Movie Review Thread

[The 1-2-3 Killam]

Contagion(2011)- A very decent movie here as this feels more like your casual action film you see so much these days. The plot here is that due to some woman attracting the disease in Hong Kong (or Macau I can't remember) she brings to the U.S and from there on it spreads around the world. As expected there are many scenes with doctors, government officials, and world leaders addressing the epidemic as well as the reactions to it. To be honest and outbreak epidemic story really doesn't interest me at all, not to mention the movie is close to about 2 hours which is longer than it needs to be. There are subtle moments such as when this man's wife is passing away. Anyway it's really over the top at times and a passable movie in my opinion.

Alright broseph, I've got to say this...I respect anyone's right to see a movie and comment on it, especially in an open forum such as this. However, if you're going to include absolutely no specifics, blank out on half the actual facts, and generally sound like you were watching paint try instead of trying to enjoy a movie...why bother? I'll admit, Contagion wasn't that great of a movie, so that's a decent starting point we can both agree on. But you did start your review with "a very decent movie" and end with "passable". Two very different words with different meanings, and using them both blurs lines and makes your entire rating system worthless. No actors, no directors...not even sure of some of the places it took place in? Also, the standard for decent films is becoming two hours, and actually has been for quite some time. Contagion is only 1:40 with the credits. If you can't fill that much time with content, especially when you're dealing with an interesting topic like pandemic, you have some series issues as a writer/director. I disagree that it was "over the top" at any point. The whole planet was going to hell in hand-basket...mass hysteria is warranted.

White Dog(1982)- For an independent film this is actually quite good.

Emma Stone also is great here and the black actresses especially Octavia Spencer are really interesting playing their characters.

Not worth your time to look up more of their names? I'm not overly offended by racial generalizations, and considering this is a movie about "black culture" it's almost needed, but really? The "black actresses"?

There is so much more to say when bashing a film than when praising so I will cut this one off here.

No, it's just difficult, and takes practice (and some natural talent). It takes more skill to praise a film. Much like in in wrestling, it's harder to be a face and do an amazing job than it is to get over as a heel. It's just something you have to work at, not throw away because it's too much work...

Like you said it's a pop-corn flick or a B-movie for short. However I'm not one to pull out an new system for ranking B-movies out of my ass. Maybe it's because I have seen non of the other mission impossible films, but still it's no masterpiece. Like I said before it's a B-movie, it's not supposed to a masterpiece, it's meant to be a fun film to watch, which is exactly what it is, ok I bump up the rating to 6/10.

Wow. Way to stand by your convictions there slugger... Are you sure you're not one to pull a ranking system out of your ass? You did just change a movie's rating because CC got all up-in-arms at you... You clearly have no concept of indie films or a grander aspect of the film industry, so I'm beginning to wonder if your "rating system" isn't just out of your ass. Not to brag, but it's taken me three years to tinker at my percentage system and get it to where I think it best reflects the score a movie should be given. A lot of work went into it, so it's a bit frustrating to see somebody just arbitrarily throwing out ratings...

Also, we need to clear something up right now.

B-Movie (noun): A low budget commercial motion picture that does not definitely an arthouse or pornographic film.

What part of Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol's $145,000,000 budget screams b-movie to you? Was it the lead actor being Tom Cruise, one of the most recognizable action stars of all time? Was it director Brad Bird, who has helmed the Iron Giant, Incredibles, and Ratitouille, while working on the entire career of the Simpsons, Toy Story 3, and Up? Maybe it was Alias writers Andre Nemec and Josh Appelbaum...? It was also produced by JJ Abram's company Bad Robot... If Ghost Protocol was a B-Film, Inception was an indie flick... "Minimum Wage" Cage may have also posted a few lackluster reviews in the past, but his opinion I respect a whole lot more. And yes, I just pinched myself to make sure I wasn't dreaming...

 

[Paralyzer Z]

Alright broseph, I've got to say this...I respect anyone's right to see a movie and comment on it, especially in an open forum such as this. However, if you're going to include absolutely no specifics, blank out on half the actual facts, and generally sound like you were watching paint try instead of trying to enjoy a movie...why bother? I'll admit, Contagion wasn't that great of a movie, so that's a decent starting point we can both agree on. But you did start your review with "a very decent movie" and end with "passable". Two very different words with different meanings, and using them both blurs lines and makes your entire rating system worthless. No actors, no directors...not even sure of some of the places it took place in? Also, the standard for decent films is becoming two hours, and actually has been for quite some time. Contagion is only 1:40 with the credits. If you can't fill that much time with content, especially when you're dealing with an interesting topic like pandemic, you have some series issues as a writer/director. I disagree that it was "over the top" at any point. The whole planet was going to hell in hand-basket...mass hysteria is warranted.

Films are an art, art is critiqued, it doesn't need all of the specifics.

I will say this once, and it also goes for mission impossible, I don't generally enjoy these kinds of movies, didn't feel very epic like it should have, and I feel asleep half-way through but tht could have been just how late I finished watching them,

Not worth your time to look up more of their names? I'm not overly offended by racial generalizations, and considering this is a movie about "black culture" it's almost needed, but really? The "black actresses"?

I did not even know the names of any of the actors, when the opening plays I look at the setting not the text.

No, it's just difficult, and takes practice (and some natural talent). It takes more skill to praise a film. Much like in in wrestling, it's harder to be a face and do an amazing job than it is to get over as a heel. It's just something you have to work at, not throw away because it's too much work...

... I don't like to overdue anything, even though I like you as a poster, you tend to overdue things. My memory isn't all that bright so I don't remember the specifics.

Wow. Way to stand by your convictions there slugger... Are you sure you're not one to pull a ranking system out of your ass? You did just change a movie's rating because CC got all up-in-arms at you... You clearly have no concept of indie films or a grander aspect of the film industry, so I'm beginning to wonder if your "rating system" isn't just out of your ass. Not to brag, but it's taken me three years to tinker at my percentage system and get it to where I think it best reflects the score a movie should be given. A lot of work went into it, so it's a bit frustrating to see somebody just arbitrarily throwing out ratings...

I will admit I am not professional, in fact most of the film aspects I have learned were initially gained from the Nostalgia Critic. However when it comes down to it an opinion on a motion picture is basically is a # out of a whole, it is simply an opinion. I highly doubt that your post wasn't extraneous.

Also, we need to clear something up right now.

What part of Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol's $145,000,000 budget screams b-movie to you? Was it the lead actor being Tom Cruise, one of the most recognizable action stars of all time? Was it director Brad Bird, who has helmed the Iron Giant, Incredibles, and Ratitouille, while working on the entire career of the Simpsons, Toy Story 3, and Up? Maybe it was Alias writers Andre Nemec and Josh Appelbaum...? It was also produced by JJ Abram's company Bad Robot... If Ghost Protocol was a B-Film, Inception was an indie flick... "Minimum Wage" Cage may have also posted a few lackluster reviews in the past, but his opinion I respect a whole lot more. And yes, I just pinched myself to make sure I wasn't dreaming...

Wow, someone just blew a gasket, I can see the heelness has really dug in. Sure it has a large budget but the content seems so, well something I have seen before. A better choice of words would be a popcorn flick, however my opinion remains the same, I don't like spy movies too much, I gave this a chance and aside form Cruise and the visuals it failed to impress me.

 

[The 1-2-3 Killam]

I don't really care if you thought Contagion or MI:GP were GOOD movies - you can rate them and have whatever opinion on them you want. It's not for me to say what you have to enjoy... What I cared about is that you tried to review a movie, multiple movies actually, with no regard for the actors/directors/writers in question. Just skipping over them with "that actress" or "the one chick" just isn't good enough - how else am I supposed to know who the heck you're talking about.

I will concede that I can be a bit wordy and drawn-out at times. Ok...most times. And I also appreciate simplicity, and not breaking things down to the point of them losing their artistic integrity, but there is also a limit where reviews stop being reviews, and just end up being some guy babbling about a bunch of things we can't actually relate to. I'm not asking for super specific outlines of how the movie went down, or the history of an actor's entire career...just some people and places would be nice.

If you can't remember their names, jump on IMDB. Simple.

 

[The 1-2-3 Killam]

Spoiler

The Three Musketeers (1993) - 53%
30: Minutes or Less - 64%
The Ides of March - 65%
Pirates IV - 72%
Mr. Popper's Penguins - 72%
Fast Five - 75%
Contagion - 76%
Ironclad - 77%
Tangled - 79%
Seven Pounds -79%
Eat, Pray, Love - 80%
50/50 - 81%
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo - 82%
Drive - 83%
Shutter Island - 85%
District 9 - 86%
Book of Eli - 87%
I am Legend - 87%
Super 8 - 88%
Zombieland - 89%
Moneyball - 92%
The Help - 96%

Fight Club
Directed by: David Fincher
Written by: Chuck Palahniuk (novel) & Jim Uhls (screenplay)
Starring: Edward Norton, Brad Pitt, & Helena Bonham Carter
Likely my all-time favorite movie (I have higher "rated" movies, but how I analyze a film and my personal opinion of it can sometimes be two different things) for so many reasons. Start with the directing: is there a better modern-day director than David Fincher? Many started following Fincher after his first hit "Se7en" and continue to praise him with recent films like Benjamin Button, Dragon Tattoo, and the Social Network. He's had a few hiccups along the way, mostly due to bad writing unions or lackluster casting, but I'd say he's swinging at about .800. He has this knack for making the viewer incredibly uncomfortable - for really jarring the audience - but at the same time you just can't look away!

I won't spend too much time dwelling on the writing, as Fight Club was adapted from the original Chuck Palahniuk novel, but I give major props to Jim Uhls for doing the classic some justice. Very few films outdo its original subject material, and I know there's a lot of people out there that will disagree, but I believe Fight Club's film takes the cake. The characters I developed in my own head as I was reading through the book years ago were great, but they paled in comparison to how Edward Norton, Brad Pitt, and HBC brought them to life on the big screen! This was my first big introduction to Carter, and we've definitely had a positive relationship since. There is no creepier, most disturbing woman in Hollywood today - likely ever. This was also the movie that put Norton on the map and took Brad Pitt from shirtless heart-throb to serious actor (something we can all be thankful for).

The directing, the acting, the writing...they were all wonderful. But what really captures your attention is the plot of this film. They start you out at the top of this skyscraper; a gotham-esk city staring back from down belong. As the scene comes into focus we find Edward Norton strapped to a chair, beaten to a pulp, with a gun shoved down his throat. Enter Brad Pitt, a clever exchange between the two, and we're off and running! I've always thought that showing the audience a glimpse of the ending at the very start was a brilliant idea. Hook people right away and give them something to look forward too - especially if the time in between is going to be filled with two hours of mind-blowing, distorted material. I don't know anyone who has picked up on the real theme of this movie during their first viewing. I have seen Fight Club over a dozen times and I'm still finding new lessons...

This is the kind of movie that doesn't happen in "real life", but the way it is presented makes you completely forget about "reality" and enter in to the character's perspective for a short time. You come out wondering why the world is the way it is, and regardless of how extremist the plot becomes, it all seems like a good idea at the time! When the final credits start rolling, I dare you to disagree with some of the pivotal questions being posed at consumerist America. Fight Club is one of the few movies I have seen that can almost turn you into a completely different person for a few hours during, and after the movie is over. It's like playing Grand Theft Auto for 10 hours straight, and then going for a quick drive in the car. Sometimes, no matter how rooted to real life you are, you still have that urge to run over a hooker. Rating: 94%

 

[The 1-2-3 Killam]

Spoiler

The Three Musketeers (1993) - 53%
30: Minutes or Less - 64%
The Ides of March - 65%
Pirates IV - 72%
Mr. Popper's Penguins - 72%
Fast Five - 75%
Contagion - 76%
Ironclad - 77%
Tangled - 79%
Seven Pounds -79%
Eat, Pray, Love - 80%
50/50 - 81%
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo - 82%
Drive - 83%
Shutter Island - 85%
District 9 - 86%
Book of Eli - 87%
I am Legend - 87%
Super 8 - 88%
Zombieland - 89%
Moneyball - 92%
Fight Club - 94%
The Help - 96%

This weekend I'm going to see Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol, mainly because "Minimum Wage" Cage holds it so high a regard (as do some legitimate critics, might I add). While I wait, I thought I would go back through the series and review its three predecessors one by one. My first reaction, having not seen any of the films for many years, was one of shock: Tom Cruise isn't actually that bad of an actor. In fact, when it comes to spy-themed action movies he's one of the best I've seen. Maybe that's because the MI series defined how we look at modern day spy-flicks, as we've moved away from the Bond style, and into something with a few more explosions. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the reason Cruise gets so much of a bad name has very little to do with his movies, or the genre he seems fit to perform in, but because of his rather...unusual extra-curricular activities. You have to admit: the guy is nuts.

Mission: Impossible
Directed by: Brian De Palma
Written by: David Koepp
Starring: Tom Cruise & Jon Voight
The one that started it all. Obviously this movie did well enough and was held in a decent enough state of regard to merit three sequels. Personally, I wasn't as impressed. Cruise is excellent as a high-octane action star, but David Koepp isn't so excellent at writing them... The script was mediocre, and at times a bit too cheesy to be taken seriously. Then again, with some of the stunts the IMF (Impossible Mission Force...yes, seriously) has to pull, being taken "seriously" doesn't seem to be that big of a concern. What really threw me was how confusing the plot was - they utilized both true and false flashbacks at one point, adding chaos to an already convoluted story. Or, at least I think that's what they were doing... I'd like to take another crack at the movie to see if maybe I missed something huge, because I don't feel as though this type of action ride should have confused me the way it did. It all comes together in the end, but by that point you're kind of taping your toe impatiently for its arrival. Passable, but not as good as I was hoping for. Rating: 78%

Mission: Impossible II
Directed by: John Woo
Written by: Ronald Moore
Staring: Tom Cruise & Dougray Scott
The second MI film did a few things right. Near the end there's a ten minute sequence where they use almost complete silence to set the tone for what is going on. Motorcycles are exploding, guns are firing, people are dying...and yet every seems calm. That was the only point in MI2 that I actually felt the emotion the crew was trying to convey. For the rest of the near-two hour movie I was left in utter disappointment. The action scenes were impressive, but overdone - I think that's actually the theme of this series. Bits and pieces of the plot were clever, but altogether predictable. I enjoyed the simplicity of the ride as an almost relieving dichotomy against the first film, but my praise stops there. At least the original Mission: Impossible served to spawn an iconic series, put Tom Cruise on the map as an action hero, and get Grammy Award-winning composer Lalo Schifrin's theme song stuck in everyone's head for the next 16 years. The only thing MI2 did was set the stage for a sequel. Rating: 68%

Mission: Impossible III
Directed by: JJ Abrams
Written by: Alex Kurtzman & Roberto Orci
Starring: Tom Cruise, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, & Laurence Fishburne
MI3 is one of the most under-rated action films of our time. I have heard from many that the only Mission Impossible movie worth their time is the original, but this is simply not true. My favorite director JJ Abrams always seems to bring an artistic style with him wherever he goes. Because of this MI3 finally had that flair the other two films lacked (I'm sure the ten years of special effects and lighting evolution didn't hurt either). Tom Cruise portraits some real emotion in this one as he struggles with trying to balance his new family with his secret life as an undercover agent. Phillip Seymour Hoffman plays my favorite villain in the series thus far, and continues to be one of those great actors that flies under the radar from time to time. I liked Laurence Fishburne as the head of IMF, as he played the cold, calculating prick that he needed to, and did it extraordinarily well. In fact, I have almost no issues with the casting, acting, or even the script this time around! Clever dialogue and a plot that makes sense and keeps you on your toes make this a fun, fast-passed spy-flick, and I can't for the life of me figure out why the general public hates it so much. Good acting, lots of explosions, real drama, and a VERY pretty environment...what's not to love? Rating: 86%

I'll get back to ya'll Saturday after I see Ghost Protocol. I'm excited, and I hope it lives up to the hype!

 

[Mitch Henessey]

War Horse (2011) 8/10- Steven Spielberg actually did it. He actually made me care about a horse. Joey (the main horse in this film) affected the lives of many characters throughout this film. He was a companion, a symbol of hope, and he brought happiness to people, who desperately needed it. The war caused chaos and depression, and Albert’s (Jeremy Irvine) family faced many hardships, but Joey could always be that one positive force in everyone’s life. At first, I didn’t want to have an open mind about a film that put so much focus on a horse, but Joey does help provide some very convincing touching moments here.

I did go into this film with a negative mindset, and I didn’t have high hopes for this one, but War Horse really did blow me away. This was a moving drama, and War Horse is filled with some genuine heartwarming moments. Also, the war scenes in this film did feel intense and shocking, and the entire cast really gave a great effort here, because the acting in this film is excellent. War Horse is a very emotional drama, the cinematography looked amazing, and this one should be remembered as one of the best films in 2011.

Spielberg really should receive an Oscar nomination in the Best Director category at the Academy Awards this year. Spielberg did a masterful job with this film, and his directing really did take everything to the next level. War Horse is filled with some breathtaking visuals, and this film does feature its fair share of mesmerizing scenes. And Spielberg was able to capture the intensity, violence, and devastation of war. Spielberg did provide that magical touch for this film, and he proved he can still be one of the best here.


The Naked Man (1998) 7/10- Dr. Edward Bliss, Jr. (Michael Rapaport) is a chiropractor/part-time professional wrestler. Bliss uses “The Naked Man” as a ring name, and Bliss has a strong passion for wrestling. But his wife urges him to leave the wrestling business behind, because she refuses to accept pro wrestling as a real career. Although, making a major career choice isn’t Bliss’ biggest problem. Bliss’ parents and his wife are murdered by a crazy quadriplegic with crutches (which actually turn out to be machine guns) and an Elvis Presley impersonator. Sticks Varona (the quadriplegic with machine gun crutches) and his body guard/personal muscle (the Elvis impersonator) are two gangsters, who are hell bent on controlling all the pharmacy stores in their sights. Bliss’ father (the owner of a small pharmacy store) didn’t want to give into the cruel gangsters, but his stubbornness would come back to bite him, because Varona refused to take no for an answer. Bliss completely snaps after the murders, and he actually begins to believe his pro wrestling persona. Bliss is hell bent on revenge, and no one is safe, as he destroys everything in his path, during a murderous rampage.

I have always been a HUGE fan of The Coen Brothers, and Ethan was one of the co-writers for the screenplay here, so this film became an instant must-see for me. The Naked Man is a very quirky comedy, and this film does feature its fair share of oddball and eccentric characters. It took a while, but as this film progressed, the humor began to grow on me, and this film is filled with some hilarious moments. Also, I absolutely loved the pro wrestling material in this film. This is a comedy film, so of course, everything isn’t supposed to be taken so seriously. I did laugh during the scenes that featured pro wrestling material, but this film didn’t try to poke fun at wrestling. Sure, the matches feel whacky most of the time (things get pretty serious, when Bliss finally loses his mind), but this is a comedy, so you have to expect this type of approach. You will see Michael Rapaport discuss his wrestling character in detail, you will see the wrestlers discuss details during the matches (calling moves, working out a strategy, etc.), and adding a promoter was a nice touch here. This film really doesn’t go into an in-depth explanation about pro wrestling, because there’s more to the story than wrestling here. And you won’t see a serious tone for pro wrestling, because this isn’t a black comedy, but for the most part, The Naked Man does represent pro wrestling in a tasteful way. Any true fan can enjoy the material used here, and The Naked Man can be a real treat for wrestling fans.

The Naked Man is a bizarre and quirky comedy, but I couldn’t stop laughing, once I adjusted to the humor. This film is well written, the acting is very solid, and Michael Rapaport does a fine job with the lead role. At times, it did feel like he was carrying this film, but the rest of the cast did provide some very believable performances. The Naked Man was one of the more unique comedies I’ve seen over the years, and I’m so happy I FINALLY found this film!

 

[Mitch Henessey]

Atrocious (2011) 3/10- A family decides to spend the Easter holidays at their summer home. Cristian (Cristian Valencia) and July (Clara Moraleda) are brother and sister, but they don’t always get along. Although, they do share one common bond: both of them LOVE to investigate paranormal occurrences. They decide to film all of the activity on their vacation, and both of them are obsessed with ghost stories and paranormal activity. They take a chance on investigating a local urban legend, but their search for the truth becomes more and more dangerous, as time goes on, and the terrifying secret could cost them their lives.

Well, this was a found-footage film, so I had to force myself into a positive mindset for this one. Still, my attempt to have an open mind for this film didn’t work. This film did have a nice little mystery, and the plot did feel intriguing at first. But Atrocious moves at this sluggish pace, and the unbelievably slow pacing for this film drove me nuts. NOTHING really happens in this film for a long time, and the slow build to the conclusion can feel so tedious. Sure, they do show some signs of a violent and vengeful ghost. They show the brutal aftermath of the murdered family dog, and a broken glass could’ve been caused by a mysterious force.

They do throw some clues at you every now and then, but for the most part, Atrocious can be a very boring and dull film. Although, I will give this film some credit for the final moments. The final moments of this film can feel genuinely terrifying, the spook moments fly at you non stop, the surprise twist did feel shocking, and the tension is just great. Atrocious managed to pack a powerful punch at the end, and the ending did provide a nice jaw-dropping cliffhanger, but the satisfying late finish couldn’t save this film. The scares were great, but the horrifying moments at the end did have this strong “too little, too late” feeling. The final moments of this film did keep me on the edge of my seat, and I was glued to the screen, because I really wanted to see what would happen next. Still, Atrocious came up short for me, because the suspenseful final moments couldn’t make up for the over fifty minutes of painful boredom I had to sit through.

The acting in this film is decent enough, and July’s constant screaming didn’t annoy me too much. I really wanted to like this film, but Atrocious is just too damn boring most of the time. The production values actually looked pretty solid here (this shocked me, because when it comes to staying true to the “realism” factor, most found-footage films take everything too far), and the story did feel mysterious, but I can’t ignore the boredom here. I just can’t.

Usually, I trust Bloody Disgusting.com on all things horror related, but I can’t agree with their positive rating for this film. Atrocious was on the list Bloody Disgusting selects (a list of highly recommended horror films from BD), so I thought I would give it a try. Well, this was a poor choice, and BD won’t get my support on this one. Also, BD was one of the distributors for Atrocious, so Atrocious landing a spot on the “select” list doesn’t surprise me at all.

Oh, and if you’re wondering, Hollywood is planning a remake for Atrocious. That’s right. An American version (Atrocious 2011 was a Spanish language film) of this film will be made in the near future, and Hollywood will continue to ride the found-footage train even longer. Yeah, ANOTHER horror remake. I just couldn’t contain the levels of shock, when I first read this piece of news.

 

[The 1-2-3 Killam]

Spoiler

The Three Musketeers (1993) - 53%
30: Minutes or Less - 64%
The Ides of March - 65%
Mission: Impossible II - 68%
Pirates IV - 72%
Mr. Popper's Penguins - 72%
Fast Five - 75%
Contagion - 76%
Ironclad - 77%
Mission: Impossible - 78%
Tangled - 79%
Seven Pounds -79%
Eat, Pray, Love - 80%
50/50 - 81%
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo - 82%
Drive - 83%
Shutter Island - 85%
Mission: Impossible III - 86%
District 9 - 86%
Book of Eli - 87%
I am Legend - 87%
Super 8 - 88%
Zombieland - 89%
Moneyball - 92%
Fight Club - 94%
The Help - 96%

After I watched the entire Mission: Impossible trilogy in a day, I decided to continue with the trend and move on to the Jurassic Park trilogy. So here goes nothing...

Jurassic Park
Directed by: Steven Spielberg
Written by: Michael Crichton
Starring: Sam Neil, Richard Attenborough, & Jeff Goldblum
What a classic! A true testament to what Spielberg can accomplish with a lot of money and a good writer (emphasis on the good writer portion of that statement). Jurassic Park is intentionally larger-than-life, sporting some fantastic looking dinosaurs that would be decent for some producers today, let alone twenty years ago. But it's not just the big, expensive dino-scenes that make JP such an iconic film - it's also the more subtle gems. Sam Neil and Jeff Goldblum are perfect for their roles, and offer a whitty and necessary dichotomy, while secondary characters like Richard Attenborough, Wayne Knight, and a younger Samuel L. Jackson bring the casting full-circle. having the novel-writer craft your script is also a plus... John Williams returns to the big screen yet again, composing another beautiful work of art that is one of the contributing factors in the Jurassic Park series withstanding the test of time. Rating: 90%

The Lost World: Jurassic Park
Directed by: Steven Spielberg
Written by: David Koepp
Staring: Jeff Goldblum & Julianne Moore
Handing over Crichton's novel to the likes of David Koepp should have been the first red flag - the absence of Sam Neil should have been the second. Koepp was involved in the scripting of the first film, but under the guidance and creative authority of the original novelist, making sure that the movie's content stayed true to the material it was representing. Without the safety net of a brilliant writer, Koepp crashed and burned. Indeed the unbelievably trite script is what threw me here - not the T-Rex running through Los Angeles or the fact the dinos actually managed to look WORSE than in 1993. Goldblum was good, and handled what he was given to the best of his 4-star ability, but without the Sam Niel dichotomy, Goldblum felt almost overused. Also, I know it's the 21st Century, and interracial couples are commonplace, but who decided that Jeff Goldblum's daughter needed to be black? This has nothing to do with race or discrimination, and everything to do with an unnecessary and uncertain distraction. Cue cheesy pun: this is a World that truly should have remained Lost. Rating: 73%

Jurassic Park III
Directed by: Joe Johnston
Written by: Michael Crichton, Peter Buchman, Alexander Payne, & Jim Taylor
Staring: Sam Neil, William H. Macy, & Tea Leoni
Here is what they did right with Jurassic Park III: Hiring a new director to helm the third installment was a fresh idea. He's lackluster in most of attempts, but he's not BAD. And really, who doesn't like the Pagemaster and Jumanji? Also, bringing back Jurassic Park author Michael Crichton to handle character development, while throwing the rest of the script at three young writers who had worked together in the past? Better than David Koepp. Indeed, the writing and script of this outing was better than the second installation. Also...bringing back Sam Neil - always a good choice.

Now, here's what they did wrong: Jurassic Park III. As we learned in The Lost World, Jeff Goldblum doesn't work without a counter-balance. Well, Sam Neil doesn't work on his own either. That dichotomy of over-series mixed with Goldblum's crazy, conspiratorial nature is gold, but without it I was left bored by most of Neil's dialogue. But bless his heart, he tried. But not even Sam Neil could save this one... I knew this one was over when the giant "whatever-a-saurus" (the one bigger than the T-Rex...which is bullshit by the way) ate a cellphone. This allowed the crew to know when the creature was close-by. Never mind that some telemarketer just HAPPENED to be calling a SATELLITE PHONE at the EXACT moment it came near humans, or that the phone somehow survived the digestive properties of a DINOSAUR, but when they pulled it out of a giant pile of dino-poop to use it...I mean, really? How about convincing a pack of raptors not to eat you, using your diplomacy skills? Add to all of that the annoying as hell mother character, that made you literally want to commit murder in every single one of her scenes. By the end of this one, I was honestly cheering for the raptors... Rating: 68%

 

[SalvIsWin]

Tyrannosaur

Movie Trailer (VERY MUCH recommended): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvyqXFmV-LI

I saw this movie two nights ago, and I decided this is a movie that other people should know about.

Plot

Tyrannosaur is essentially the story of a rage-full, unstable man who becomes acquainted with a Christian woman who is married to a verbally and physically abusive man. That's all there is to it, it's just the story of this man and this woman.

My immediate thought upon seeing the trailer and reading the plot was that this was going to be a story about a troubled man who meets and befriends a troubled woman, and their troubles, although different, would be what connects them and eventually will lead to a happy ending.

This is the most horrifically sad movie I've seen in a long while. I don't want to say the saddest movie I've ever seen, but it's definitely up there. The story is so much more complex than what I originally expected, and the story is just very, very deep. I don't want to give anything away, but nothing is what you would expect, and not because there are plot twists, but more because the story is just so tragically realistic and there is no attempt made to tell a story that will make the viewer feel better if it sacrifices even a shred of the realistic narrative.

Acting

The battered woman (played by Olivia Colman) does such a brilliant job at portraying her character that it is one of the best performances I have ever seen, and I like to think of myself as a film connoisseur - drama and romance are my favourite genres. The rageful man (played by Peter Mullan) also does a terrific job at portraying a borderline psychotic man who despite appearances is incredibly complex.

The bad

The movie isn't without its flaws. While the acting and plot are the films strong suits, the film is British made, which basically means that there are heavy accents. As you can see from the trailer, Peter Mullan can be difficult to understand if you're not accumstomed to the accent. A few times during the movie I didn't understand what was being said, but from the reaction and comments from other characters I was able to deduce it usually fairly quickly - but there are a couple times I rewinded just to try and figure out his words exactly.

Also, the film is horrifically tragic. If you're not in the mood, or you don't like those kinds of movies, this is not a film for you. This is not a feel good movie, and the film has such a dedication to being completely serious and sadly realistic that there are some moments where the sadness is almost overwhelming.

Lastly, there are a few questionable scenes where I am wondering why they are included. Films have a general flow, where there is a buildup to a peak in the movie where the main problem or plot device is addressed, and then the movie wraps up. During this wrap up period, there are a couple scenes that I feel disrupt this flow. It's not that I don't respect the scene, it just baffles me as to its placement. No big deal however.

Conclusion

Anyone with even a modest interest in a brilliant and most of all, unique, spin on what seems like a simple story should give this movie a watch. It's quickly become one of my favourite films, I'm glad I discovered it.

Score

9.5 / 10

 

[The 1-2-3 Killam]

Spoiler

The Three Musketeers (1993) - 53%
30: Minutes or Less - 64%
The Ides of March - 65%
Mission: Impossible II - 68%
Jurassic Park III - 68%
Pirates IV - 72%
Mr. Popper's Penguins - 72%
The Lost World: Jurassic Park - 73%
Fast Five - 75%
Contagion - 76%
Ironclad - 77%
Mission: Impossible - 78%
Tangled - 79%
Seven Pounds -79%
Eat, Pray, Love - 80%
50/50 - 81%
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo - 82%
Drive - 83%
Shutter Island - 85%
Mission: Impossible III - 86%
District 9 - 86%
Book of Eli - 87%
I am Legend - 87%
Super 8 - 88%
Zombieland - 89%
Jurassic Park - 90%
Moneyball - 92%
Fight Club - 94%
The Help - 96%

So I did end up going to see Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol last night. While I didn't think it was ANYWHERE near as awful as Paralyzer would have us believe, I also didn't think it was near as brilliant as "Minimum Wage" Cage made it out to be. In fact, I feel pretty damn near the center of their two opinions...

The fourth installation in the Mission: Impossible series wasn't its best outing, but it certainly wasn't MI2 either. Tom Cruise was his usual self, Simon Pegg was clever as always, and surprisingly enough I did like Jeremy Renner's additon to the IMF team. And speaking of IMF, there actually is no organization, as the agency was entirely disavowed due to some down-played incident that I felt wasn't given proper attention. To me it just ended up feeling like a gimmick strapped onto it for an extra buck - "Oh, we've got to see this one! The IMF was shut down? However will Tom Cruise save the day!?" I enjoyed the comedy thrown into this sequel, making it a bit more lighthearted than the others.

Here's the problem with Ghost Protocol: it's incredibly pretty, the characters are charming (for the most part), and the story was simple enough...but there just wasn't a lot of substance. I just saw the movie not 24 hours ago, and if you asked me, gun-to-head what the name of the main villain was...I'd be a dead man. In fact, the entire opposition throughout the film was so ambiguous and unimportant that you almost wanted the film to end in total chaos

Spoiler

as the nuke goes spiraling down towards some major U.S. city. I'm not sure, because again... entirely too ambiguous! I want to say L.A...?

I also really disliked Paula Patton and her role in this - although I have to admit the main reason was because I thought she was a different actress (I can't figure out WHO though!!).

All in all, Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol was a fun, pretty action flick that almost surpassed the original, destroyed the second, but ultimately didn't have me as enchanted as the third. Also, what in hell was up with the cheesy ending? There was literally a GLOW around Tom Cruise's face during that entire scene... Rating: 78%

 

[Mitch Henessey]

We Bought A Zoo (2011) 7/10- Benjamin Mee (Matt Damon) is struggling as a single father. He’s trying to cope with the recent passing of his wife, and he must raise his two children all alone. Benjamin’s young daughter, Rosie Mee (Maggie Elizabeth Jones) is innocent enough, and she doesn’t cause any problems, but Benjamin’s teenage son, Dylan Mee (Colin Ford) is a troubled kid, who’s seeking attention. Dylan is a young and talented artist, who does show some real skills, when it comes to drawing, but he can also be one of the more disruptive forces in Benjamin’s life. Benjamin wants a fresh start. He wants to move on, so he decides to buy a new house. Benjamin’s new home seems perfectly fine at first, but the large zoo in the backyard could cause some problems.

We Bought A Zoo is a highly predictable film. You can see everything coming, the attempted swerves didn’t fool me, and this film just goes through the motions the entire time. Still, We Bought A Zoo can be a very enjoyable film. This film is filled with some genuine heartwarming moments, this one offers plenty of laughs, and We Bought A Zoo features characters, who you can care about. The acting in this film is very solid, and the entire cast really did give a nice effort here. Scarlett Johansson, Thomas Haden Church, and Colin Ford were able to stand out among the rest, and Angus MacFadyen was just hilarious throughout this film, but Matt Damon really did steal the show. Damon could be witty, charismatic, and humorous, but he could also showcase a serious side here. Damon had his moments of anger, and he was able to show some raw emotions in this film. The rest of the cast did a fine job with the acting, but Matt Damon’s performance was excellent, and he really did look like the star of the cast.

Yeah, We Bought A Zoo is VERY predictable, and this film does go through the motions, but you can still have a fun time with this one. We Bought A Zoo does feature a feel-good story, this film can provide plenty of laughs, and this one does have its moments as a touching drama. We Bought A Zoo does feature all the elements of your typical and formulaic Hollywood comedy/drama, but this film does feature a nice set of entertaining characters, the acting is good, this film does have a very pleasant and cheerful tone most of the time, and this one does feature some real moving moments. We Bought A Zoo is a well made family friendly film, that features some very likeable characters. Everyone can enjoy this, and I’m happy I took a chance on this one.

The Darkest Hour (2011) 2/10- Sean (Emile Hirsch) and Ben (Max Minghella) travel to Moscow for a business meeting. They’re trying to sell their social networking software to a group of Russian investors, but they quickly learn the cutthroat nature of the business world, because their software is stolen by the same group of people, who they originally wanted to sell to. Skyler (Joel Kinnaman) shows no remorse, when he steals the social networking software. Skyler doesn’t want to share the profits with the creators (Sean and Ben), and the trip to Russia seems like a complete waste of time. Sean and Ben are distraught, so they decide to go to a club to pick up their spirits. They meet two women, Natalie (Olivia Thirlby) and Anne (Rachel Taylor), and everything seems perfectly calm at first. Sean and Ben are enjoying the company of Natalie and Anne, but everything quickly takes a turn for the worst. An alien invasion begins to spread terror and destruction throughout Russia and the rest of the world, and the group of survivors (Sean, Ben, Natalie, Anne, and Skyler) must fight for their lives.

I really wanted to like this one, and I usually enjoy alien invasion flicks, but The Darkest Hour was one gigantic disappointment for me. This was supposed to be a sci-fi thriller, but The Darkest Hour can be so boring and dull most of the time. The action scenes really didn’t do anything for me, and character development is tossed out of the window in this film, because you really don’t get a chance to know any of the characters here. Sure, we do learn a few details about the friendship between Sean and Ben, but still, they really don’t give an in-depth explanation about the survivors here, and I just didn’t want to care about the shallow characters in this film. Also, the reveal of the aliens’ identity towards the end of the film felt so underwhelming. Throughout this film, the audience sees the alien attackers as these glowing orange force fields of light, but they FINALLY reveal the true physical form of the deadly attackers at the very end. I was expecting something terrifying, because these aliens reeked havoc throughout the entire film, and they destroyed everything in their path. But I just couldn’t stop laughing, when I finally saw the true physical form of the aliens here. They didn’t look intimidating or scary, and the awful and cheap CGI effects didn’t help anything.

The Darkest Hour could’ve worked as a mindless and fun popcorn flick, but they really dropped the ball here. Yeah, the acting is decent enough, the alien kills do look shocking and violent most of the time, and I did enjoy the atmosphere of the post-apocalyptic Russia, because you can really feel the devastation and danger, but the decent acting and images of a post-apocalyptic Russia couldn’t save this one. The Darkest Hour is a dull and lifeless film, that doesn’t feature any real thrills or action. This film just painfully goes through the motions, and they really didn’t put too much focus on character development here, because this film just features so many uninteresting personalities. The special effects looked cheap and atrocious, they were laughable most of the time, and for a film that relies so heavily on CGI, this can be a real problem. The Darkest Hour was a painful experience for me, and I was waiting for this one to be over. Emile Hirsch does have some potential for a bright career in Hollywood, but he needs a rebound film, and he needs one fast, because The Darkest Hour is a potential career killer.

 

[The 1-2-3 Killam]

Spoiler

The Three Musketeers (1993) - 53%
30: Minutes or Less - 64%
The Ides of March - 65%
Mission: Impossible II - 68%
Jurassic Park III - 68%
Pirates IV - 72%
Mr. Popper's Penguins - 72%
The Lost World: Jurassic Park - 73%
Fast Five - 75%
Contagion - 76%
Ironclad - 77%
Mission: Impossible - 78%
Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol - 78%
Tangled - 79%
Seven Pounds -79%
Eat, Pray, Love - 80%
50/50 - 81%
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo - 82%
Drive - 83%
Shutter Island - 85%
Mission: Impossible III - 86%
District 9 - 86%
Book of Eli - 87%
I am Legend - 87%
Super 8 - 88%
Zombieland - 89%
Jurassic Park - 90%
Moneyball - 92%
Fight Club - 94%
The Help - 96%

The Tree of Life
Directed by: Terrence Malick
Written by: Terrence Malick
Starring: Brad Pitt, Sean Penn, & Jessica Chastain
I almost don't want to review this movie - I feel like by touching it it's going to break into a million pieces, and I will somehow destroy its astonishing credibility with my ineloquent response. I don't want to gush all over The Tree of Life, because this is a film that not every viewer is going to "get". Some like their cinema straight and to-the-point. They don't want to sit through a 20-minute art montage, followed by ninety minutes of free-flowing storytelling (followed by another twenty-plus-minute artistic montage). Some don't like to think too hard about what they're being presented with, or be required to work for their entertainment. I get that - I really do. The Tree of Life is not a film churned out by the machine; rather it is a completely unique experience meant for the minds that understand and breath the industry.

The "plot" of this film follows Brad Pitt and Jessica Chastain, as they live a simple life in the 1950's. That's it. It's not any more or less complex than that. If you're looking for twists and turns, car chases, or at the very least a driving plot...turn back now. Or don't, and keep your mind open enough to be blown! Tree of Life isn't about the WHAT, but rather about the HOW. It's the journey, not just of the simplistic O'Brien family, but of life itself. That may sound incredibly pretentious, but the reality is that a movie has never before tried to capture a larger perspective than Terrence Malick has accomplished here.

When the story is rooted in the 1950's, dealing with the O'Brien family, you are wholly sucked in. Never have I seen such an excellent executed "period piece". Malick must have done hundreds of hours of research, and dug from his own past and experience. Not having lived through the 50's, my viewing of the movie is all the perspective I have. But other critics, such as Robert Ebert praise this movie for its flawless accuracy. Everything is as it should be, and even the time period chosen is done so for a reason. That reason: the 50's are "THE era" of envisioned American living. The model family, the model homes, and the mode lives. Children play in the woods and in the streets while fathers go to work and the women tend the home. Everyone attends church on Sundays, says their prayers before every meal, and brushes their teeth before climbing into bed. This is the basic, yet essential portable of the "American Dream". It's all done in a way that the setting is relatable no matter who you are, or where you come from.

The acting is outstanding! Brad Pitt plays his role flawlessly, delivering the main source of "drama" to the otherwise peaceful plot. Jessica Chastain is simply enchanting, and the children are the best kid-actors I have seen in cinema. As previously stated, this is a piece of art - not just a movie. As such the visuals are some of my favorite I've ever had the pleasure of viewing. Tree of LIfe takes you on a ride from the very beginning of the Universe to the existential afterlife that Malick portrays in a very curious way.

I'm afraid there's nothing more I can say to make this seem less ambiguous. The best summary I can give you is that Terrence Malick refused to settle for creating a "good movie", and instead set out to do something that had never been seen before. He didn't necessarily change the way things are done, or revolutionize the industry, but that's alright. For the very first time I believe a director and writer has brought us a visual tale that accurately puts all of existence into a relatable perspective, while simultaneously allowing you to take deep emotional attachment to the characters who are, in the end vastly unimportant. Nothing I say will ever do this masterpiece justice, and the only reason I am not giving it a perfect score is the value of accessibility. Not every is going to "get" this. Not everyone will have the time to analyze the meaning of the film, while many won't care to go past the surface of a movie. Some wont' have the intellectual stability to grasp what Malick is really trying to put out... That's ok. It's all part of the perspective so uniquely played out in The Tree of Life. Rating: 98%

 

[The 1-2-3 Killam]

Spoiler

The Three Musketeers (1993) - 53%
30: Minutes or Less - 64%
The Ides of March - 65%
Mission: Impossible II - 68%
Jurassic Park III - 68%
Pirates IV - 72%
Mr. Popper's Penguins - 72%
The Lost World: Jurassic Park - 73%
Fast Five - 75%
Contagion - 76%
Ironclad - 77%
Mission: Impossible - 78%
Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol - 78%
Tangled - 79%
Seven Pounds -79%
Eat, Pray, Love - 80%
50/50 - 81%
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo - 82%
Drive - 83%
Shutter Island - 85%
Mission: Impossible III - 86%
District 9 - 86%
Book of Eli - 87%
I am Legend - 87%
Super 8 - 88%
Zombieland - 89%
Jurassic Park - 90%
Moneyball - 92%
Fight Club - 94%
The Help - 96%
The Tree of Lie - 98%

Star Wars: Episode I
Directed by: George Lucas
Written by: George Lucas
Starring: Liam Neeson, Ewan McGregor, & Natalie Portman
After watching through the Mission: Impossible series, as well as the Jurassic Park series in recent weeks, I decided to go through the Star Wars series. As controversial as this may be, I decided to go in linear order, rather than chronological - the visual quality will suffer, by the story will progress more naturally, and more importantly I won't want to die by the end...

The Phantom Menace is one of the most hated movies by most hardcore science fiction fans. The Gungons (specially Jar-Jar), the terribly dialogue, whiny secondary characters, and the over-explanation of the Force concept are definitely present, even to a less hardcore, but long-time watcher such as myself. You don't have to be a Star Wars buff to realize that the writing here is absolutely catastrophic. Characters speak in one-liners, some over-act, while many show no passion whatsoever. Some of that is the actor's fault, but Natalie Portman and Liam Nesson have proven to deliver exceptional quality in (some) of their other endeavors. No, I think we can rest the blame of the script on the sole writer, producer, and director George Lucas. And I know what you're thinking... Lucas is the genius responsible for the original trilogy! How could he ruin it to this extent!? Here's the secret you've all been waiting for: Lawrence Kasdan.

If you can get past the fact that every major scene seems like it's beating you over the head with its condescention, the story being told is actually quite fun. It continues in the same vein as the rest of the Star Wars ensemble, delivering a gripping plot that features epic space battles, intense duals, and clever development. The score is absolutely brilliant, and I could listen to Dual of the Fates all day long... It's visually impressive, sonically impressive, and delivers a fun ride. So what's the big issue here? What makes Episode I so universally hated?

While all the things I listed make the movie watchable (at least once), all the cleverness of the original characters is gone. Nobody grips you and makes you want to invest in them! Where are my Han Solo's, my C-3P0's, and my Princess Leah's? Sure, the movie is fun, but with a script that makes me think he was intentionally trying to make a "bad movie" (ala Troll II), bland and annoying characters, and enough CGI to kill a horse (and beat it over and over again), I have to ask George Lucas: what in the hell where you thinking? You want my advice? Probably not, but here it is anyways: stick to storytelling, hire a real director, and get somebody who knows how to write to pen your films. Or just retire. Rating: 73%

 

[Paralyzer Z]

Cashback(2006)- Sean Ellis directs one of my favorite films I have seen since Inception here, it stars Sean Biggerstaff, and Michelle Ryan. The plot is quite creative, an insomniac after the break up with his girlfriend learns to freeze time. The acting for most of the film is subtle and not over the top, with a few hilarious moments including the supermarket staff and their boss (Stuart Goodwin). Muck like Inception the originality of the plot and it's execution does it for me, you can call it "gently erotic". By that I mean that the story also revolves around the insomniac (Biggerstaff) and his obsession with the female body and how it lends itself to art. The nudity is a little overdone, but it's not something that exploits it in a flashy way, but in a gentle way. I love Biggersaff as the insomniac since he is never all that emotional he just plays it calm and believable.8/10

9(2009)- Wow, this is just amazing. A group of 9 ragdolls (Voiced by Christopher Plummer, Martin Landua, John Reily etc..) are left by a scientist to eventually destroy beasts that conquered humanity. On a side not this was directed by Shane Aucker the creator of the 2005 short which the film is based on. The first parts of the movie where there is no dialogue resembles the short and how the characters interact with the environment and each other without words. The rest of the film is very thrilling and adventurous as well. I think it's very well thought out and an exciting movie to watch with fantastic visuals. 8.5/10

Diary of a wimpy kid Rodrick Rules(2011)- Director: David Bowers, Starring: Zachary Gordon and Devon Bostick. Being an avid fan of the books this is based on I can honestly say that is better than the first film in the series. This is very much what you would expect here, Gordon and Bostick play Greg and Rodrick, 2 brothers with a dysfunctional relationship that find themselves in mischievous adventures. I will admit that I found this to be much more comedic than the first movie, the jokes are just naturally funny here. There are some disgusting moments but that is to be expected in a kid's film. I was surprised by how long this was,but that doesn't detract from anything. Most of it is physical comedy and loud characters which is enjoyable to watch at times, other times not. Like the books it doesn't follow around one problem it ventures off into several different conflicts but all revolve around the brother's relationships. Fun to watch, get a good laugh, but nothing much else than that. 6.5/10

Captain America :The first avenger(2011)- Director: Joe Johnston, Starring: Chris Evans, Hugo Weavings, and Samuel L. Jackson. This shocked me as to how enjoyable it was. I love the first half of the film as Evans does a great job playing the wimpy Steve Rogers that becomes Captain America. Now this is a marvel live action film so of course they try to make it as realistic a possible, and boy do they really accomplish that in the first half. Once he becomes Captain America it becomes much more fictional but that's to be expected especially with the Johann Schmidt suddenly changing into Red Skull with little to no explanation of it. Again I enjoyed the the first half much more than the second half which felt rushed, but it's a Superhero movie so you half to jump into the action quickly. I really like this movie and I await the Avengers(2012) eagerly. 8/10

 

[Mitch Henessey]

The Iron Lady (2012) 5/10- Meryl Streep really was the driving force behind this film. As expected, Streep delivered another powerhouse performance here, and she probably will receive her seventeenth Oscar nomination for her work in this film. The make-up effects helped, but Streep was able to immerse herself in this character, and she really did become Margaret Thatcher in this film. Streep could be witty and humorous, but she could also showcase a serious side, and as always, Streep was able to show some raw emotion here. Most of the time, you could see a strong woman, who was willing to fight, but you could also see a lonely and troubled person, who suffered some serious mental problems. Thatcher grieves over the loss of her husband throughout this film. Streep was very convincing during these scenes, and I did want to feel for her.

The Iron Lady does feature some emotional moments, and this biopic didn’t try to portray Thatcher as this squeaky clean person. You’ll see Thatcher’s rise to prominence in this film, and she does struggle to earn respect as a woman in a man’s world. But Thatcher could also be a stubborn woman, who wouldn’t listen to reason, and at times, she wasn’t the nicest person. I enjoyed this approach, because showcasing the different sides of Thatcher’s personality made this film feel more realistic.

Also, the time-shifting style of story telling was done well. The Iron Lady shows Thatcher’s past as a shy and quiet young woman, and Thatcher’s tenure as Prime Minister is shown. During these scenes, you’ll see a courageous woman, who didn’t always make the popular choices, but she was determined to stand her ground. The present parts of the storyline can feel emotional and depressing, because you see a lonely and heartbroken old woman, who didn’t want to let go of the past. The time-shifting style of storytelling shows you the rise and fall of Margaret Thatcher. This style of story telling really worked, because you get to see the ups and downs in Thatcher’s life. Alexandra Roach plays the young version of Thatcher in the past parts of the storyline, and I didn’t have a problem with this at all. When it comes to Roach’s presence in this film, there have been a few identity crisis complaints from other critics, because Roach and Streep are portraying the same character. I didn’t have a problem with Roach portraying the younger version of Thatcher, because you have to remember something, Meryl Streep is a sixty-two year old woman. Transforming her into this young woman would’ve been a hard task. An age transformation of this magnitude would not have been believable at all, and you can only do so much with make-up effects.

The Iron Lady wasn’t a horrible film, but I was disappointed by this one. I’m going to have high expectations, when Meryl Streep has the leading role in any type of film. Streep holds up her end of the bargain here, and the rest of the cast was decent enough, but The Iron Lady can feel so dull and bland most of the time. The Iron Lady really does feel like a lifeless film at times, and Phyllida Lloyd’s directing didn’t help anything. Her plain style of directing really hurt this one, and Streep’s great performance is wasted here, because The Iron Lady is a very forgettable film. It’s a shame. The Iron Lady could’ve been one of the more memorable biopics, because anything is possible, when you have Meryl Streep.

Meryl Streep’s marvelous performance helped drive this rating up for me, and she really did carry this film on her back. Streep will probably receive an Oscar nomination in the Best Actress category. Streep receiving an Oscar nomination wouldn’t bother me too much, because she did save this film. The Iron Lady could’ve been much worse without Streep, and her performance does deserve recognition and praise.

Carnage (2011) 8/10- Two boys get into a fight at the very beginning of this film. One of the boys hits the other in the face with a stick. The son of Penelope (Jodie Foster) and Michael (John C. Reilly) Longstreet loses two teeth, so his parents decide to have a meeting with Alan (Christoph Waltz) and Nancy (Kate Winslet) Cowan (the parents of the son, who injured The Longstreet‘s kid). Penelope wants to discuss the aftermath of the fight in a civil manner. She thinks her son deserves an apology, and everything is calm at first, but frustrations slowly start to build, and the peaceful meeting takes a hectic turn for the worst.

There’s not much I can say about Carnage. This is a VERY short film, everything moves at a nice quick pace, and this film only features one true setting (The Longstreet’s apartment). Also, Kate Winslet, Jodie Foster, John C. Reilly, and Christoph Waltz are the only characters you get a chance to know here. Sure, they do show the kids at the very beginning and end of the film, but as far as personality and character goes, you really don’t learn anything about them. The parents do reveal some details about the kids during the many arguments in this film, but the details revealed during the arguments just feel like opinions, because the kids really don’t receive any significant screen time, and they don‘t have any dialogue here.

Still, Carnage is one of the most entertaining black comedies I’ve ever seen. This entire film is loaded with some great humor, and this one does feature plenty of hilarious moments. Carnage does have a slow start, but you can feel the tension pick up along the way. This film really doesn’t feature too many dull scenes, and Carnage does provide an enjoyable and wild ride to the end. The acting is great here, and the cast was the highlight for this one. Winslet, Waltz, and Reilly were outstanding, but Jodie Foster really stole the show here. Foster did deliver a good amount of energy, she could be funny, and she was very believable as this woman, who could be one gigantic emotional train wreck. Jodie Foster might not be as popular as Angelina Jolie, Julia Roberts, or Sandra Bullock, and she doesn’t have the legendary reputation of a Meryl Streep, but Foster has been one of the more talented actresses in Hollywood for a long time, and when it’s all said and done for her, Foster should be remembered as one of the greatest ever.

Carnage does provide some good laughs, and the cast is just outstanding. The combination of Winslet, Foster, Waltz, and Reilly drew me to this film, and they didn’t disappoint at all. Roman Polanski did a solid enough job with the directing, and he deserves some credit for the screenplay, because this film was well written. Carnage was a real treat for me, and I’m happy I took a chance on this one.

 

[Mitch Henessey]

Underworld: Awakening (2012) 7/10- Selene (Kate Beckinsale) and Michael Corvin are on the run from the humans, and they must find a way to escape. Story wise, It’s six months after the events of Underworld: Evolution, and the existence of Vampires and Lycans is no longer a secret. The humans have decided to cleanse the world of both species, and they are determined to exterminate and study the Lycans and Vampires. Selene and Michael almost manage an escape, but an underwater explosion separates them. Twelve years later, after “Subject #2” frees her from a cryogenic imprisonment, Selene awakes in a laboratory. She needs to find Michael, but the world has changed drastically. Fearing the human extermination mission, the Vampires and Lycans go into hiding, but a hybrid child named Eve (India Eisley) could change everything.

Yeah, I loved every second of this film. Most of the time, I was literally on the edge of my seat, because the action was just great. Awakening is filled with some nice thrills, and the battle scenes are very enjoyable. This film does feature some graphic and bloody gore, and the kills are pretty gruesome here. Also, Underworld: Awakening does feature some great visuals, and the 3D effects were superb. Finding an entertaining 3D film these days can be a hard task, because most 3D films don’t deliver at all, and everything feels like a giant rip-off. But Awakening is loaded with some very impressive 3D effects, the eye popping moments looked unreal, and you will see a good amount of blood, body parts, and gadgets fly towards you, if you decide to take a chance on the 3D.

Kate Beckinsale was in top form here. As always, she nailed the Selene character, and her return to the Underworld franchise did provide plenty of mark out moments for me. Beckinsale always seems like the perfect choice for this character, she’s smooth, and she did deliver another solid performance in this film. We’re introduced to some new characters in this Underworld film, but Eve receives most of the focus here. She’s the hybrid child, who could change everything, and the Lycans will stop at nothing to capture her. Eve is a very important person in this film, because she could change the outcome of the war, but the little secret involving her character was kind of obvious….

Spoiler

Eve is Selene’s daughter.

Umm, yeah, this didn’t surprise me too much. In fact, I had this figured out, when I saw the first full trailer months ago. She’s a HYBRID child, so who else could be her mother and father? Michael is a hybrid, and he’s in love with Selene, so I could always sense some kind of connection between these three characters. Still, this was supposed to one of the bigger “surprises” in this film, and it did feel disappointing, because I could see it coming. I’ve followed every film in the Underworld franchise. I know the story, so I really couldn’t feel the shock value of this secret.

The lack of character development can be an issue here, but fuck it, I still loved Underworld: Awakening. This film is filled with nonstop action and thrills, the visuals are pretty impressive, the 3D looked great, the acting was solid enough, and the final moments of this film are packed with some nice suspense. Underworld: Awakening is a fast paced action/horror film, and this one did provide one hell of an entertaining ride for me. This rating might be a little bit high, but I can’t deny how much I loved this film. I decided to bump this score up a little bit, because I really enjoyed the 3D. Also, I was very happy to see Kate Beckinsale return, as the fearless and ass kicking Death Dealer.

Rise Of The Lycans was decent enough, and Evolution was enjoyable, but when it comes to the best film in the entire series, Awakening gives the original some serious competition. Underworld (2003) will always be remembered as the film that set the bar for the entire series, but when it comes to action and suspense, Awakening just took everything to another level. The 2003 original was a very solid film, but Awakening deserves a good amount of recognition, because this was one of the more enjoyable films in the Underworld series.

 

[Mitch Henessey]

Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy (2011) 9/10- George Smiley (Gary Oldman) is an intelligence officer for the Circus organization (a British intelligence agency). Smiley is forced out of retirement, and he must investigate the suspicions of a mole. Smiley’s search is filled with plenty of twists and turns, and his path to the truth becomes more and more dangerous, as time passes by.

First of all, Gary Oldman deserves a ton of credit here. The rest of the cast was very enjoyable, but Oldman delivered an excellent performance in this film, and he proved to be a superb choice for the lead role. Mark Strong and Tom Hardy did their parts as well, and both men were very impressive throughout this film. Strong and Hardy took their talents to another level here, but truth be told, the entire cast deserves credit, because the high quality acting was one of the many highlights in this one. Still, Gary Oldman really earned his Oscar nomination for his work in this film. Oldman has been preoccupied with some major Hollywood blockbusters (Harry Potter, Nolan’s Batman films, The Book Of Eli) over the past seven years, Red Riding Hood (2011) was a very forgettable, and he really hasn’t had a chance to shine as the star in a leading role, because he was a supporting character in all of those films. But Oldman still proves he can be one of the best in Tinker, Tailor, Solider, Spy, and he really does deserve his spot in the Best Actor category.

You’re going to be disappointed, if you’re expecting to see a barrage of flashy action scenes, and intense shootouts, that are filled with adrenaline, and you won’t see any high speed car chases, that involve gun fights, because Tinker, Tailor, Solider, Spy is NOT that kind of espionage thriller. Tinker, Tailor, Solider, Spy is a smart and sharp spy thriller. The calculated pacing in this film is wonderful, and the final moments do feature some nice suspense. Tinker, Tailor, Solider, Spy can be a thought provoking film, and the entire cast is just brilliant, because this film does feature some great acting.

Gary Oldman’s Oscar nomination is well deserved, but this one could’ve made its way into the Best Picture category. Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy is a fantastic film, but Drive and The Ides Of March also received the snub treatment, so the lack of nominations didn’t surprise me too much.

The Poughkeepsie Tapes (2007) 8/10- The Water Street Butcher is a sick and twisted killer, who likes to record the demise of his victims. The Water Street Butcher captures all of the murders and torture on camera. The shocking footage could help detectives capture the elusive and dangerous killer, but for some, the footage of the grisly murders is too much to handle.

Wow. The Poughkeepsie tapes is a found-footage film, and usually, I HATE this style of filmmaking, but my personal feelings couldn’t get in the way here. The Poughkeepsie Tapes is an outstanding found-footage horror film, and this is one of the best I’ve ever seen.

The Poughkeepsie Tapes gives you an in-depth look at the deranged mind of the killer. The Water Street Butcher is sick and sadistic, and his presence does provide plenty of chilling moments throughout this film. The Poughkeepsie Tapes provides a unique portrayal of the killer, and The Water Street Butcher is burned in memory, because I will remember him as one of the most evil characters I’ve ever seen in any type of film.

Also, The Poughkeepsie Tapes does feature a unique style of filmmaking. For the most part, you will see this film through the killer’s eyes, as he films his murderous rampage. The scenes that involve The Water Street Butcher can feel genuinely disturbing, because you really get to see how much of a sick freak this man is. But they also show some documentary style footage, that includes many interviews from police, FBI agents, people who invested time in the murder mystery, and families of the victims. They also show footage of a retired FBI agent, who teaches classes to future FBI hopefuls, and he uses the footage of the murders as a tool for teaching. The interviews, and the behind the scenes stuff (autopsies, teaching classes, etc.) was great, but one of the final interviews shown in this film really packed a powerful punch….

Spoiler

Cheryl Dempsey was one of The Water Street Butchers’ early victims. For years, he held her captive. The Water Street Butcher tortured Cheryl, and he forced her to kill. Although, The Water Street Butcher showed this particular victim some mercy. He developed a bond with Cheryl, and he actually let her live. But Cheryl was a broken woman after her release. She developed feelings for the killer, and she didn’t want to live without him. At the end of the film, the audience learns of Cheryl’s suicide, and this did provide a heartbreaking conclusion at the end.

The Poughkeepise Tapes allows you to see the film from the killer’s point of view, and the interviews during the documentary portions of this film do provide some insight for his motivations and desires. Also, I could really feel for the victims here. You can see them suffer in the murder scenes, and the heartbreaking interviews from the family members do provide the necessary emotional touch. They were able to provide a good mixture of the killer’s footage with the documentary portions of this film, and the blending of both styles of footage did make everything feel more realistic.

The Poughkeepsie Tapes can feel genuinely disturbing most of the time, and this film does feature a good amount of shocking violence and graphic gore. This film is loaded with some great tension, the acting is decent enough, and the murder scenes do provide plenty of cringing moments. Also, there’s a nice twist at the end, and The Water Street Butcher’s crafty tactics do provide one hell of a surprise.

 

[Tha Wolfpac]

Underworld: Awakening (2012) 7/10- Selene (Kate Beckinsale) and Michael Corvin are on the run from the humans, and they must find a way to escape. Story wise, It’s six months after the events of Underworld: Evolution, and the existence of Vampires and Lycans is no longer a secret. The humans have decided to cleanse the world of both species, and they are determined to exterminate and study the Lycans and Vampires. Selene and Michael almost manage an escape, but an underwater explosion separates them. Twelve years later, after “Subject #2” frees her from a cryogenic imprisonment, Selene awakes in a laboratory. She needs to find Michael, but the world has changed drastically. Fearing the human extermination mission, the Vampires and Lycans go into hiding, but a hybrid child named Eve (India Eisley) could change everything.

Yeah, I loved every second of this film. Most of the time, I was literally on the edge of my seat, because the action was just great. Awakening is filled with some nice thrills, and the battle scenes are very enjoyable. This film does feature some graphic and bloody gore, and the kills are pretty gruesome here. Also, Underworld: Awakening does feature some great visuals, and the 3D effects were superb. Finding an entertaining 3D film these days can be a hard task, because most 3D films don’t deliver at all, and everything feels like a giant rip-off. But Awakening is loaded with some very impressive 3D effects, the eye popping moments looked unreal, and you will see a good amount of blood, body parts, and gadgets fly towards you, if you decide to take a chance on the 3D.

Kate Beckinsale was in top form here. As always, she nailed the Selene character, and her return to the Underworld franchise did provide plenty of mark out moments for me. Beckinsale always seems like the perfect choice for this character, she’s smooth, and she did deliver another solid performance in this film. We’re introduced to some new characters in this Underworld film, but Eve receives most of the focus here. She’s the hybrid child, who could change everything, and the Lycans will stop at nothing to capture her. Eve is a very important person in this film, because she could change the outcome of the war, but the little secret involving her character was kind of obvious….

Spoiler

Eve is Selene’s daughter.

Umm, yeah, this didn’t surprise me too much. In fact, I had this figured out, when I saw the first full trailer months ago. She’s a HYBRID child, so who else could be her mother and father? Michael is a hybrid, and he’s in love with Selene, so I could always sense some kind of connection between these three characters. Still, this was supposed to one of the bigger “surprises” in this film, and it did feel disappointing, because I could see it coming. I’ve followed every film in the Underworld franchise. I know the story, so I really couldn’t feel the shock value of this secret.

The lack of character development can be an issue here, but fuck it, I still loved Underworld: Awakening. This film is filled with nonstop action and thrills, the visuals are pretty impressive, the 3D looked great, the acting was solid enough, and the final moments of this film are packed with some nice suspense. Underworld: Awakening is a fast paced action/horror film, and this one did provide one hell of an entertaining ride for me. This rating might be a little bit high, but I can’t deny how much I loved this film. I decided to bump this score up a little bit, because I really enjoyed the 3D. Also, I was very happy to see Kate Beckinsale return, as the fearless and ass kicking Death Dealer.

Rise Of The Lycans was decent enough, and Evolution was enjoyable, but when it comes to the best film in the entire series, Awakening gives the original some serious competition. Underworld (2003) will always be remembered as the film that set the bar for the entire series, but when it comes to action and suspense, Awakening just took everything to another level. The 2003 original was a very solid film, but Awakening deserves a good amount of recognition, because this was one of the more enjoyable films in the Underworld series.

I agree almost entirely with your film review. I too admired the grit and awesome action sequences. But one problem i found with this movie, everything seemed too convenient and perfect. The pieces all fell into place and the movie carried on as expected, predictability was the film's major flaw. But other than that it's still a solid addition to the franchise which i enjoyed.

 

[Mitch Henessey]

The Grey (2012) 8/10- During a plane ride home from Alaska, a hunter/sniper (Liam Neeson), who targets dangerous and threatening wolves and an oil drilling team (Todd Flannery, Talget, Diaz, Hendrick, Burke, Hernandez, Lewenden) encounter a fierce blizzard. Everything is shaky at first, but eventually, the passengers are forced to endure a fierce and violent ride, as the plane crashes to the ground. The survivors are stranded in a dangerous territory, and time isn’t on their side, because the bloodthirsty wolves, who inhabit the secluded area will kill any unwelcome intruders. The resources are VERY limited, and the freezing temperatures continue to drop. The survivors are in desperate need for shelter or a rescue, but can they survive the freezing temperatures and the attacks from the relentless wolves?

At first, I didn’t expect much from The Grey, but this film really did surprise me. The acting is very solid here, but Liam Neeson deserves a lot of credit, because he was fantastic as the lead man. Neeson was very convincing as the brave leader, who was willing to do anything to protect the other survivors, and find safety at any cost. Neeson was brave, and he could be believable as this fierce leader, who would take down any threatening wolves. John Ottway (Neeson) was a leader, and he was the voice of reason throughout this film, but Neeson could also showcase a sensitive side. You could see a heartbroken man, who missed his wife. Also, Neeson was fond of his father, and he had a strong bond with him during his childhood years. Neeson recites a poem created by his father a few times, these scenes did provide some heartwarming and touching moments, and Neeson’s character wasn’t afraid to admit his fears in this film. When the situation called for it, Neeson was more than willing to stand and fight, but he still wasn’t ashamed to profess his fears. Neeson’s character was a leader, who fought off dangerous wolves, but at the same time, he didn’t try to be this cocky alpha male bad ass. John Ottway KNEW he was stuck in a dangerous environment, and the chances for an escape were very slim. He knew his life could end at any moment. This particular thought scared him, and proudly admitting this fear was a very admirable personality trait.

The Grey is an emotional and heartbreaking tale of survival and death. This film is loaded with some nice action, the gore can be pretty gruesome, there are a few spook moments here, and this film does feature some characters, who can really care about. John Ottway and the oil rig team were men with families. The thoughts of returning to their loved ones helped keep hope alive, but for some, having to endure the freezing weather and the viscous wolves proved to be too much. Some decided to give up on life and the quest home, and these certain scenes did provide some very emotional moments. A lot of the characters weren’t afraid to admit their fears in this film. They knew they could die at any moment. They were scared, and they didn’t try to hide it. I thought this was a nice touch, because you really won’t see too many cocky characters, who make stupid mistakes in The Grey. They show their emotional side, and I really wanted to care about characters here. Also, the atmosphere in this film made the danger feel more realistic. I could really feel for the survivors, as they struggled to march through the deep snow, and the cold temperatures caused many difficulties for the main cast of characters in this film. The nighttime scenes felt eerie and chilling, and the glowing eyes of the hungry wolves in the dark helped add to the unbelievable tension throughout this film. The Grey is an outstanding thriller/drama, and I loved every second of this one.

The Descendants 9/10 (2011)- I went into this film with some pretty high expectations. The Descendants has received its fair share of tremendous praise, and there is a good amount of Oscar buzz surrounding this film. At first, I wasn’t too impressed, and I thought I would have to sit through another ordinary comedy/drama, that features a sappy story, but I was wrong. The Descendants does feature some nice humor every now and then, but this film does have its serious moments, and I could really feel the emotional scenes in this film.

Also, the acting is just superb. The Descendants features a nice set of characters, who you can actually care about, and the performances helped take everything to the next level. George Clooney was fantastic as the lead man. Matt King (Clooney) was the father with a tremendous burden. He had to abandon his role as the “back-up parent.” King must look after his two daughters, and his wife, Elizabeth, is stuck in a coma. Also, King must make a crucial decision about a land deal, that will involve lots of money. But will Clooney do the right the thing, or will he accept the guaranteed large paycheck? Matt King is put through hell here, you could really feel for this character, and George Clooney did provide a very convincing performance in this film. Shailene Woodley also deserves her fair share of credit. Alex (Woodley) was the rebellious and disrespectful teenager, and she could have a real nasty side most of the time. But you could also see a person, who was struggling with some real issues, and I wanted to feel for this character. Woodley could be humorous at times, but she also did a good job of showing some real raw emotions here.

To be honest, I really didn’t have a strong desire to watch this film. The high praises and the Oscar buzz surrounding this film drew me to this one, because I wanted to see what all the fuss was about. It was a tough choice, but I decided to go with a favorable score for this film, because I did enjoy The Descendants. At times, The Descendants can provide some good laughs, and the humor in this film is very enjoyable. But The Descendants can feature some genuine emotional scenes, and this film does have its moments as a moving drama. The Descendants is able to balance the comedy and the drama. The drama doesn’t feel too sappy, and they didn’t over do the comedy here, because The Descendants never reaches the point where you might ask yourself the “Am I suppose to take this seriously or what?” question. They did do a nice job of shifting gears at the right moment, The Descendants still manages to pack a powerful punch, and the final moments of this film do provide some strong emotionally draining feelings.

2011 was a good year for George Clooney. The Ides Of March received its fair share of praise. Clooney received an Oscar nomination for his performance in The Descendants and I don’t have a problem with this at all. The rest of the acting in this film is very solid, but Clooney was the highlight of the entire cast, because he really did steal the show here.

 

[The 1-2-3 Killam]

Spoiler

The Three Musketeers (1993) - 53%
30: Minutes or Less - 64%
The Ides of March - 65%
Mission: Impossible II - 68%
Jurassic Park III - 68%
Pirates IV - 72%
Mr. Popper's Penguins - 72%
Star Wars: Episode I - 73%
The Lost World: Jurassic Park - 73%
Fast Five - 75%
Contagion - 76%
Ironclad - 77%
Mission: Impossible - 78%
Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol - 78%
Tangled - 79%
Seven Pounds -79%
Eat, Pray, Love - 80%
50/50 - 81%
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo - 82%
Drive - 83%
Shutter Island - 85%
Mission: Impossible III - 86%
District 9 - 86%
Book of Eli - 87%
I am Legend - 87%
Super 8 - 88%
Zombieland - 89%
Jurassic Park - 90%
Moneyball - 92%
Fight Club - 94%
The Help - 96%
The Tree of Lie - 98%

Chronicle
Directed by: Josh Trank
Written by: Max Landis & Josh Trank
Staring: Dane DeHaan, Alex Russell, & Michael B. Jordan

Wow. I went into the theaters only knowing two things about this movie: First, that it had something to do with super powers, and that it was a "found footage" style film. For those of you not familiar with the genre, and haven't seen Cloverfield, it's one of those movies done to give the viewer the impression that you're seeing things through the eyes of the actors own personal camera. In most cases it means varying levels of quality, incredibly shaky screens, and lousy box office performance... In the case of Chronicle, it means redefining an entire genre of film-making and blowing the lid off a previously "indie" style.

I'm not sure why nobody else has though of this simple, yet surprisingly revolutionary idea, but this is the first time I've seen a film like this use multiple perspectives. As in...they solved the "we need more cameras, but how do we go about it?" problem by GIVING OTHER CHARACTERS MORE CAMERAS! Genius... At the end, it was almost like an outside source had found all these different cameras, which included the main characters film strips, security devises, cell phones, iPads, and even an innocent bystander that likely uploaded his clip to YouTube... It was extremely clever, and to put the icing on the cake they even changed quality depending on the device being used. As complicated as that sounds, it actually went down without a hitch, resulting in an incredibly seamless film.

The plot is basic enough: three teenage kids develop the power of telekinesis and struggle to make them a part of their every day, high schooler lives. What I love most is that they spent almost no time on the "origin story" of these mysterious abilities. In fact, I can piece this together for you in one sentence (WARNING: HUGE SPOILERS INCOMING!)... They went down in a hole, same something glowing, and had powers the next day. Does that sound incredibly boring? YES! But it's not, and that's the magic of Chronicle. Rather than spend 30 minutes explaining how these events came about, and another 20 at the end trying to wrap it all up with some un-needed alien invasion, they breezed past it and focussed on what was clearly important to the writers the entire time: these kids and their story.

So we've got an inexperienced director, an unknown writer, and three kids that have done some television time (Parenthood is great, by the way...). Usually that spells disaster, but they make it work here. The scenes within the school grounds feel incredibly realistic. You expect a video camera in the hands of a teenage boy to be annoying, and at times it is! They don't try to be overly serious, and for the most part the acting comes across as believable. Three angsty teenagers making their way through life with super powers - it doesn't seem that difficult a concept, but you'd be surprised to find out how many movies fail at making believable high school scenes work in their movies. I'm pleased to say that everyone did a great job, and I'll be closely following their careers in the future.

Perhaps the highlight of the film was the impending showdown at the end, putting their abilities (and the camera work) on full display for a huge, action-packed finale. While a lot of writers and directors find it hard to pull the trigger on deep, somewhat horrific plot points, Josh Trank and his crew proved that they had the cinematic "balls" to do what was necessary at the very end. When the whole thing was over I just sat in the theater and absorbed the movie on through to the end credits. And that...is always a very good sign. Great work to this extremely new cast and crew. Rating: 90%

 

[The 1-2-3 Killam]

Spoiler

The Three Musketeers (1993) - 53%
30: Minutes or Less - 64%
The Ides of March - 65%
Mission: Impossible II - 68%
Jurassic Park III - 68%
Pirates IV - 72%
Mr. Popper's Penguins - 72%
Star Wars: Episode I - 73%
The Lost World: Jurassic Park - 73%
Fast Five - 75%
Contagion - 76%
Ironclad - 77%
Mission: Impossible - 78%
Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol - 78%
Tangled - 79%
Seven Pounds -79%
Eat, Pray, Love - 80%
50/50 - 81%
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo - 82%
Drive - 83%
Shutter Island - 85%
Mission: Impossible III - 86%
District 9 - 86%
Book of Eli - 87%
I am Legend - 87%
Super 8 - 88%
Zombieland - 89%
Jurassic Park - 90%
Chronicle - 90%
Moneyball - 92%
Fight Club - 94%
The Help - 96%
The Tree of Lie - 98%

Thor
Directed by: Kenneth Branagh
Written by: Ashley Miller (screenplay), Zack Stentz (screenplay), J. Michael Straczynski (story), Mark Protesevich (story)
Starring: Chris Hemsworth, Natalie Portman, & Tom Hiddleston (w/ Anthony Hopkins)

I love super heroes, and I love super hero film adaptions ever more. That being said, I think Marvel has almost overdone it on the way to this year's big Avengers release. After the Hulk, two Ironman movies, Captain America, and now Thor... in a generation filled with Spidermans, Supermans, and Nolan's Batman empire there's really only so much room in my brain for big, expensive, over-powered fantasy dudes! And let's face it: Marvel hasn't done that great a job in branching outside their more cookie-cutter origin launches... Cap, Thor, Hulk, and Ironman may all look different, but if you break down their plot devices, it's incredibly shocking how little work they've had to do to bring us a half dozen blockbusters...

All that aside, Thor was probably nearer to the top than I expected. It's hard to mix an over-the-top fantasy universe, completely centered around Norse mythology in with "reality". But they didn't try to make "real life" more goofy, or Asgard less fantastic... They simply let the two be themselves, and managed to produce a really fun dichotomy in the process!

Chris Hemsworth was completely over-dramatic, but when you're playing a God of Thunder that's exactly what you want! He fit the role perfectly, and surprisingly enough, so did Natalie Portman! I'm not really sure what went wrong in the Star Wars trilogy for Portman (oh yes I do, and his name is George Lucas...), but she has been rocking it ever since! V for Vendetta? Classic. Black Swan? Weird, but excellent. Mr Magorium's Wonder Emporium? Severely underrated family flick...IT'S GREAT! Thor isn't exactly an academy award winner, but the whole cast really bring it together...

For all my Marvel ranting at the beginning, I really do have to hand it to the team for a job well done here. It's probably competing against Ironman for the top spot right now, but we'll just have to wait and see on the Avengers. My only real complaints with the movie where the small moments of over-acting that DIDN'T quite fit the tone (mostly among the "frost warriors"), and the writers trying to fit a bit too much character background in too short a film. It's all very necessary, so I don't blame them (plus they had 5 writers and 3 comic originals to deal with...), but sometimes it did feel rushed unbalanced because of it. Nothing huge really, just some minor flaws that generally come with the territory when you deal with something like this. Overall, Thor...really really fun! Rating: 82%

 

[Mitch Henessey]

Haywire (2012) 7/10- Mallory Kane (Gina Carano) is a lethal and crafty agent, who works for a private American government firm, that carries out covert operation missions. Kenneth (Ewan McGregor) is Mallory’s boss and ex-boyfriend. He gives Mallory a simple enough mission: She must pose as the wife of a Bristish agent (Michael Fassbender) during a mission in Dublin. Everything feels calm at first, but Mallory quickly realizes Kenneth’s betrayal. The one man, who she thought was trustworthy set her up. Mallory’s life is in serious danger. Paul (Fassbender) tries to “finalize the divorce,” but Mallory is able to get the upper hand. She takes care of Paul, but Mallory isn’t in the clear just yet. Mallory has been framed for murder, and she has become a hunted fugitive. Mallory is able to make a quick escape, and she only has two goals set in her sights: Discover the truth behind her betrayal, and kill everyone involved.

Gina Carano has received a lot of heat from the critics. Her “atrocious” acting skills are one of the main reasons why a good amount of critics have torn this film apart and trashed it to no end. I really don’t know too much about Carano. I know she’s an MMA fighter, and I have seen a few of her fights over the years, but I don’t pay close attention, because I’m not a big fan of MMA. I also don’t know if she’s done other films before. Most of the critics HATED her performance in this film, but for the most part, I actually enjoyed Carano and her character. Acting wise, she was okay. Her acting skills weren’t anything to brag about, and there’s no denying that, but Carano was able to make-up for her shortcomings in the acting department during the action scenes. Mallory Kane was a fearless and crafty agent, who wouldn’t back down from a fight. Carano was very smooth during the fight scenes in this film, and she was very believable, as this woman who could knock your teeth down your throat, and in most cases, do a lot worse. The Mallory Kane character was more of a physical threat than anything. Carano was able to pull off this side of the character with ease, she did provide an intimidating presence, and she was very comfortable with her character throughout this film.

Carano is an attractive woman, and she could have a future in mainstream action films, but she needs to step things up on the acting side of her career, if she wants to become a real star one day. She’s not going to be surrounded by an experienced and well known cast in all of her films, and there’s going to come a time, where she’s going to have to carry one of her movies.

Anyway, Haywire is an intelligent and sharp action/thriller, and this film does feature some clever editing. The supporting cast is excellent, the acting is very solid, and the story is filled with a nice amount of twist and turns, that will keep you guessing until the very end. I really enjoyed the action in this film, but I guess I’m in a very small minority with these feelings. You’ll see Gina Carano do a lot of ass kicking and running in Haywire, but you won’t see too many adrenaline filled shoot outs, explosive car chases are pretty much non existent, and you won’t see a cheesy and predictable big showdown at the end. But Haywire does feature some highly entertaining fight scenes. These scenes did provide plenty of thrills and suspense for me, and these particular scenes did feel very brutal and intense. Haywire takes a different approach to the action genre, and everything did feel refreshing here.

Haywire is a fast-paced action flick, that hooked me in from beginning to end, and the Mallory Kane character is one of the most believable bad asses you’ll see on the big screen. I know it probably won’t happen, but I would love to see a sequel for this, because this film has become one of my early favorites this year.

Chronicle (2012) 7/10- One night, during a wild rave, three teens (Andrew, Steve, and Matt) decide to investigate a mysterious hole in the ground. At first, Andrew (Dane DeHaan) is reluctant to take the trip into the mysterious hole, but his cousin, Matt (Alex Russell) and their new found and popular friend, Steve (Micahel B. Jordan) convince him to explore the mystery. The teens have a strange and dangerous encounter with a large glowing object, that causes some severe nosebleeds, and everyone blacks out. The teens were able to survive their encounter with the mysterious glowing object, and all of them have received superpowers. Everything is joyous at first, and the group of teens manage to have fun with their powers, but Andrew’s problems at home begin to get worse as time passes by. Andrew is tired of being bullied, he can’t stand his abusive and alcoholic father, and he will abuse his powers in the worst way.

At first I wanted to give up on Chronicle. I just thought “Oh boy. This is going to be ANOTHER boring and bland found-footage film, with shaky camera affects. But shaky camera affects are cool, because they make everything feel more realistic!” Ugh. Well, my opinions of this film drastically changed as time passed by, and I slowly became a big fan of this film. The story can feel mysterious and intriguing, because I wanted to know where the superpowers came from. Will the teens try to become heroes and save the world? Or will they just continue to have fun, and act like wild college kids, who don’t have any sense of responsibility?

I was intrigued by the story, but Andrew’s descent into madness was unreal. Andrew is a kid with some serious problems. You can clearly see this early on, and I did want to feel for this character. Dane DeHaan did provide a very believable performance. The Andrew character has to deal with a lot of problems at home, but he couldn’t look past his tough life at home, and he couldn’t overcome the tragic situation in his broken family. Instead, Andrew chose to lash out with rage and vengeance, and he used his powers to destroy everything in his path. Andrew’s transformation was unreal, because he starts out as this shy kid, who eats shit from EVERYONE, but towards the end of the film, he becomes this raging and powerful psycho, who will stop at nothing to cause chaos.

The production values in this film were pretty good, and I really enjoyed this, because some found-footage films try so hard, when it comes to staying true to the realism factor. Shitty production values don’t do anything for me, but Chronicle really doesn’t have any real problems in this department. Chronicle features a nice set of likeable characters, who you can actually care about, and I really enjoyed this film. Michael Kelly is probably the only recognizable face in this entire film, and Chronicle does feature a cast of relatively unknown actors. But the main cast does deserve a ton of credit here. Dane Haan, Alex Russell, and Micahel B. Jordan all delivered some very solid and convincing performances, and the acting in this film is very enjoyable.

Chronicle does provide some nice humor, and they were able to mix in some believable and genuine drama here. Most of the drama revolves around the Andrew character, and this film did feature a shocking death, because I really didn’t see it coming. Also, the final moments of this film are packed with action, suspense, and thrills, and Chronicles exciting conclusion really did hook me in. At first, Chronicle might feel like an ordinary drama about teens, and the problems they face during their high school years, as they grow up. And this film does have its cheerful moments, but Chronicle eventually turns into one highly entertaining science-fiction film, and I couldn’t get enough of this one, once the story FINALLY gained some real momentum.

 

[INDYjon22]

I have to agree with your rating of Chronicle. When I first learned about I thought it was just another poorly pushed film that would hit theaters and be shit, but in all honesty, it was pretty solid. While I don't think the acting was all that great, outside of Michael Jordan's performance, it was far from bad. The story was engaging and the action was more worth while. The evolution of Andrew's character was startling and the issue that faced Matt was pretty surreal. Definitely a worthwhile flick if you have nothing better to do. 7/10

 

[The 1-2-3 Killam]

Spoiler

The Three Musketeers (1993) - 53%
30: Minutes or Less - 64%
The Ides of March - 65%
Mission: Impossible II - 68%
Jurassic Park III - 68%
Pirates IV - 72%
Mr. Popper's Penguins - 72%
Star Wars: Episode I - 73%
The Lost World: Jurassic Park - 73%
-------------------------This is the "entertaining enough to watch again" line---------------------------
Fast Five - 75%
Contagion - 76%
Ironclad - 77%
Mission: Impossible - 78%
Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol - 78%
Tangled - 79%
Seven Pounds -79%
Eat, Pray, Love - 80%
50/50 - 81%
Thor - 82%
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo - 82%
Drive - 83%
Shutter Island - 85%
Mission: Impossible III - 86%
District 9 - 86%
Book of Eli - 87%
I am Legend - 87%
Super 8 - 88%
Zombieland - 89%
Jurassic Park - 90%
Chronicle - 90%
Moneyball - 92%
Fight Club - 94%
The Help - 96%
The Tree of Lie - 98%

The Beaver
Directed by: Jodie Foster
Written by: Kyle Killen
Starring: Mel Gibson, Jodie Foster, & Anton Yelchin

When you start up a film knowing the central plot revolves around Mel Gibson talking through a stuffed beaver attached to his hand, you don't really expect to get your money's worth. In fact, the idea that I actually checked out this film at all makes me question my sanity a bit - bottom line: I'm really glad I did.

The Beaver is one of those movies that pleasantly surprises you, like Tim Allen's "Santa Claus" or the most recent A-Team endeavor. It wasn't an Academy performance by any stretch of the imagination, but it did manage to entertain from beginning to...about 15 minutes before the end. Indeed there is a point at which the film takes itself much too seriously, and attempts to break from its role as a "dramedy", and perform an unnecessary plunge into shock and awe. Normally I would applaud a writer/director for pulling the trigger on a gusty maneuver, but this time it just didn't work.

However, everything up to that point was completely watchable - enjoyable even! Mel Gibson delivered one of his better roles (that's not saying TOO much, but it was good), and the actual beaver was the star of the film. Yes, the movie really did focus on Mel Gibson - who played Walter Black - being controlled by a stuffed beaver affixed to his left arm. To be clear, they made this plot point a bit more believable by dropping a television on Mr. Black's head after a drunken night and an almost fatal act of depression. Somehow they turned something wildly stupid into something more like: "Alright...[long pause]...I guess this could work."

Meredith Black (Jodie Foster) was adequate, delivering her part with all the splendor and majesty of a typical Jodie Foster film (if you're not familiar with her work, and I use that term cautiously, there is a thick coat of warm, buttery sarcasm over that last statement)... It was actually Porter Black, their troubled teenage son, that made the secondary plot worth seeing. Porter was acted out by Anton Yelchin, who rocked Charlie Bartlett and soared in the new JJ Abrams' Star Trek reboot. Yelchin's frequent exchanges with Jennifer Lawrence (she played young Mystique in X-Men: First Class) were pleasant and well-acted.

Mostly "The Beaver" was just moderately entertaining, but it ranks so high because of how much I just DIDN'T hate it! Apart from the last fifteen to twenty minutes, they really did a fantastic job bringing this ridiculous subject matter to life. Great acting from the majority of the cast (an adequate job from "some"), fun secondary material inserted to make the main plot move more smoothly, and a really well-done script to allow the actors to truly shine. Thank you all for blowing me away... Turns out you can give Mel Gibson a stuffed beaver for a hand, turn it into a movie, and come out with something positive... Rating: 81%

 

[The 1-2-3 Killam]

Spoiler

The Three Musketeers (1993) - 53%
30: Minutes or Less - 64%
The Ides of March - 65%
Mission: Impossible II - 68%
Jurassic Park III - 68%
Pirates IV - 72%
Mr. Popper's Penguins - 72%
Star Wars: Episode I - 73%
The Lost World: Jurassic Park - 73%
-------------------------This is the "entertaining enough to recommend" line---------------------------
Fast Five - 75%
Contagion - 76%
Ironclad - 77%
Mission: Impossible - 78%
Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol - 78%
Tangled - 79%
Seven Pounds -79%
Eat, Pray, Love - 80%
The Beaver - 81%
50/50 - 81%
Thor - 82%
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo - 82%
Drive - 83%
Shutter Island - 85%
Mission: Impossible III - 86%
District 9 - 86%
Book of Eli - 87%
I am Legend - 87%
Super 8 - 88%
Zombieland - 89%
Jurassic Park - 90%
Chronicle - 90%
Moneyball - 92%
The Sting - 93%
Fight Club - 94%
The Help - 96%
The Tree of Lie - 98%

The Sting (1973)
Directed by: George Roy Hill
Written by: David S. Ward
Starring: Paul Newman, Robert Redford, & Robert Shaw

This was THE movie in 1973. Winning 7 Oscars (and nominated for 3 more!), an award from the Director's Guild of America, a People's Choice Award, an award from the National Board of Review, entered into the National Film Registry, and honored by the Writers Guild of America... You really don't get much higher praise than all of that! Robert Redford and Paul Newman, perhaps the most iconic film pairing in history, act out a drama with so many intriguing twists and turns, it has yet to be bested or duplicated by anything in its genre to this very day - almost 40 years later.

Redford and Newman play Hooker and Gondorff (respectively), two high class con-artists attempting to pull off one of the biggest cons of their time, a gesture of revenge for their fallen friend. Think Oceans Eleven, but with a lot more twists, and a bit more class. Most younger people today don't catch this when watching it for the first time, because the movie itself was filmed in 1972, but the Sting was a period piece based out of the 1930's. As some may know, I'm a sucker for well done period pieces... Not only did the cast play it out perfectly, but there's a reason they won Academy Awards for costume design, art direction, and set decoration! Everything down to the little details was perfect, and they manage to consume you into this world for two hours.

The train scene, in which Hooker has to win a rigged game of high-stakes poker, is by far my favorite scene in the film. 1) I love poker and films that use it as a means to build drama, and 2) because it's so well done! They don't rush it, and if you're paying attention all is explained through side dialogue so you never quite feel lost - although if you lose focus for a few minutes you might have to go back and figure some things out... There's not a whole lot more I can say about The Sting, except that if you haven't seen it, do so immediately. It's an American classic that raised the bar for all of cinema in its day. Not many films in the 39 years to follow can say they even came close to producing a better quality product. The acting was phenomenal, the direction was flawless, the script was compelling and worked perfectly for those casted, and as I already mentioned the detail work in the costume/set department just put the icing on the cake.

Stop reading this review, stop talking about wrestling on the internet, and go watch The Sting. Rating: 93%