought out and simply cheesy to the bone it is !!!!! I just could not stand it i wanted to kill my self when he actually was singing Rock A Doodle i really did !!! Ugg man Don Bluth does not know who to create a good musical on his own i swear its just bad it really is. The live action scenes were also unnessasary and ugly to look at it is and i hated it i didit was jsut so un needed i mean the director just needed extra scenes to make the film over an hour and by doing so rushed and flopped badly !!! The screen play is the worst of all this stuff it was so short, an enigma, loose , stupid, and just not thought out enough. I just could not understand each scene was rushed and to me a riddle because i understoud non of it at all i didn't i just could not. It was so horrible. The length of this movie is way to short they could have given this film a good extra 20 minutes if they added more scenes of the villion and Chanticleer then this film would have been better and not so well un solved it just ended to quickly without lots of details and entertainment i just don't understand. All an All this film was a dissater it was i big dissater it was garbage it did not need to be created and should be destroyed !!! D-


Excellent work. This short has beautiful animation, a great idea, this is a short that could become a movie it is top notch ,stunning ,and a great short. Loved it !!!


Good. This film is not Tim Burton's best piece but it is one of his better films that may have needed alittle more time then it would have been his best. There was alot of parts in this movie i really did enjoy including the voice cast , musc score, screen - play , and thhe black and white picture choice. The voice cast is not filled with voice talents you know instead to save money (because of the tight budget) the studio brings us a nearly fresh set of voice actors out of the oven hot and ready and man are they ready. These actors are talented voice actors with real heart it all feels so real and new. The music was scored by the talented elton john hich all movies are scored by if they won't awards. He brings us exciting music to help us feel the movie in an all new way which is perfect. The screen - play is excitingly (and very rarly) original, yes i said original. It is extremly rare to find a movie that is not a remake,reboot,sequel,or based on something like a book. It brand new and original and it helps me feel like i'm finally seeing something new that my eye's had not seen before. Now a days ALL films are in color or are not made (well acept for The Artist). But Tim Burton decided to try and bring black and white back to the movies and at first thought i admit i thought it was going to ruin the film but it didn't it only improved the film - alot. Now sadly for the bad stuff on this movie that made me take a star away. The poorly used supporting charactors , the tone/serious ness , the ending , and the croodly put together animation. The supporting charactors in a movie are surpossed to help bring the movie along but in this movie hey are quickly rushed then left in the dust. For example the science teacher was an important charactor that was rushed out soon and not well developed leaving people wondering whats his tale to tell ? Other charactors quickly rushed out and not developed include the fat kid (bob) ,Nassor , and Victors love interest Elsa van Helsing. Maybe if the movie was 2 hours instead of 1 hour 20 minutes the supporting charactors could have been more developed in their tales. This film takes itself to serious for a kids movie and needed to lighten the tone and bring acouple of laughs like Paranorman did to lighten up this film is just way to dark for a PG movie made for children. The animation is pretty good but not great some of the animation was just a bit roughly put together and it made the charactors look like robots but it really was not that bad. The ending was the final problem that pushed me to the edge and made me knock a star down on this film. The ending just to me is weak and has losses the message carried out all through out the film it is that you should just forgive and forget and let the dead go to rest and go in a better place but instead they crush that message with victor bringing sparky back to life it really angered me that the film crushed its own message. It should have went with Sparky dieing and going to dog heaven and end with the final scene of Victor playing a game of baseball with his new found friends but it didn't and so i gave this film 4 stars i say ... See. Well i'm Skipper and this is my See or Skip movie review of Frankenweenie. B

Wreck-it Ralph

OK i guess. I don't know how this film got this good of reviews its just to me a bit over the average movie just a bit. This film is just not good enough it try's but fails.I'm sad to say that this film should have kept its March 22nd 2013 date and pushed The Croods forward because this film was just not ready to hit the big screens just yet almost but not there yet sadly.This film is kind of interesting in a way the idea is original believe it or not but and the animation is excellent as all Disney animated films are and the voice acting is OK to but its the jokes, character development,music,and well the first half an hour that are not very good. OK first with the good stuff. The script is original which is new cause most films have well old stuff that just keeps being reused over and over again. I was impressed and by the look of the trailers thought that they were going to do more with the good script and ideas but well to me they just didn't. The animation is top notch as I've already said before is as expected the animation is just so bright and colorful and beautiful i could just dream about it so pretty it is. Wreak it Ralph's design and animation is pretty impressive and good i'll tell you that it is. The voice acting is pretty good with the spot light on Jane Lynch ,Sarah Silverman , and Alan Tudyk who all bring out the best in there characters and but effort into it while John C. Reilly is all like oh i was in an animated movie with Elijah Wood now i'm big and bad in the animation world . Well buddy your not OK your only OK your not great got it. Now for the bad stuff on this film. The jokes in this film are just not funny they just are not. I laughed once that was when he was running around like an idiot in hero's duty. That's it. Nothing else is really funny its all weird and not needed. Nope not at all. The characters are so just uninteresting non of them are we learn only a little a what we learn is pretty stupid. The music is almost the worst about this movie. Its so ugg horrible i swear to the heavens what happened to that music we heard in the first trailer hum??? What happened to it i want to know i really do please lord tell me what happened to it. The music is just so wrong it is.And finally the worst of this movie is the first 30 minutes. Well the first 30 minutes right before we hit sugar rush is the best but as i said its only a half an hour the other hour is spent all in sugar rush. Bad move the best parts were outside of sugar rush with Hero's Duty and all those other games come on they should have spent an equal half an half for each i loved Hero's Duty and as for Sugar Rush it was only OK not great ugg that made me mad. All an All Wreck - It- Ralph wrecked itself it was just not ready to hit the big screen it just was not.B-

Shark Night 3D

This film was as alot of films are average. This film as most horror movies are is not scary it is a bit cool i guess when the sharks jump out of the water and grab the guy on the water um waterever its called when he's trying to get the guy with one arm missing to help. But for the most part this film is just stupid. I mean why would the girl get on the boat with the drunk guy she was asking to get killed she was i swear. Not all of this movie was that bad actually so theres where we'll start this review with the good stuff including the cast,the special effects, and the 3D (believe it or not). The cast is not bad its good actually they all have the faces you would want in a horror movie they do they all make it seem real when you look at them that is. Their acting is just average for a horror movie not great not horrible really you would expect this from everyone except for one actor whos actually been in a movie before this and that was Joel Moore he did good acting to me but still not as good as his acting in Avatar. Well any way the magority of the cast has the face but not the acting skills except maybe Joel Moore and Sinqua Walls. The speical effects were excellent love em made thsi film some fun to watch when the shark jumped into the air and ate Gordan and when the other shark jumped and ate Blake. And man did i love the explosion that was epic really cool loved it just awesome. This film is just fun and can be exciting a great end of summer watch before fall roles in and you get more dramatic films released just not fun. And now the last great thing is the 3D i know i know yes i said the 3D was good. It was i enjoyed the 3D it was good i was sitting back in my seat when i watched this when chuncks of gore splashed out at the camra and the ending too when the shark lunched out at the camra that was awesome i liked it i did. The bad stuff include the screen - play, the villion,horror. The screen -play was cheesy and cheap and lame just lame. And it was very predictable very. You could tell who was going to die and who was going to survive at the very beginning seriously you could. It was sad really there was not alot of twist in the film not alot actually none i think. the villions were very weak the two teans could have easyly charged the guy with the gun and push him down and maybe lose the boy teen (Joel David Moore) and have the other teen (Katharine McPhee) make it back to the cabin to then be shot by the cop and have the rest of the scenes fallow the cop doing all the stuff with instead of those black dealers who dumped the sharks into the lake. The horror was lame as well it was i hate that it was cheesy i swear can't these people come up with real scares but all they have is this crude ugg. Well All an All just ok thats it. C


Good Sports Movie. Not bad actually i was surprised by how much i really enjoyed in this movie. I know you guys probably don't believe me but to me this film was very entertaining believe it or not. Lots of you are probably wondering why i didn't give this film 5 stars like most of your friends and you but to me this was not a piece of art it was good just not great some stuff was under used some stuff over used but mostly i thought this film was great not the best i've seen of the year 2011 but one of the better ones. Lets start with the good stuff with this film including the acting,casting,story line,sharp ness,and attention to detail just to name a few of many. Ok lets start with the A+ acting. Ok we all know that Brad Pitt can act but Jonah Hill is well a wild card he has good cards (Megamind) and bad cards (The Sitter) this film was a good card he acted great and should have won a award for best supporting actor he was the icing on top of the cake he was great just great to bad he was just not in it enogh for his charactor to really develope but we'll get to that after the good stuff. The casting was well done i try to think of who i'd cast in Brad Pitt's spot and i can't think of anyone better then him himself knowbody at all he was ment for that role. It was created for him really and i'm not trying to be over dramatic on this one but he seriously was mean't to play the charactor called Billy Beane he was just excellent he was. The storyline was of to me some interest to most it would appear boring but its dramatic and interesting it really is i don't know why it just is this flm tryly is a film that is faithful to baseball it is a true story more thenmost really. Now for the sharpness/ cleaness. This film is very clean no smudges or holes included it makes share everything is in place every word spoken is a memorible Quote. I mean everything is cleaned and ready to be dresses or watched. The director probably reshoot every scene until it was perfect and sparkling like a star in the sky i swear he probably did work some of these actors to the grave but man did those actors work on such a good piece of art really. But as almost always their are bugs sprinkled threw out the movie. Those bugs include the under used actor Jonah Hill, charactor development,And the ending. As i mentioned before Jonah Hill was under used in this film. If he was in this film more it would have probably made me give this fil 5 stars thats how much Jonah Hill improved this film yes alot !!! Jonah is great he was just not used as much as he should have causing little charactor development on him making the audience at the end hinking who was Jonahs charactor really ? Does he have a family ? Is he in a relationship ? I mean he was under used probably because the director did not know how much Jonah improved the film. Jonah and Brad have great chemistry i would have liked to see them both togetherin the film more i would have i really would have. Other then Brad Pitts charactor theres little charactor development between the rest of the charactors including Philip Seymour Hoffman 's charactor, Art Howe. I would have liked to know more about him all i found out about his charactor by the end of the movie is that he is very grumpy all the time which is really disappointing considering how much time they had to develope charactors (the film is 2 hours and 10 minutes). And now the final problem i found in this movie is the ending. It was rather disappointing it really was nothing speical about the ending kinda good . I liked the 12 year old girls singing voice i did but it was rather dim. Well All an All a good but not great film that truly showd how if soebody worked really hard at something they could make it perfect as with Moneyball which was worked on hard and well making a Oscar winning film contender just not Best Picture contender. B+

House on Haunted Hill

Um this is well interesting. This film is something of well something. This film could have been great but failed to do so. Basically because of almost everything but it is not because of everything because i gave this film one and a half stars Half is the key word. The only thing i enjoyed about this film is the ending and thats it. This film is full of bad stuff including the cheap horror, wooden acting, cheesy screen play, casting,charactor develpoment , beginning , i think i'll stop there because if i didn't we would be here forever. Lets start with the only thing i really enjoyed about this film...The ending. Yes i loved the ending for 2 things 1. because the movie was over, and 2. because for once a film let a black person be the hero in the film i mean ugggg thats so racial that in horror movies the blacks either die after peeing their pants or are not in the film , or survive but did nothing for example of this third one Prom Night lets the black guy survive but he did nothing at all to deserve it ugggggggg i'm just glad this director was not racial. as rotten tomatoes says itself this film does fail to produce scares of any kind they come out cheap and like they were being written by a five year old no offense screen writers but maybe you guys should go back to scare school with casper. This film is surposed to be a horror film but it comes out as ,as something you'd find in the one dollar bin at blockbuster i swear its lame it reminds me of The Haunting for some reasons which is a bit better but only a bit which had a simular story line but a less confusing one at that. The acting is less then average then your normal horror film well most horror film acting is pretty bad because well they don't care who they caast as long as they have a face not full of pimples. I mean i know you all would agree with me if you've seen Prom Night or i don't know Let Me In. These people don't care i mean they think oh it don't matter we will just dumb down the lines and make them easyer to say and shorter because they all will die 10 minutes in between each other so who cares and so i can't imagine how i stress that these people just don't care. The screen - play is really horrible and unoriginal i mean weve seen it done better this is just one of those movies trying to make some quick an easy money from horror movie lovers i swear with god as my witness this film is so un realistic i know i know people go to the movies or watch a movie to get out of the real world if only for a couple of hours but i mean come on if you were trapped in a haunted house and knew someone was ded killed off by a serial killer would you just walk off and go to bed by yourself or just wonder off on your own i mean what is the matter with these people seriously what goes through their heads when they make movies its just so annoying really annoying actually. The casting was not horrible but as i stressed before about the wooden acting how did they cast these people just how the house selected people closing their eyes and chosing from a bunch of resume or doing ene meane mine moe ? I mean come on people whats up with these people gosh. These charactors are just there and then they die theirs no back story or anything nothing at all they are all just their then they die you know nothing at all really about who they are nothing !!! The beginning is stupid showing a roller coaster fall off the tracks and knowone caring like that happens all the time so no big deal come on seriously. All an all i hated this film i did. F+