Movie Review Thread

Moneyball 9/10- (2011)- Brad Pitt deserves some recognition for his performance as Billy Beane, because he was great in this film. Pitt’s energetic and charismatic performance was the highlight here, and I hope he receives a nomination in the Best Actor category at the Academy Awards next year. Jonah Hill actually surprised me, because I usually don’t have high expectations for him. Hill was a perfect choice for Billy Beane’s assistant general manager. Peter Brand (Jonah Hill) was the shy stats nerd, who believed in Pitt’s system, and Hill did deliver a very solid performance here, because his character was very believable. Also, I really enjoyed Phillip Seymour Hoffman as Art Howe. Hoffman was the old school baseball manager, who rejected Beane’s moneyball system, and Hoffman really did nail this character, because he did seem like the perfect choice here. The rest of the cast delivered some solid performances, and this film really did feature some high quality acting.

Moneyball can have its funny moments, this film also features a good amount of drama, and Moneyball gives the audience an in-depth look at the business side of Major League Baseball. Moneyball is a great sport’s movie, and everyone can enjoy this film. Also, this story can have its touching moments. Brad Pitt tries to bond with his daughter, and I really wanted to feel for Billy Beane during these moments. For the bulk of the film, the audience will see Bill Beane the business man, but I saw the father figure side of Pitt, when he spent time with his daughter. He wasn’t the aggressive and fast talking GM of the Oakland A’s anymore. He was the happy father, who was caring and calm. Moneyball does have a bittersweet ending, and this film is on my favorites list for 2011.

Our Idiot Brother (2011) 8/10- I’ll admit, I had low expectations for this, but Our Idiot Brother was a nice surprise for me. Paul Rudd does a marvelous job with the lead role. Ned (Rudd) is the black sheep in his family. He goes to jail for selling pot to a police officer, and when Ned’s girlfriend breaks up with him, he tires to live with his three sisters. Miranda (Elizabeth Banks) isn’t too crazy about the idea of living with Ned. Liz (Emily Mortimer) and Dylan (Steve Coogan) try to help, and they are more understanding and caring, but they eventually grow tired of Ned. Natalie (Zooey Deschanel) is a carefree comedian. She’s cool and calm, but Nate eventually wears out his welcome, and Natalie turns her back on him.

Rudd’s character seemingly ruins the lives of his three sisters. He didn’t want to help Miranda publish a controversial and personal story, he uncovered a secret that destroyed Liz’s marriage, and he ruined Natalie’s relationship by exposing another shocking secret. Ned becomes an outcast amongst his three sisters towards the end of the film, because Ned is an easy target. He isn’t too bright, and he can be a real screw-up in this film. He is a suitable scapegoat, but the troubles in the lives of Ned’s sisters wasn’t his fault. Their lives were already facing different troubles. The turmoil was already there. Ned just uncovered it. The sisters realize Ned was innocent, and they try to repair the damaged relationship with their carefree and loving brother. Paul Rudd is outstanding here, and I really wanted to feel for this character throughout the film. Yeah, Ned could be a goofball most of the time, and he did make plenty of mistakes in this film, but he did have a good heart. Ned was caring, he wanted to help everyone he could, and he always had the best intentions.

Our Idiot Brother is a hilarious comedy filled with plenty of laughs. This story can be funny, but Our Idiot Brother does feature a good amount of emotional and touching moments. I really enjoyed this film, and Paul Rudd continues to impress me.

Runaway Jury (2003) 7/10- Gene Hackman’s performance was the highlight of this film. Rankin Fitch (Hackman) was a real scumbag. He wanted to win at any cost, and Hackman was very believable as this heartless person. Fitch was cold and ruthless, and Hackman delivered a wonderful performance here. John Cusack (Nicholas Easter) and Dustin Hoffman (Wendall Rohr) delivered a pair of fine performances, and Rachel Weisz (Marlee) was a nice addition to the cast. This wasn‘t Weisz‘s best performance, but she was decent enough here. Also, I enjoy the Nicholas Easter character in this film. Easter was the fun loving common man, who wanted to derail Hackman’s sinister plan. But did Easter really want to do the right thing? Did he want to help Celeste Wood (the victim)? Was he trying to manipulate the jury for another reason? Or was Easter trying to help the gun company, and make a ton of money at the same time? One thing is very clear, the Nick Easter character wants the jury to go his way. He has a plan. Cusack’s character always keeps you guessing here, and his character does provide plenty of entertainment.

Runaway Jury features a good amount of suspense, this film does feature some very good acting, there is a nice surprise at the end, and Runaway Jury is one of the more entertaining legal thrillers. Although, Runaway Jury can feel kind of predictable sometimes, because you just know the good guys will come out on top. Still, Runaway Jury is a very enjoyable film. Oh, and I really hope Gene Hackman decides to come out of retirement one day. His performance in this film is excellent, and I ALWAYS have that urge to see one more film from Hackman, when I watch Runaway Jury. Please come back for one more film, Gene Hackman. Welcome To Mooseport shouldn’t be the last film of your career, because you deserve a better sendoff.
 
Moneyball (9.5/10)

Take a moment to feel the crisp air. Break out the jeans and gaze upon the the leaves changing colors because Autumn is here. The fall is also the start of the best time to go to the movies. We're done with all the summer blockbusters and thank God! Don't get me wrong, We had some great ones with "Super 8", "Bridesmaids" ,"Harry Potter" and surprisingly "Rise of The Planet of The Apes", but anymore movies like "Transformers", "Conan The Barbarian" and "The Change Up" and I don't know what I would do. Granted I skipped most the bad ones but to even watch the commercials was painful at times. However Fall is here and this is where all the big production companies release the Oscar bait movies because the closer to the voting the better. "Contagion" was considered the official start but while that was good it was overshadowed by the masterpiece known as "Drive" coming out the following week. So we're getting on average one great movie a week, sweet deal I'd say. Now two or three weeks in (if you want to consider "Drive" the official jumpstart) we have another top notch movie. People I am here to rave and praise not only of the best movies I've seen all year, but one of the top ten sport movies of all time. "Moneyball" is here people and it needs to be seen.

I'll say sort of upfront that I am no fan of baseball. Not that I think it's a bad sport but I just can't stand watching it on TV. However what does "Moneyball" do? It throws a wicked curve ball at you and says this isn't some inspirational sports movie like "The Blind Side". Nor is it a biopic here to tell the story of a man like "Cinderella Man". No because "Moneyball" is a movie that stands high on it's own two feet as something original and innovative. It's the smartest movie I've seen since "The Social Network". Which is a high compliment indeed. I knew the general story from trailers and reviews but I did not expect the in depth scope of this film. It's something truly wondrous.

"Moneyball" is the story of Billy Beane (a marvelous Brad Pitt) and the Oakland Athletics in 2002. After coming close to winning it all in 2001, Oakland must start nearly from scratch. They had the lowest budget of any baseball team at the time and their three biggest names were all picked up by big name/big money teams. Billy meets Peter Brand (Jonah Hill in a truly exceptional performance) while in Cleveland and things change. Peter has never played baseball but he has a love for the sport. His love has lead him to look past big name players plus hot young names to look at the stats. Peter uses math and statistics to help Billy come up with a team of misfit players that are cheap and can play the game in ways the big faces can't. They're older, injured and have a bad reputation but what they can do is get on base and make catches. They're team can change sports forever in they're successful. The movie follows the backstage facts that sports are based on. While it's fun to watch as fans, it's a business and thus thinks like a corporation. If computers ran our teams I'm sure we'd get the best games ever but that's just a scary thought. What isn't scary is how powerful "Moneyball" is.

This is a really fantastic movie. I loved it and this is coming from a guy who is far from a baseball fan. What I did love is the tension, acting, morals, intelligence and overall everything it takes to make a good film. I got a decent grasp on soccer stats so backstage politics and gutting was something I could easily follow here in baseball. To see the sport ripped down to math and and contracts was such a great twist on the tiring genre. Hatteberg (A great Chris Pratt) has a small scene where he says his biggest fear in the world is a baseball being hit in his general direction when he's a first baseman. It's kind of funny but at the same time haunting, that's how I like my dialogue. Throw in the always welcomed Phillip Seymour Hoffman as manger Art Howe and you have s small but dynamite cast. Director Bennett Miller who got Hoffman's Oscar for "Capote" may be looking at some more nominations coming his way for this film. To end it off as goofy as possible, "Moneyball" is a home run.


50/50 (9/10)

Cancer is a virus in some ways. While one person is diagnosed, all in that person's life is are affected. Parents must fear the death of their child. No parent should have to worry about their child dying before they pass away. Friends are in a loop trying to find how they can help and in some ways where to back off. Your significant other is placed in a position of caregiver and they will feel the pain their loved one goes through. Cancer is a nasty thing.

So with an intro like that I wouldn't be surprised if you think "50/50" is going to be a downer. Well appearances are deceiving because "50/50" is a delight. It's funny, heartfelt and has a lot to get your attention. Comedies that deal with dark details often go along one or two paths. There is the dark comedies along the lines of "In Bruges" or you go for downers with big laughs like "Funny People". "50/50" walks a miracle line and manages just the right amount of laughs with just the right amount of emotions. Some laughs will be joyous and others may sting, but you'll love the affect either way.

Joseph Gordon Levitt plays Adam, our central character in "50/50" First I just want to take a second to give praise when it's due. JGL has given one of the years finest performances. Every step in his journey you'll feel as it were happening to you. It takes a rare gift to do that and JGL is an actor that has achieved that and more. He's easily of of the best actors working today. back to the story. Adam is the ultimate nice guy. He doesn't J-walk, litter, drink, smoke or even get truly angry. Adam works in radio and genuinely cares about his pieces. He's been having some back pains and goes to the hospital where the doctor tells him he has a rare spinal cancer where the odds of living are of course 50/50.

His girlfriend Rachel (fiery redhead Bryce Dallas Howard) says she'll stick by him. This of course is not the whole truth. A couple of years ago I'd have said she was a well... shitty person for not trying to help Adam in every way imaginable. However some growing up and two viewings of "Angels in America" showed me that is wrong to think. She's put in the role of caretaker, not something she signed up for. She feels obligated to help but she's not ready to throw 100% of herself into the situation. I may not agree with her backing away but I can't blame her. I do wish the film didn't make her look as villainous though. You'll see why.

Adam's best friend is Kyle. Kyle is played by Seth Rogen in the typical Rogen performance. While he is a major character, Rogen's "style of comedy" is keep in check. I prefer in that way since Adam is the lead and doesn't need to be shown up. Kyle helps in the way a best friend would. He tries to cheer him up and is always ready to offer a helping hand. Adam's mother (Angelica Huston) worries to the point it causes Adam to shy away from her. Neither person is right but Cancer doesn't make people thing soundly.

Since Adam doesn't drive, he has to rely on others to get him to his chemotherapy. There he jokes around and talks to two older men (Phillip Baker Hall & Matt Frewer). Adam is 27 and these men are well passed middle aged. It's a terrible thing for such a young and kind man to be in this situation. In the same hospital Adam sees a therapist to help him deal with the situation. Katherine (Anna Kendrick) is young (younger than Adam) and ill experienced in helping Adam. Both learn things from each other. Either way you'll like the conversations they have.

"50/50" is a fantastic movie. One of the year's best even. I'm sure I'll be looking kindly upon it some time from now. It pulls on some heartstrings but never does the next laugh seem to distant. I left the theater with a smile on face and little warmth in my heart. I loved it and you should too.

Straw Dogs (7.5/10)

If you asked me earlier this year what I thought about this movie I would just have complained about them remaking an already great film. A month before it came out and I'd have said I got no intention of seeing it. Well a week before it's release is when I found out how faithful to the original this version would be. So seeing it wouldn't be a problem in my mind. Asking me what I thought walking out of the theater and I'd say "it's pretty damn good, see it if you get the chance". "Straw Dogs" keeps the story details while balancing in some gruesome violence. A great remake. It's quite the well made product at the end of the day.

David (James Marsden) and his new wife Amy (Kate Bosworth) are moving into her childhood home in the deep south. He is a screenwriter (working on one about Stalingrad) and she was a TV actress he wrote some parts for. The town is the kind of place where everybody knows everyone else and to go against the norm is asking for some stares. Amy's old high school flame Charlie (Alexander Skarsgard) and some other men are hired to fix the old barn roof near the house. David is polite and warm to the men and the townsfolk, but he's not like them. Going into another culture is always a strange thing. David orders a round for the bar but doesn't stay for a drink and he skips out early in church. Somethings just do as the Romans would. Yet is he wrong? He's just a nice guy that has his own way of doing things. David's not calling them stupid or anything, but just has expectations from these people that just don't seem are going to be broken anytime soon. It's questions like these that make the film so fascinating. Well that and one huge plot development area that I think some people may debate on like they did with the original. The plot is wisely carried out and it makes from a satisfying and bloody finale. It's a lot better than most will give it credit for. It's very entertaining.

Killer Elite (5/10)
Note to self. Don't look forward to Jason Statham movies. I stumbled into "Crank", "Lock, Stock & Two Smoking Barrels" and "Snatch" and all those are great. "Killer Elite" was something I was anticipating for some time but I just left the theater feeling disappointed. This is not the movie they promised us. "Killer Elite" is a film that tries to act smart and cool but doesn't have the interest to back it up. "Munich" is a fantastic movie in part due to how interesting the plot was. "Killer Elite" is a big mess.

Danny (Jason Statham) is an assassin, or at least was one. He's been out of the business for about a year after a change of heart. Well his old mentor and friend Hunter (Robert Deniro) is captured and is held as ransom. In exchange for his release, Danny must kill three ex S.A.S soldiers who killed the kidnapping Sheik's son. Not only that but Danny must make every death look like a accident and record a confession too. Didn't Statham just kill people and made them look like accidents in "The Mechanic". Atleast that movie didn't try to be anything special. "Killer Elite" feels like a poor mans version of "Munich" with awful dialogue. Why do the secret organization known as The Feather Men have the need to explain who they are to each other? Also for a secret organization they hand out a lot of business cards. Spike (Clive Owen) works for these men. They protect ex soldiers incase men like Danny come after them. The film tries to set up a scenario where you root for either Statham or Owen but fails miserably. The good guys aren't that good and the bad guys aren't that bad. The audience just feels like a third party watching with little involvement or stake in this game. The film is billed as Owen vs Statham but they share about one and half fight scene. One really awesome scene is not worth the endlessly boring dialogue in between. "Killer Elite" is a failure but not the worst movie I've seen. Maybe I should just stop caring for Statham movies so that one day maybe he'll surprise me again.

Tucker & Dale vs Evil (7/10)

The premise for this movies is so awesome I can't believe it took them until 2011 to make this. In all this horror movies where you get some crazy and bizarre villain ("The Hills Have Eyes, Wrong Turn" or what have you), what if they were nice people. These guys just look evil and every death is the result of some freak accident. Yea I doubt that was ever the case but that's what "Tucker & Dale vs Evil" does. Tucker (Alan Tudyk) and Dale (Tyler Labine) are kind and goodhearted men. They just happen to look like those crazy/dirty rednecks that torture college kids. Speaking of college kids... yea we got those too. About eight or so of them are going camping and play they typical roles you see in horror movies (hot blonde, the douchebag good looking guy and of course a token black guy). They see Tucker & Dale who come off as lunatics but really just are trying to be friendly. The two buddies are going to fix up a vacation cabin in the woods. One night while the college kids are skinny dipping, Tucker & Dale are nearby fishing. Allison (Mega babe Katrina Bowden) sees them, falls and hits her head. Tucker & Dale try to help her by bandaging the wound at the Cabin and finding her friends in the morning. Well the college kids think they're apart of one of those horror movies and need to stop these two rednecks. Things go hilariously crazy. That's more or less most of the first third of the film. It loses a lot of steam as it progresses despite it's rather short run time. You'll have fun but maybe this should have been a short film. The last 30 minutes drag. However it's still a riot at the beginning so it the pros out do the cons.

The Ides of March (8.5/10)

Politics is a dirty game. We all know this but seeing it played out before us is something else. There is so much speculation and crazy theories that people have about government officials that most deserve to be laughed at. However there are some stories that have something to go off of. "The Social Network" said something along the lines that 85% of court cases are based on emotions. The other 15% are true because devils do need creation myths. So that's our dirty side of politics. What I lkie even better is the way campaigns are won. One party (in this case the Republicans) will vote in a open election against the best candidate the democrats have during primaries. This way the weaker candidate is the democratic party option. Let the other party fight each other and beat the weakened winner. "The Ides of March" is a fantastic political drama with a lot going for it.

Mike Morris (George Clooney in a strong supporting role) is a gift from God for the democratic party. He's young, experienced and knows how to draw a crowd. Picture him as Obama because the connections are there. If he wins the Ohio primary he'll no doubt be the democratic pick for the upcoming presidential election. The republicans don't have a guy that can beat Morris. They do have a guy that can beat the other democratic option of Pullman (never shown on screen). Voters will not want him in office even more than actually having Morris run the country. Stephen Meyer (Ryan Gosling) works for Paul (Philip Seymour Hoffman) who is the campaign manager. Stephen believes in Mike and the messages the man spouts off like gospel sermons. Mike himself seems to believe in telling people more what they want to hear but not caring for the ideas personally. Pullman's manager Duffy (Paul Giamatti) wants Stephen on his side because of idealistic the kid is and his bright future. Well even talking with Duffy will cause Stephen problems. That and well the sexy intern (Evan Rachel Wood).

"The Ides of March" is a great political drama but that's really it. Some have said they have noticed the story is more focused on showing Stephen losing his soul to politics but it's minimal at best. The ending helps that message though. I see it as more of a twist on the man with nothing lose angle. Stephen will do whatever it takes to remain in power. "The Ides of March" is worth watching. It's not the Oscar cleaning film I hoped it would be earlier this year, but it's till quite strong. Clooney as a director is really growing into his own. Instead of focusing the details on his performance as some directors would, Clooney wants the story to be first. "Good Night and Good Luck" is still his masterpiece and trust me when I say it is a masterpiece. "The Ides of March" is worthy film to add to his list in the end.

Melancholia (10/10)

There is so much to love about this film I hardly know where I should start. Should I begin with plot, or perhaps it's filming, maybe symbolism. There are so many possibilities my head is spinning. It has been about 36 hours since I saw "Melancholia" for the first time and I can't stop thinking about it. The feeling was stronger before I watched it again the next day. Watching the following day was for three purposes. One was I really liked it and wanted to experience it again. The second I had no idea how to write this review nor a clue on what to give it for a rating. The third was to see if it would hold up on a rewatch. I often find films I love the first time around such as "Slumdog Millonare" are rather lackluster the second time. How pleased I was watching it again. The film is just as strong the second time around and you'll pick up on little things you may have missed the first time. As far as articulating my thoughts for this review, I'll do my best.

I'll talk about Lars Von Trier first. It's important to attempt to understand him to get "Melancholia"s full effect. Von Trier is perhaps on of the greatest filmmakers of the past twenty years. I say perhaps because it's up for interpretation. He's the king of love him or hate him. Tarantino P.T.A, Scorsese, Speilberg and Johnny Depp have all said they would do anything to work with him. I think he is a genius having seen "Antichrist" and "Dancer In The Dark" beforehand. I actually watched "Dogville" as soon as I finished "Melancholia" the second time. He's a very dark and intriguing director. He'll dive deep into your emotions and tear them asunder. "Antichrist" will shake you for days and "Dancer In The Dark" will take you on a emotional roller coaster. "Melancholia" is a film I can't forget nor do I want too. Von Trier was very depressed for years and after giving up alcohol and seeking help he's bounced back to make what he calls his most optimistic film. After seeing his movies it makes sense but my god! This is bleeding with trauma. It is also interesting how Von Trior expresses his emotions with movies and even more so by making his leads females. Von Trier's work should be recognized as the masterpiece it is.

Now for the plot. Justine (A tour de force by Kirsten Dunst) has just gotten married. Her husband is the rather simple Michael (Alexander Skarsgard). He's a nice guy but doesn't really know Justine at all. They arrive at the reception late due to a pretty hilarious limo scene. Her sister Claire (Charlotte Gainsbourg) is not happy. That goes double for Claire's husband John (Kiefer Sutherland). He's spent a fortune on the wedding and Justine is nearly ruining it. They set themselves at the table with their family. Justine's father (John Hurt) is a nice man but doesn't quite get what people want. Her mother (Charlotte Rampling) is quite rude. She doesn't believe in marriage and on Justine's wedding night tells her to "enjoy it while it lasts". Throw in killer roles played by Stellan Skarsgard (who calls Von Trier one of the finest directors in history), Brady Corbet, Udo Kier and Jesper Christensen and we have one terrific cast. Gainsbourg who took us to hell and back in "Antichrist" co-leads with Dunst. Kirsten Dunst has never done work this good, she's phenomenal. The Cannes film festival gave her best actress and I'd like to see her get a Oscar nomination.

Justine gets more and more depressed as the night goes on. Everyone is demanding things from her and have all these crazy expectations. It's her wedding night so people should give her some slack. She's a depressed woman and depression isn't something to get over with quickly. Everyone thinks she's crazy because of her actions, but that just leads to all the more stratifying conclusion. The first half of the film is dedicated to Justine's wedding. The second half... is something else. This is where things become strange in the grandest ways.

The film opens with some surreal images. One is another planet crashing into Earth. The series of images to Wagner is one of the best openings in film history in my mind. The other planet is Melancholia and it's suppose to pass by the Earth. It's been hiding behind the Sun and is moving through the galaxy at a rapid speed. This planet is not going to pass simply by... it will hit and kill everyone on the planet. The opening images confirms this so this is no way a spoiler. Hell it's in the tagline of the movie. Knowing the ending to a film is sometimes good. Seeing how they got to that point is what's mesmerizing. The second half deals with a uncontrollably depressed Justine being taken care of by Claire. John is not to happy having her around. As the planet draws closer and doom seems more imminent, Claire and John panic. Now Justine seems sane and is ready to face this disaster. No news reports, no riots, no government meetings are shown. Just a single family dealing with these events. It's personal and brilliant. The panic of an entire population is felt in Claire (googling death now results in Melancholia being the first result). Justine stands strong and in awe of the impending doom. It's a beautiful thought is some ways.

This is a strange year in film. Or at least in universal issues. "Another Earth" which unfortunately I've yet to see is about a parallel Earth appearing in our orbit. "The Tree of Life" is an astonishing film dealing with life in the universe. There is also "Take Shelter" with a man preparing for the end of days. "Melancholia" is like a mix of those three but also it's own movie entirely. It's beautifully shot, has a deep story, wonderfully acted and so many other things. It's a highlight in a great year. I could go on and on about this film but my ideas will change by the day. Everyone will take away something different here, but the end goal is clear. "Melancholia" is a masterpiece.
 
Dream house (2011) 2/10- Daniel Craig and Rachel Weisz really tried to save this one, but they couldn’t, because Dream House was an awful film. First of all, Dream House can be so painfully boring and dull most of the time, there isn’t any real tension here, and this film isn’t scary at all. Dream House wanted to be that clever and smart mainstream thriller/drama film, but they failed miserably here…..

So Will Atenton (Daniel Craig) decides to quit his high paying job as a publisher in New York City. He wants to write a novel, and he wants to spend more time with his family, so he returns home. At first, Will enjoys the happy reunion with his daughters, Dee Dee (Claire Geare) and Trish (Taylor Geare), and his wife, Libby (Rachel Weisz). But an unknown stalker and a weird séance ritual orchestrated by teenagers disrupt the peaceful environment. Will wants some answers, so he talks to the neighbor across the street. Ann (Naomi Watts) doesn’t want to tell Will everything, but Will eventually uncovers the truth: three brutal and viscous murders took place in Will’s house five years ago. But who was the main suspect? Will does some investigating, and all of his questions lead him to an insane asylum. Peter Ward was responsible for the family murders, but Will learns another devastating “secret”, when he visit’s the asylum…..he is Peter Ward, and he is known as the man, who murdered his entire family. Will Atenton is a fake identity he created during his time at the asylum, because Peter didn’t want to live with the guilt of killing his own family. He wanted a new life and a fresh start, and this was the only way to escape.

You know something, this could’ve been a great plot twist and surprise, but they actually gave this away in the trailer. That’s right. The film’s main plot twist is revealed in the trailer, so everyone who watched the trailer already knows what’s coming, when Craig’s character visits the asylum. This is such a letdown, but this event occurred halfway through the film, so I thought Dream House might have another chance at redemption as time progressed. Well, I was wrong……

Will eventually begins to accept himself as Peter Ward, but he still misses his two daughters and his wife. They’re dead, but Peter doesn’t want to move on, and he actually tries to live in the abandoned house, where the murders happened. Ann tries to help, but she can’t save Peter. Towards the end of the film, Will and Ann are attacked and captured by Jack (Marton Csokas) and Boyce ( Elias Koteas). Jack is Ann’s ex-husband, and he hired Boyce as a hitman, because he wanted Boyce to kill his wife. Jack and Ann went through a pretty rough and nasty divorce. Ann got the house, a good amount of money, and Jack’s request for full custody of their daughter, Chloe (Rachel G. Fox) seems doubtful. Jack loathes Ann, so he decided to put a hit out on her. Boyce was supposed to kill Ann, but he made one huge mistake…..Boyce went to the wrong house. Boyce entered Peter Ward’s house, he was armed with a gun, and he shot and killed Ward’s wife and daughters. Peter is innocent, but Jack wants another shot at killing his wife, and Ward would be the perfect scapegoat. Jack doesn’t want to take another chance of something going wrong, so he shots Boyce. But Peter manages to escape his burning house, and he rescues Ann. Boyce traps Jack in the burning house, as he pours gasoline down a stairway, and both men die inside the fire. Peter escapes with some memorabilia (a photo album, which includes drawings from his daughters), he finally has some inner peace, and the fire eventually destroys the “dream house.” Peter wasn’t responsible for the murders, but this big surprise didn’t do anything for me. Dream House had already bored me to death, and nothing could save this film.

A simplistic ghost story would’ve been fine here, but this film tries way too hard, and the attempted crafty and smart screenplay doesn’t work, because this story can feel so confusing most of the time. For example, towards the end of the film, Craig’s character catches this weird flu. Libby freaks out, because the children have caught Peter’s “flu.” But the fatal gunshot wounds that killed the children began to appear on their body, and Ward’s daughters eventually die. Weisz’s character snaps, because Will doesn’t want to help their sick children. Ward tries to explain the bizarre situation, but Libby won’t accept his explanation, because she thinks Peter has lost his mind.

Ummm, yeah, this is one of the many scenarios that made me scratch my head. The argument between the dead wife and the living husband felt so bizarre, and I couldn’t buy into it. I get it. Craig’s character is grieving. He isn’t ready to move on, and he can’t let go of the past. Ward invents this fantasy world, where his daughters and Libby are still alive, and everything is still normal. Losing your family would be an unbelievable shock, and the deaths drove Craig’s character into a deep depression. But Dream House blurs the line between reality and fantasy too often, and I was very confused at times, because I couldn’t tell the difference between the fantasy world and the real world. Dream House actually features scenes, where Ward is talking to his dead wife on a cell phone, and he is surrounded by living people, when he does this! Peter has numerous conversations with his dead wife. Libby KNOWS what happened during that one tragic night. She knows Peter is innocent, so why didn’t she just tell him the truth in the beginning? Libby doesn’t give her living husband any clues about what really happened on the night of the murders, but she could’ve helped her husband solve the mystery, so why didn’t she? This film tries to trick the audience, but the smart story is an epic fail, and some of the twist and turns really didn’t make any sense. Also, Dream House doesn’t provide any real scares, and the trailer gives away some of the good spook moments.
Dream House tries to be this complex thriller film that makes you think, but they abandon the smart story towards the end. This film just goes through the motions, and I could see everything coming. The element of surprise was dead towards the end, and the unbelievable slow pace made everything a lot worse.

In the end, Dream House is a very, very boring film that doesn’t provide any real suspense or thrills. This film tries to take itself too seriously, and this isn’t a smart movie. Although, I will give this film credit, when it comes to the acting. Daniel Craig, Marton Csokas, Rachel Weisz, and Naomi Watts did deliver some fine perfomacnes, and Rachel G. Fox wasn’t bad at all, but the good acting couldn’t save this one. Dream House had some promise at first, but the story turns into one giant mess as time goes on, and the ending is so obvious. I have one little bit of advice if you want to take a chance on this film…DO NOT WATCH THE TRAILER. The trailer gives away so much, and you will not be able to enjoy this film, if you watch it. Then again, the painful boredom doesn’t help anything, so it might not make a difference.
 
The Thing (2011) 3/10- I will always love The Thing 1982. It is an excellent science fiction/horror film, and this film ranks high up my list of remakes, because it is one of the best damn remakes ever. I always enjoy this film, and I pop it into the DVD player a few times each month. The prequel/remake to John Carpenter’s 1982 classic was at the top of my must-see list of films for 2011. I was anxious to see the prequel, and I had some hope for it, but this was an enormous letdown for me.

The 1982 version of The Thing was fantastic. This film featured some very good tension, it was mysterious, and this film could be genuinely scary most of the time. Also, The Thing 1982 was repulsive, because the special affects in this film could always provide plenty of shocking and cringing moments. But the same thing can’t be said about the 2011 version.

Yeah, The Thing 2011 does feature some very impressive special effects, because the CGI does look great. But the CGI in this film didn’t provide any shocking and disgusting moments. In Carpenter’s 1982 version, the creature kills and absorptions brought that “HOLY SHIT THIS IS GROSS! I CAN’T BELIVE WHAT I’M SEEING” type of reaction out me. But the creature kills and absorptions in this film brought that “Oh look. Cool CGI effects” reaction out of me. The effects in this film didn’t shock me, and they didn’t want to make me turn away from the screen. The visuals in this film are a pleasing treat for the eyes, but they don’t provide any shocking moments.

The Thing 1982 provided some great tension throughout the entire film, and this film did feature a chilling and eerie atmosphere. But this version of The Thing felt pretty dull and boring most of the time. There wasn’t any real tension here, there aren’t too many spook moments, and this film isn’t scary at all. They tried to give the audience some more action and suspense in this one, but the attempt at some extra thrills didn’t do anything for me. For the most part, the action in this film isn’t too thrilling, and the suspense doesn’t pick up until the very end.

I like Mary Elizabeth Winstead. She’s a solid young actress, who has some promise. Winstead did deliver a very solid performance in this film, and she wasn’t bad as the leading lady here, but she is no R.J. MacReady. Kurt Russell was a better leading character in Carpenter’s 1982 version. Russell’s acting was better, and his character was a lot stronger throughout the entire film. Kate Lloyd (Winstead) doesn’t show any signs of real strength until the final moments of this film. She slowly comes out of her shell, but Winstead’s character just comes off as this person, who nobody wants to believe, and she has to eat shit from her boss, Dr. Sander Halversen (Ulrich Thomsen). Winstead did deliver a very solid performance, but her character seems so weak most of the time. Also, the bulk of the cast was pretty bland here. Carpenter’s 1982 version featured a nice set of colorful characters, and the overall acting was a lot better. Lars was the only other character who stood out in this film. Jørgen Langhelle could be funny, and at times, he was believable as a bad ass. And Joel Edgerton (Sam Carter) actually delivered another solid performance, but his acting couldn’t help elevate this film. The majority of the 2011 cast was so dull, and I was actually waiting for some of them to die, because I didn’t care about their characters.

Also, the tests in this film didn’t make too much sense. In the 1982 version, blood tests were used to determine each character’s health. These tests would let everyone know, who was human and who was an alien. Blood test make a lot of sense, but in this film they use teeth tests??? The creature can’t copy inorganic materials, and Kate found some bloody teeth will fillings in a bathroom. The creature spit out the teeth, because it couldn’t absorb them, and it was trying to hide this important secret. Someone wasn’t human, so Kate came up with the idea of having teeth tests. Her idea was pretty simple: whoever had fillings was human, but anyone without fillings in their teeth was an instant suspect. Everyone had to endure the quick teeth checks, as Kate checked every mouth with a flashlight, and these tests did cause some finger pointing, and the trust issues began to unfold. Yeah, I thought this was pretty stupid. Everyone doesn’t have cavities, because some people actually do take good care of their teeth. The teeth tests really didn’t solve anything, because Kate still wasn’t sure who was 100% human. Blood tests were the only surefire way of determining the human characters, and the teeth tests were a waste of time. I know, I know, this is a new version of The Thing, and the story will have its differences, but the teeth tests were still silly.
Survival was another important theme in the 1982 version of The Thing. A deadly alien creature has taken over the research facility, and this alien wants to escape. The deaths are coming quickly, and they’re becoming more frequent and viscous as the story progresses. I can understand trying to contain the alien threat, but the safety measures in this film didn’t make any sense. Kate begins to panic, because she realizes how serious the situation is. She doesn’t want the alien to escape, because it might try to take over the world. So Kate has one bright idea: Disable the vehicles??? Umm, yeah, I know you don’t want to take the chance of the alien escaping, but I couldn‘t buy into these precautions. The creature could destroy the Earth, but shouldn’t you give yourself a chance to survive? You’re going to have to leave the research facility at some point, so how in the hell are you going to leave, if you disabled all of your means of transportation??? And you’re pretty much stranded at a remote location in Antarctica, a massive snow storm is approaching, so you can’t just start walking to find shelter. The “let’s destroy the vehicles, so it can’t escape!” stuff drove me nuts, and I couldn’t believe what I was seeing on-screen.

The ending of this film does provide a nice cliffhanger, because the final moments of this film do show us how the alien survives, and story wise, this ending does open the door for the 1982 version. But in the end, this little cliffhanger wasn’t enough, and it couldn’t save this film. Bottom line, John Carpenter’s 1982 version of The Thing is far superior in every way, and it makes the 2011 version look like a joke. Sorry, but the theme music wasn’t enough. Using the same theme music from the 1982 version was a nice touch, and it did provide some good nostalgia for fans of the older film, but this touch of nostalgia couldn’t improve anything here. Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Joel Edgerton, and Jørgen Langhelle were the highlights of the acting department, because they did deliver some very solid performances, but the cast in the 1982 film was still better in every way. Carpenter’s 1982 version featured better acting, a better cast of characters, the tension was unbelievable, this film was genuinely scary and terrifying, and the special effects looked more realistic and disgusting. The 2011 version does feature some cool effects, and the CGI is great. You can’t deny that, but in a way, the amazing and detailed CGI hurts this film. As I said before, the effects in the 1982 version created some genuinely disturbing moments, but the CGI in this film can be too mesmerizing at times. I was in awe of the special affects, but they didn’t make me cringe, and they didn’t disgust me. The Thing 2011 is a boring and lifeless big time Hollywood production with cool special effects. This wouldn’t have been good as a standalone film, and this wasn’t a good prequel/remake. The Thing 2011 is mediocre at best, and fans of the 1982 version should avoid this. Don’t let the “how it all it began” stuff lure you to this film, because you will be disappointed. Just watch the 1982 version. Don’t waste your time with the new film, because the experience isn’t worth it, and you will hate this.

On a side note, I found this hilarious video. This video shows everyone what happened, when the cast of The Thing (1982) watches the prequel. This video really doesn’t give away anything from the 2011 version, because most of the footage used here is from the trailers. Enjoy!

[YOUTUBE]jYjDVCwKr6A[/YOUTUBE]​
 
The Ward (2011) 2/10- Ugh, what a disappointment. I actually had some hope for The Ward. I ignored the overwhelmingly negative reviews, but I guess I should’ve took them as a warning.

Kristen (Amber Heard) burns down an old farmhouse to start off the film. She’s on the run from the police, but they eventually catch up with her, and Kristen is sent to an insane asylum for women. Kristen has a rough time as she tries to fit in with the other girls. Iris (Lyndsy Fonseca) tries to help, Emily (Mamie Gummer) is the oddball of the group, Zoey (Laura Leigh) is quiet and nervous, and Sarah (Danielle Panabaker) is the nasty bitch in the group. Kristen isn’t too popular at first, but she slowly begins to gain some allies. But being the new girl in asylum isn’t her biggest problem. Kristen is being stalked by a ghost, who wants to cause her some harm. The ghost becomes more relentless and viscous as the story progresses. The staff and Dr. Stringer (Jared Harris) don’t believe Kristen, but the other female patients at the asylum begin to disappear one by one. Kristen begins to realize the serious nature of the situation, and she doesn’t want to be the next victim, so she tries to escape the asylum.

Alice Hudson (Mika Boorem) is the name of the viscous and evil ghost, who stalks all of the female patients at the asylum. Alice was a former patient at the asylum, and she wasn’t a nice person. She tormented the other girls at the asylum, and the other female patients eventually grew tired of her constant bullying, so they decided to formulate a plan. They killed Alice, but her evil spirit has returned, and she wants revenge in the worst way.

The Ward actually has some promise at first. The story feels mysterious and chilling, but this film really didn’t deliver with the scares. There are a few spook moments here and there, but overall, this film isn’t scary. The Ward can feel VERY boring most of the time, and the tension wasn’t there. Also, the big surprise at the end was a huge letdown.

What happened to Kristen? Why did she burn down the farmhouse at the beginning of the film? This film does offer some intriguing mysteries, and they do build some suspense towards the end, but the big shock didn’t do anything for me….

We’re in the final moments of the film, and Kristen has finally snapped. She takes another shot at escaping from the asylum. Kristen doesn't want to take any chances, and she wants to save Zoey. Without any intentions of harming Zoey, Kristen takes Zoey hostage, while holding a blade to her throat, and Kristen almost makes it, but her second attempt is unsuccessful. Kristen goes to the doctor for some answers, and he tells her the devastating secret: Kristen isn’t a real person. Kristen was Alice all along, and Kristen was one of the many different people Alice created in her mind. That’s right. The other female patients in the asylum (including Heard’s character) weren’t real. They were characters Alice created, and they represented the different parts of her personality. That’s right. Alice is the woman, who originally escaped from the asylum, and she is the person who burned the farmhouse at the beginning of the film.

As far as the farmhouse stuff goes, Alice was abducted as a child. Her kidnapper held her captive inside the farmhouse. The farmhouse was a source for some very painful memories for Alice, so she decided to burn it down. The farmhouse was a symbol of trauma, so Alice wanted to erase it from her memory, but this didn’t work. Alice created a fantasy world, where other women were actually alive, but this fantasy world became too realistic, and Alice lost her grip on the real world. The other women became strong personalities, and they eventually dominated Alice.

Wait…..so the ghost didn’t exist??? She wasn’t real! Alice is Kristen. That’s the big secret? REALLY??? So a woman who lives in the insane asylum is crazy. Wow. What a shocking secret. Someone who actually lives in an insane asylum has mental problems. :rolleyes:

I couldn’t believe this big twist, and I thought this was one big joke, but unfortunately, I was wrong. They spent so much time trying to convince the audience the ghost was real, and I wanted to believe in the conspiracy at the asylum. The staff’s actions can feel so suspicious throughout the entire film, and at times, I believed they could be the reasons for the disappearances. This film tries to shock you with the big secret at the end, but the big twist didn’t provide the rewarding payoff I was looking for.

I’ll give Amber Heard some credit for the acting. She did deliver a very solid performance in this film, but she couldn’t save this one. The Ward had so much potential, but in the end, this film is a HUGE disappointment. This film can be very dull most of the time, and everything falls apart towards the very end of this film, because the big twist didn’t deliver, and the attempted shock was a big disappointment. You might want to take a chance on this, if you‘re a fan of John Carpenter, but you won’t miss anything special, if you decide to skip The Ward.
 
Passion Play (2011) 1/10- Terrible. Just terrible. Passion Play isn’t too bad at first, and the premise does have some promise, but everything turns into a train wreck pretty quickly.

Nate (Mickey Rourke) works as a jazz musician at a local nightclub. Rourke’s character looks like one of those lowlife bums, who you couldn’t trust, and he needs some money. Nate is knocked out and kidnapped by an assassin (Chuck Lidell). Nate’s execution is seconds away, and he’s in the middle of a vast desert, so Nate is seemingly alone. But Nate is unexpectedly saved by a group of Indians? They shoot and kill the assassin, and Nate wonders into this bizarre circus. Nate is instantly mesmerized by Lily (Megan Fox). Lily is a sideshow performer, who has real bird-like wings attached to her back. The circus owner (Rhys Ifans) is attached to Lily, and he doesn’t approve of Nate’s affections, so he wants to kill him. Sam (Ifans) is about to deliver the final blow, but Lily drives a truck into the circus tent. She saves Nate’s life, and they escape the bizarre circus together. Nate and Lily begin to fall in love, but Nate’s life is still in danger. Happy Shannon (Bill Murray) is a feared and wealthy gangster, who wants to end Nate’s life. Rourke’s character had sex with his wife, so of course Shannon isn’t too happy about this. At first, Nate sees the bird woman (Fox) as a ticket for survival. He wants to use Lily as a special attraction, because he thinks people will pay good money to see the bird woman, but his feelings get in the way of his chance at freedom.

As I said before, Passion Play starts out okay, but everything takes a turn for the worst pretty quickly. First of all, the on-screen chemistry between Megan Fox and Mickey Rourke isn’t there. Nate and Lily are supposed to be deeply in love, but the strong bond between these two wasn’t believable. The story wants you to believe in this fairytale type of love story, but Fox and Rourke just go through the motions here. I didn’t believe in them as a couple, and I didn’t want to feel for their characters. Also, why are these two in love? Why are they willing to put their lives on the line for each other? Lily saved Nate’s life, but Nate doesn’t know too much about Lily’s life. He really doesn’t know who she is. Nate actually tried to sell Lily, because he wanted to save his own life. He’s a broke loser with a death sentence. Rourke and Fox are very awkward as a couple, and the very noticeable age difference doesn’t help anything. Rourke’s character was supposed to be the guy, who was down on his luck. He was supposed to a guy, who you wanted to root for. And Fox’s character was supposed to be this angelic beauty, but I couldn’t buy into this. When I looked at Rourke, I just saw this creepy and shady loser, and I just saw an attractive woman, who had wings, when I looked at Fox, because her character wasn’t “magical” in any way.

Bill Murray’s character is another major problem here. Murray did a fine job with acting, but Murray’s character is supposed to be this feared gangster. Happy Shannon (Murray) is supposed to be this cold-blooded and ruthless bad ass, but he just looks like a clown here. I’ve seen this same type of character in Murray’s comedies, but he was supposed to be funny in those films. Murray’s character isn’t believable at all here, and I actually spent a lot of time laughing at his performance, because he was funny.

And I get it. Megan Fox is a woman who has wings, and they made sure to push Fox’s special gift throughout the entire film. But you can only get so many “OH MY GOD SHE HAS WINGS!” reactions from the audience. They put so much focus on Fox’s wings in this film, and this really did drive me nuts after a while. Nate was obsessed with Lily’s wings, and at times, I thought this was the only reason he loved her. “Hey! I get to have sex with this hot chick! And she has wings!” This was the feeling I got from Rourke’s character. Yeah, Lily’s wings are a special part of her character (for obvious reasons), but they didn’t have to run this into the ground so much. I actually thought the wings were more important than Lily, and the various scenes, where Lily spreads her wings do become very tiresome after a while.

The majority of the acting wasn’t bad here, and this film did have some potential at first, but the ending was so horrendous….
Happy Shannon is holding Lily captive at one of his nightclubs. Lily has become a sideshow attraction, who stands in a glass case for the audience’s amusement. Nate eventually finds Lily, and he rescues her from Shannon. Shannon and his gang of cronies corner Lily and Nate on a rooftop. There’s no way out, but Nate has an idea….he wants use Lily’s wings to fly to safety??? Lily is hesitant at first. She doesn’t believe she can fly, but Nate leaps off of the building. Fearing for his life, Lily jumps after him, and she uses her wings to fly. Lily holds on to Nate, and the happy couple fly away, while this overwhelmingly cheesy theme music plays in the background.

Yeah, I actually thought about throwing some hard blunt object through my TV screen, when I saw this. This ending was corny and sappy, and the “let’s fly away together” garbage was so unrealistic and impossible. Lily is as thin as thin can be, and Nate is a fully grown man, so how could she hold him and fly at the same time? Fox’s character has bird-like wings, so they can’t be strong enough to carry the weight of two people at the same time, as they fly through the air. Yes. I know, I sound very nitpicky here, but I was so pissed off towards the end of the film, and everything was annoying me.

Also, I have a message for MMA fans, Chuck Liddell’s presence shouldn’t draw you to this film. Liddell doesn’t say one word in this film, and his character doesn’t last long here.

Passion Play features a VERY corny and ridiculous love story, and I wanted to puke into the nearest waste basket, as I watched this film. They tried to give the audience a magical fairytale love story here, but everything just feels so damn strange, and the story didn’t make too much sense. Megan Fox really did give her best effort, but her performance didn’t help this film. Fox should be thankful for her good looks, because her career has taken a huge dive, and her departure from the Transformers franchise didn’t help anything. Rourke's performance was solid enough, and Bill Murray delivered a fine performance, but they couldn’t save this disaster, because Passion Play is an awful film.

It’s a shame. Mickey Rourke’s comeback was a big story a few years ago, and he did deliver an Oscar worthy performance in The Wrestler. But Rourke has also had his fair share of stinkers, and the big comeback has been very streaky. Rourke was fantastic in The Wrestler, he was a good villain in Iron Man 2, and he was enjoyable in The Expendables, but Passion Play and The Informers were horrendous, and Killshot was average at best. Rourke isn’t a young guy anymore, and his career has already had enough ups and downs, so I don’t know if he could pull off another big comeback.
 
Paranormal Activity 3​

Tonight, I was lucky enough to be treated to a night at the cinema by my very supportive girlfriend, who hates horror movies. However, knowing that the arrival of this movie onto our big screens means a lot to me, she trotted along with me to witness the latest instalment of a franchise that I have very much enjoyed. And now that I come to think on it, I'm very glad that she did so. You see, her reaction to the film gave me a very good insight into how this movie rubs off on the typical moviegoer.

It's worth saying that I had very high hopes for this movie and, for the most part, it didn't let me down.

I have been a fan of this series since the very first flutter of a bed sheet and a rumble from downstairs. I've been there since one star pulled her car into the driveway and I'll be there until the very last piece of furniture stops moving on it's own. Now given that I have been a fan of the series since the beginning, I really did think that I had a lot to lose going into this picture. I would have been utterly broken if it had fallen flat on it's face and I don't know what I would have did if it didn't deliver exactly what I knew it could.

Thankfully, it did that. Look, if you're going into this movie thinking that you're going to get something different from what you got in the first 2, then you are going to be very disappointed when the end titles roll. Paranormal Activity has always been a movie series that has attempted to use age-old techniques in a new way to make us all feel uncomfortable and jump out of chairs. If you go in expecting it to deliver miracles and single-handedly make you a fan of the series, then you're very mistaken.

For what it is, a tradition found-footage horror film, it delivers and with great aplomb. It is a welcomed addition to the series and I'm sure that my girlfriend would agree with me when I say that it is utterly terrifying in places. Some of the scares are not what you would expect them to be and the directing team really nailed it on this one. It is a well done movie that will have you wriggling in your seat numerous times with a thrilling and mind-boggling conclusion.

A sequel is looking very, very realistic as the Saw franchise comes to an end. Paranormal Activity looks to be the new series that is going to be around every Halloween and I welcome that. It is refreshing to see a movie that can do so much with so little and a series of movies that I find to be completely engrossing and interesting. I can't promise that everyone is going to love it but it really does deliver the goods when it needs to.

8/10.
 
What’s Your Number? (2011) 5/10- Ally Darling (Anna Faris) wants to find the perfect man, so she comes up with the plan to retrace the steps in her relationship history. With the help of Colin (Chris Evans), Ally reconnects with the long list of her ex-boyfriends. Ally’s luck isn’t too good at first, because her former boyfriends have moved on with their lives, and some of them have new girlfriends or they are married, but Ally is determined to find the one guy, who will complete her life. But during her journey to find the perfect man, Ally begins to develop feelings for Colin. Ally faces a serious dilemma, because Colin doesn’t fit the successful and educated man profile, but he does accept Ally for who she is.

Yeah, there’s not too much I can say about this one. What’s Your Number? is your typical predictable and formulaic Hollywood romantic comedy. I knew where the story was going, when Colin and Ally became more than friends. Their relationship suffered some ups and downs, Ally begins to realize what she really wants out of life, someone makes a big speech towards the end, and they decided to go with they happily ever after ending here. You can see the ending coming from a mile away, and this film just goes through the motions the entire time.

Still, I enjoyed this film. Yes. What’s Your Number? is as predictable as predictable can be, but I enjoyed the humor for the most part. This film did provide some good laughs for me, and Anna Faris does deliver an entertaining performance as the leading lady here. She’s enjoyable, and her ditzy personality can provide plenty of hilarious moments. Chris Evans wasn’t bad in the supporting role, and everything seemed to flow so well with him, because he was very comfortable with his character. And the rest of the cast was pretty solid. What’s Your Number? Does have some potential at first, but as the story progressed, this film just turned into the same type of romantic comedy I’ve seen SO many times over the years. You will see everything coming, if you pay close attention, and the lame swerve towards the very end didn’t fool me. Don’t expect anything great from this film, because you will be disappointed.


Real Steel (2011) 7/10- At first I wasn’t too crazy about this film. Real Steel wasn’t doing anything for me early on, but this film started to grow on me as time progressed. The story is filled with a good amount of corny moments and clichés, but Real Steel did feature some characters, who I wanted to care about.

Charlie Kenton (Hugh Jackman) does seem like a scumbag at first. He’s desperate for money, and his trustworthy robot fighter is destroyed in a challenge with an angry bull. Charlie needs to make money, but his financial problems are put on hold, when his son finally comes into his life. Charlie actually tries to make a good amount of money off of Max (Dakota Goyo), as he bribes his rich uncle Marvin (James Rebhorn). Charlie enjoys the money at first, but as the story progresses, Charlie begins to bond with his son. The slimy money hungry side of Charlie begins to fade away, and he becomes a caring father. Jackman delivered a very solid performance, and for me, his character was the highlight of this film. I thought the Max character was annoying at times, but overall, I enjoyed Dakota Goyo’s performance here. He was the neglected son, who could be somewhat rebellious at times, and he wasn’t afraid to speak his mind. But Max just wanted his father to care about him. He wanted to form a relationship with his father, and the bonding process between these two did provide some touching moments. Also, Evangeline Lilly (Bailey Tallet) surprised me. I’ll always remember Lilly for portraying the Kate character on Lost, but she did deliver a solid performance in this film. Bailey was one of Charlie’s best friends, and Bailey does everything she can to help Charlie, but she eventually grows tired of Charlie’s shady habits. She wanted to help her best friend, but both characters begin to develop some feelings for each other, as the story progressed. Lilly probably won’t receive too much recognition here, because Hugh Jackman has gained some star power over the years, and Jackman will overshadow the rest of the cast here, but she did provide one of the better performances in this film, and she was very believable here.

And I can’t believe I actually enjoyed the robot fights in this film. The robot boxing looked kind of silly, when I first saw the trailer for this film. The idea of this bizarre and futuristic version of Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Robots didn’t excite me at all, but the robot boxing in this film was actually pretty entertaining. Some of the robot fights actually feature a good amount of action, and the final battle was enjoyable. It was the typical David VS Goliath battle, as the underdog, Atom (Charlie and Max’s robot) challenged the dominant champion, Zeus. The ending to the battle did surprise me, because I thought they were going to go with the obvious outcome. I thought they would go with the predictable and obvious feel-good ending, where the little guy overcomes the odds, and fights back to become the champion, but they didn’t. The outcome of Atom’s final fight made everything feel different, and this ending did feel refreshing.

Reel Steel does feel like your typical Hollywood blockbuster with flashy special effects most of the time, but the acting helped carry this film. The entire cast does deliver some very solid performances, and I really wanted to care about the characters here. Real Steel has had a nice little run at the box office, and Hugh Jackman continues to rise as a star in Hollywood.
 
The Rum Diary (two and a half out of four stars)
Hunter S. Thompson was an interesting man. His ideas and just general behavior is the most bizarre thing you'll read about. Johnny Depp and he were friends and this film is based of a fictional story Thompson wrote. Well not all fictional. He went down to Puerto Rico for a job, didn't get it and went home to write an account based off him actually getting the job. As a movie it's good but nothing brilliant. It's a tad slow and I prefer the chaos brought in Terry Gillian and Depp's collaboration on Thompson's Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.

Paul Kemp (Johnny Depp) is a journalist hired at a newspaper in Puerto Rico. He drinks heavily ( he says "the high end of social") and likes to experiment in drugs. He pals around with photographer Sala (Michael Rispoli) and the loose canon and drug tripping Moburg (scene stealing Giovanni Ribisi). Paul also meets Sanderson (Aaron Eckhart), a real state tycoon. Sanderson and his legion of doom friends are planning on building a series of hotels. This of course is just displacing the locals and in some way enslaving them. Paul actually has his eyes more on Chenault (Amber Heard), Sanderson's girl instead of opposing his plans until the end of the earth. Chenault is pretty one dimensional, Paul's thoughts are murky, the plot never really kicks in and there are a few other things that make this descent but nothing great. It's still quite good thanks in part to Bruce Robinson (director of the classic Withnail & I). I personally don't see the lasting appeal of this work in the end.

In Time (two and a half out of four stars)
Andrew Niccol welcome back! Only three films over fifteen years, your killing me man. However let's do with less S1m0ne and more Gattaca. As a director he has a cool sense of style and is one of the few men out there tries new ideas. That's the thing though... "tries". If you had asked me three months of ago I'd have said this movie will rock your socks off. After seeing it I'll say it's good but has a lot of plot holes and silly moments.

Set in what I assume is an alternate reality where aging has stopped. People stop aging at 25 and are giving one year to live. They earn more time by working, gambling or just stealing it (robbers are killed minutemen, I thought that was clever). Will Salas (Justin Timberlake on his way to a promising acting career) is our hero. In every sense of the word. He's going to beat up bad guys, help the poor and be kind to others when it's called for. Will lives in the ghetto with his mother (Olivia Wilde, only in this movie) where he wakes up with only hours to live. He meets Henry (Matt Boomer) by chance and he's life will change. Will's life is now in danger from Timekeeper Raymond Leon (Cillian Murphy) and he's wrapped up with the beautiful heiress Sylvia Weis (Amanda Seyfried). Let me just say that I love the character names in this movie. Like the movie they're cool and fashionable. The movie has a great plot... for about fifteen minutes. Then the typical chase scenes and character development step in and make it slightly better than your average movie. Pretty good but could have been better.

Sleeping Beauty (three out of four stars)
Womb was the most "haunting" movie I've seen this year... it still is. Sleeping Beauty makes a worthy second place though. The film is dark and oozing with sexuality. It has mystery to make your skin crawl and your mouth drop. Don't mix this up with the Disney classic. This is a odd movie probably unlike you've ever seen.

Lucy (Emily Browning showing her talent) is a unusual college girl. She works several jobs, avoids her alcoholic mother, is in love with a dying man (the only man she won't sleep with) and fucks random bar patrons at an up scale establishment. She enters a program to earn some extra money. This is where things get interesting. She goes to a mansion, drinks some tea, the tea has sleeping pills in it of course and she's placed in a grand room in a large bed. Then a man enters the room. They pay to be able to do anything they want to her but they can't penetrate her. You may ask "what's the point?" without sex but that's where the intrigue lies. What they do is bizarre but you can't look away. Your drawn into what brought these men here. Sleeping Beauty is unafraid of being all it could be. It's not a perfect movie, or really something that is brilliant. It works well with what it is but not every mystery is intoxicating from the start. Some are better than others. This would fall just above the middle.

Paranormal Activity 3 (one and a half out of four stars)
I'm personally sick of this series. They're the same movies over and over. The same things keep happening. The only thing different this time is we get a camera set up on a fan stand so it rotates. This creates suspense for what... five seconds. I was bored of this setup quite fast. Maybe it was me. I don't know really. I just saw it to Mystery Science Theater it (make funny comments in the front of the theater without disturbing anyone of course). In that sense it was a laughing riot. I mean now it's about the two sisters as little girls being haunted as well their parents. Problem is the amount of plot holes and development issues. This prequel actually contradicts the other two films. Also this film starts with the supposed watching of the tapes. I mean we see the husband of the second one pick up these tapes and then they're turned on. Was it just a what if or was he watching it? Somebody should call the Ghostbusters. I'm sure the government would be also very interested in these tapes as well. If you like the first two then you'll like this. If you hated those then this one will be hilarious. My rating is based off my experience. I'm sure fans of the series can say it's pretty good, but you won't convince me.

The Three Musketeers (two out of four stars)
Mindless fun really. I don't really have to spend much time here because it's such a simple movie. I'm sure from the previews you can guess how this movie will be. It's certainly watchable, a bit stupid, some nice action scenes, some terrible actions scenes too, brilliant costumes and a pretty tame script. The Three Musketeers (Matthew Macfadyen, Luke Evans and Ray Stevenson) are French loyalists, spies and heroes. I will give credit to Paul W. Anderson who did keep their personalities intact. They spend most of their days drinking and having fun since king Louis XVI is but a child. They don't have the fire in their heart that once inspired them. Well Richelieu (Christoph Waltz no where near his villain greatness) looks to overthrow the king with the help of Milady (Milla Jovovich). They're great plan is so childish that it can't be anything but effective. Weird I know but for some reason it's believable. Milady sneaks the Queen's jewels into England's Duke of Buckingham's (Orlando Bloom, surprisingly the best here) airship. Yes... airship. Well our three heroes and the young and douchey D'Artgnan (Logan Lerman) go to save France. It's a pretty poor movie but you won't truly hate I suppose. It can be fun at parts. I thought it was a blast watching Rochefort (Mads Mikkelsen) kick the shit out of Lerman's character. Oh Mads... why didn't you just break script and snap his neck. You were One Eye from Valhalla Rising. What? It's not going off topic, I'm just saying I wanted the main character dead. Seems fair in my mind.

Real Steel (two out of four stars)
This was movie! It has plot plaints, characters, and is filmed with a camera. That's my was reaction walking out of this. Was it bad? Of course not. Was it very good? Not really. It makes a good popcorn movie though. Much better than The Three Musketeers in that aspect. Family friendly is how it should be advertised.

So in the future the only really change is now we have twelve foot tall robots fighting in boxing matches. Hugh Jackman plays Charlie who makes a living off these matches. He's got a talent for controlling these robots (most of these robots have a large controller) probably because he was once a talented boxer. He was the underdog that never gave up even against the stronger opponent. Jackman flirts with a robot repair woman played by Lost's Evangeline Lilly. That's really I need to say about her. Anyway Charlie has a son Max (Dakota Goyo) who he left with his mother. You can say abandoned because Jackman pulled the whole "knock up and dash" scenario. Charlie will get $50,000 if he takes care of Max for the summer. If you don't think they'll form a bond then I can't help you. Well they find Atom, the sparring robot and the underdog fights begin. The fights do have a certain intrigue. They're well choreographed, Michael Bay take note of this movie. It's fun for a while but I'll forget about it next month.

The Thing (two out of four stars)
Thank god I read some reviews before going into this movie. If I hadn't I'm sure I would have walked out hating it. With seeing ALOT of average reviews I knew not to expect a lot. I went in with no spoilers but guessing what would happen was as easy knowing there would be a kiss at the end of a romantic comedy. The Thing is shameful to the original and even more so to John Carpenter's 1982 masterpiece. However I have seen worse movies out there.

So remember that Norwegian base in the 1982 version. The one where the Thing killed everyone and escaped to the American base. Yea that's where we are now. So setting yourself up in a prequel where we know the outcome is an odd start. Let's ignore this because it seems unfair to start off terribly. Kate Lloyd (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) is the young and pretty american researcher that is hired to help investigate a mysterious creature and ship that was uncovered in Antarctica. Well this creature can repurpose a person. In a way take over a person's form but at anytime can mutate into something horrible. The crew on base is now at odds with one another because anyone of them could be the Thing. Same thing as the first one. We even have Joel Edgerton as an american helicopter pilot that fills Kurt Russell's role. Well we saw it all in the 1982 version and this one becomes old fast. We can guess what will happen and believe you me when I saw you'll probably be right. Updating the series with a horrendous cgi Thing was not the way to go. It's not unwatchable mind you. I don't regret seeing it. However this is nothing special. It's mediocre as a movie but since The Thing universe is so small, it's not terrible to see more action, despite it being nothing new. Forgettable is the bottom line.
 
Quarantine 2: Terminal (2011) 2/10- Jenny (Mercedes Masöhn) and Paula (Bre Blair) are the two female flight attendants on a plane that is headed to Nashville. Jenny has to look after George (Mattie Liptak). George is all alone, and he’s a kid who’s flying without his parents, and he’s having some troubles at home. Jenny has to deal with the young and troubled kid, who likes to talk back, but George isn’t Jenny’s biggest problem. Once the flight takes off, Ralph (another passenger on the plane) is bitten by a hamster, and he instantly becomes ill. He begins to vomit, and after a while, he goes nuts, and he tries to eat some of the passengers. Paula is injured from one of Ralph’s attacks, and the captain of the plane decides to land, but all hell breaks lose inside the staging room(a gigantic warehouse within the airport), as all of the passengers on the plane become infected with the deadly virus.

Quarantine 2 starts out okay. There’s a nice little mystery at first, because I wanted to know where the virus came from, and nobody wanted to help the doomed passengers, who were stuck in the staging room. A lot happens in the early moments of this film. I was hooked into the story, but Quarantine 2 didn’t do anything for me, as the story progressed…..

Eventually, the audience learns the truth about the hamsters who carry the virus that turns the passengers into crazed flesh eating cannibals. The hamsters really aren’t hamsters. They’re actually rats, and Henry (Josh Cooke) infected the rats with the virus. Henry (another passenger on the plane) seems like a nice guy at first, and he constantly flirts with Jenny, but Henry is actually a sick and twisted biological terrorist, who wants to spread a nasty plague throughout the world. The government and the police won’t let the virus spread, so they decide to seal the passengers inside the staging room. Escape isn’t an option, because anyone who tries to flee the staging room will be executed on the spot.

The strict and sophisticated airport security caused a big problem for me here. They always brag about the tight security in this film, but I couldn’t buy into the advanced safety protocols. How was Henry able to sneak rats (who had bright red eyes by the way) on the plane??? How could anyone else not notice rats with bright red eyes? Henry used his “friends who wanted to help him with the cause” as an excuse for the rats, but I still didn’t buy this. Nobody else in the entire airport noticed angry and violent rats with bright red eyes? Please. How was another passenger able to sneak a gun on to the plane? They never explained the methods the passenger used to bring the gun on the plane. Yeah, he obviously wanted it for protection, but you shouldn’t be able to sneak a freakin’ gun on any plane.

Quarantine 2 does provide a few spook moments here and there, the deaths and attacks can feel pretty shocking, and this film does feature some gruesome gore, but overall, Quarantine just feels like a mediocre film. The George character can be pretty entertaining most of the time, but the majority of the acting in this film is pretty bad. There isn’t in real tension here, and the story is very predictable, because you know what’s going to happen, when the characters become infected. Also, there are a good amount of stupid moments here, and the “I know they’re infected, and there’s nothing I can to do to help them, but I’m going to try anyway!” stuff always drives me nuts in these type of films. I thought Quarantine (2008) was a decent enough film, but Quarantine 2 isn’t a good follow up at all. They do make some slight references towards the first film here, but they really don’t try to establish a real connection between both films, and Quarantine 2 does feel like a standalone film most of the time. And this film will disappoint you, if you’re a fan of the reality era in movies, because they completely abandon the found-footage style of filmmaking here.

Apparently, Quarantine 2 was given a limited release back in June. This film had a short run in theaters, but I would’ve never known this, if I didn’t research this information. Quarantine 2 really does look like a straight-to-video film, and I couldn’t escape this feeling as I watched the entire movie.

The Crucible (1996) 6/10- I’ve seen this film a bunch of times over the years, but I first saw The Crucible, when I was in high school. I usually enjoyed all of the material in my English class, but The Crucible gave me a headache for weeks. We had to read Arthur Miller’s play, we took a test on the play (and I think parts of The Crucible were included in my final exam), and we watched this film. I was pretty sick and tired of The Crucible, when I finally watched the film. I was expecting something good, but The Crucible disappointed me. I wasn’t a fan of this film, but it isn’t that bad, and I guess the non-stop weeks of The Crucible fest finally got to me.

I want to give The Crucible a lower score, because this film can feel so bland and boring most of the time. The Crucible can feel very plain, the production values look average at best, and this film can feel like a “made for TV movie” at times, but the cast really saves this film from being a mediocre and boring failure. Daniel Day-Lewis, Winona Ryder, and Joan Allen were the highlights of the acting department. The acting in this film really is outstanding, and everyone gives a great collective effort here, but Lewis, Allen, and Ryder stood out among the rest.

The Crucible does have its moments as an emotional drama, but this film can feel so overwhelmingly dull most of the time. The cast saves this one from mediocre status, because The Crucible is a very forgettable film.

Trick ’R Treat (2009) 10/10- Trick ‘R Treat has become an instant favorite of mine over the past few years. This film offers so much, and I can always watch this one over and over again. This film can be spooky, chilling, there is a nice amount of humor here, this film can feel scary at times, and certain storylines do provide an eerie atmosphere. Everything blends together so well in Trick ‘R Treat, and this really is the perfect Halloween film.

The acting in this film is very solid, and Trick ‘R Treat does feature a good set of unique characters. The characters in this film can be psychotic, sick, twisted, misunderstood, and evil. I enjoy all of the characters in this film, but Brian Cox (Mr. Kreeg) is my personal favorite. He was a perfect choice for the bitter and lonely old man. Cox delivered a very enjoyable performance, and he was very believable as the type of old codger, who would yell at the neighborhood children for stepping on his lawn. I wish Cox’s character could’ve seen more screen time here, because he was one of the more entertaining characters in this film, but this is an anthology film, so I guess I can’t complain too much.

Trick ‘R Treat is a great choice, if you love Halloween and horror films. This is one of the best horror anthology films I’ve ever seen, and I hope this film can gain more recognition as time goes on. Ugh, Michael Dougherty needs to hurry up with the sequel, because the suspense is killing me!

Spirited Away (Sen to Chihiro no kamikakushi) (2001) 10/10- Wow. Usually, I don’t watch too many anime films, but a friend of mine told me I had to see this, and I really did love every second of this film. The story for this film can feel emotional and touching, as the main character, Chihiro fights to save her parents. The animation in this film looks great, this film is magical, breathtaking, and mysterious, and I loved all of the eccentric characters here, because they did provide plenty of entertainment for me. Spirited Away might not be for everyone, because this one can feel like a kiddy flick, but the youthful vibe in this film didn’t bother me. This film can be a treat for younger and older audiences, because Spirited Away really is a great film, and I’m happy I took a chance on this.
 
The Skin I Live In (2011) 9/10- The Skin I Live In packs a powerful punch, and Antonio Banderas really delivered with the leading role here. Dr. Robert Ledgard (Banderas) was sick and twisted person, but at times, I did want to feel for his character. Dr. Ledgard is a disturbed man, but he also had to deal with the tragic loses of his wife and daughter. Banderas was very believable in this film, and I could also see a heartbroken man, who didn’t want to let go of the past in this film. Dr. Ledgard is a complex character, and Banderas’ portrayal of the mad doctor was excellent.

The Skin I Live In is filled with emotion, there are some shocking moments here, this film can be genuinely disturbing most of the time, and this film does feature some really good acting. Also, they didn’t go too over the top with the gory stuff here. You will see a good amount of blood in this film, and the surgical procedures do provide some cringing moments, but still, they didn’t over do it in this film. The gore factor in this film is noticeable, but they never reach that “HOLY SHIT THIS IS GROSS!” level here. The gruesome stuff in this film is somewhat tamed. The gore isn’t too extreme, and I actually thought this was a nice touch here.

The Skin I Live In probably won’t appeal to everyone, and everyone won’t enjoy the bizarre nature of this film. This film does provide a good amount of cringing moments, and The Skin I Live In does have an uneasy vibe, but I really enjoyed this one. As usual, you’ll always have some people whine about subtitles (this is a Spanish language film), but the subtitles aren’t annoying, and some people will always overreact. This is a superb film, and The Skin I Live In deserves some recognition as one of the best films in 2011.

In Time (2011) 5/10- Will Salas ( Justin Timberlake) and Sylvia Weis (Amanda Seyfried) go on a mission to steal time. In the future, time has become currency, and you will die, when you’re time runs out, so you need a pretty lengthy clock, if you want stay alive. Will inherits more than century’s worth of time from a wealthy man named Henry (Matt Bomer), and after Henry’s very gracious sacrifice, Will and Sylvia go on a Robin Hood like mission, as they steal time and give it to the poor citizens, who are near death.

I enjoyed In Time for the most part, but this story did have its flaws. Timberlake and Seyfried go on a time stealing spree, but their characters really didn’t think things through. Yeah, I get it, you’re trying to give time to the poor, and you want to help as many people as you possibly can, but shouldn’t you save enough time for yourself? Towards the end of this film, Seyfried and Timberlake put themselves in a position, where they don’t have enough time stay alive, and they have to fight for their lives. This entire situation felt kind of stupid, because Timberlake and Seyfried had already stolen a good amount of time, so there was no real reason for the deadly situation they put themselves in at the end. Also, this film can be pretty predictable, because this one just goes through the motions the entire time, and this film does have its tedious moments.

Still, I enjoyed In Time for the most part. The acting in this film is solid, and I really enjoyed Seyfried and Timberlake here. They shared some good chemistry, and they were very enjoyable as this Bonnie and Clyde type of duo. In Time can be a fun sci-fi thriller, and the intriguing premise did hook me in. In Time can be an enjoyable film, and this one didn't disappoint me too much.


50/50 (2011) 9/10- I didn’t expect anything good from this film. At first, I thought 50/50 would be a decent enough comedy/drama, but I was blown away by this.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt is amazing as the lead man here. He could be funny, but he also does a great job of showing some real anger and emotion in this film. Gordon-Levitt has to endure a lot here. His character has a rare form of cancer, so his chances of survival aren’t that good. He must suffer through the painful treatments for his cancer, he must deal with his cheating and deceitful girlfriend (Bryce Dallas Howard), and he has to confront some issues with his obsessive and controlling mother. Gordon-Levitt’s character is put through hell here, and Levitt delivered an outstanding performance in this film. In fact, I hope he receives some recognition in the Best Actor category at the Academy Awards. Yeah, his performance was that good. Seth Rogen portrayed his usual carefree slacker pothead character, but Rogen did provide plenty of laughs here. Rogen could portray this character a million times over, and I would still watch his movies, because Rogen can always provide some hilarious moments. Also, Anna Kendrick delivered a fine performance. Kendrick was the cheery and helpful psychologist, who wanted to help Gordon Levitt deal with his cancer and the problems in his personal life. Anna Kendrick has a very likable on-screen personality in this film, and she was very comfortable with her character.

50/50 does provide a good amount of laughs, the story can feel very touching and heartfelt at times, and this film does feature some excellent humor, but there are a good amount of sad moments here. This film can be very emotional, and this film does provide plenty of gut wrenching moments towards the end, especially when Gordon-Levitt prepares for his surgery. I really wanted to feel for Gordon-Levitt’s character, and his marvelous performance took everything to another level. And 50/50 features an outstanding cast, because the acting in this film was very good. The praise for this film kind of surprised me at first, because I didn’t have high expectations for this one, but now I understand the love for 50/50. This film really did provide a great experience for me, and Joseph Gordon-Levitt has shot up my list of favorite actors.

Abduction (2011) 2/10- I really wanted to like Abduction, and I tried to get into this, but I just couldn’t. This supposed to be an action/thriller, but this film can be very boring and dull most of the time. And the majority of the action scenes in this film are laughable. Most of the action scenes in this film are so over the top, and the fight scenes did bring some laughs out of me, because they were unbelievably silly. Abduction has many problems, but Taylor Lautner is one of the main weaknesses in this film. This film wants you to believe Lautner as this rebellious teenager, who has some serious anger problems, but Lautner wasn’t convincing as a bad ass. He wasn’t able to carry this film as the lead man, and he really didn’t look like the right choice for this role throughout the film. Lautner really drags this one down most of the time, and Abduction should have a place on his list of failed experiments. Alfred Molina and Sigourney Weaver were nice additions to the cast here, and they did deliver some solid performances, but they couldn’t save this film.

Usually, I don’t have a big problem with the typical and predictable Hollywood action/thriller, but Abduction doesn’t provide any excitement most of the time, and this wasn’t an entertaining popcorn flick for me, and John Singleton‘s plain style of directing didn‘t help anything here. I really wanted to give Lautner a chance here. I tired, but he wasn’t convincing as the ass-kicking hero. His character does have a nice backstory, and Nathan/Steven (Lautner) is a guy who you do want to root for, but Lautner’s performance really did kill this character.

A Very Harold & Kumar 3D Christmas (2011) 7/10- I don’t care about any other holiday films in 2011. A Very Harold & Kumar 3D Christmas is at the top of the list of my favorite holiday films in 2011. The story for this Harold & Kumar film is as whacky and wild as ever, the raunchy and vulgar humor is hilarious, and the 3D effects in this film were great.

John Cho and Kal Penn still deliver as the very likeable odd couple here, and the audience is able to see the more sensitive and caring sides of Harold and Kumar here. They aren’t just two stoners who go on a wild adventure here. Harold and Kumar are two young men who have to make some big decisions, and I could see and feel the changes in their lives here. Kumar is still the carefree slacker at first, but his life changes, when Vanessa announces her pregnancy, and Kumar must think about his future. Harold is the successful businessman, but Maria wants to start a family, and Harold struggles to impress Maria’s father at the same time. Everything changes in the lives of Harold and Kumar here, and I could really feel the difference, as both men took the next step. Oh, and I really enjoyed the relationship between Harold and Maria here. The Harold and Maria relationship has always been one my main complaints in this series, because they never reveal too many details about the happy couple. But this film does take you inside the lives of Harold and Maria, and the audience does see a lot more on-screen time from Paula Garcés here.

This film probably won’t be remembered as the best in the entire trilogy, because White Castle will always be a fan favorite and a cult classic, but A Very Harold & Kumar 3D Christmas can be an enjoyable treat for Harold & Kumar fans, and I really did love every second of this film.
 
TrollHunter (2011) 2/10- A small group of students are determined to make a documentary about a crafty bear poacher, but their amateur style sleuthing leads them to a shocking secret. Hans (the alleged bear poacher) isn’t targeting bears. Hans (Otto Jespersen) is actually a member of the secret Troll Security Service Team in Norway. Hans hunts, contains, and kills the many different species of trolls that could threaten the citizens of Norway. The students want to expose this government conspiracy, but they actually join Hans on his many missions as a troll hunter, and everything is caught on tape.

TrollHunter does have an intriguing premise, and I did want to learn more about the troll conspiracy, as this film progressed. I also enjoyed the Hans character here. Hans was the veteran trollhunter, and he was the mysterious legend. The government of Norway wouldn’t acknowledge the existence of trolls, so Hans didn’t receive the credit he deserved. Hans was an older man, who wanted more out of life, and I really did enjoy this character.

TrollHunter does provide an intriguing premise, I enjoyed the Hans character, and Otto Jespersen did deliver a very solid performance, but I just couldn’t get into this. First of all, TrollHunter does have its moments of unbelievable boredom. The troll hunting adventures do provide some nice moments of suspense and action, but this film also features scenes that are loaded with lengthy conversation scenes, and this just kills the momentum in this film. And the trolls did cause some problems for me here. The trolls aren’t friendly towards humans, and for some odd reason the trolls in this film hate Christians (they can also smell Christian blood). Yeah, I know, it sounds kind of strange, and they never provide a real explanation for this. For all I know, the trolls just hate Christians for no good reason. Some of the trolls in this film do look like real menacing threats, who could destroy anything in their path, especially Jotnar, the giant mountain troll. But some of the trolls in this film did make laugh, because their appearances made them look silly. And this one particular scene made a certain group of trolls look ridiculous…..

Towards the end of the film, Hans and the group of students are trapped inside a cave filled with trolls. The group begins to panic, because they think an escape is impossible. Unaware of their presence, the trolls begin to draw closer to the group’s location, and then…..all of the trolls fart at once???? That’s right. They build some nice suspense, and they ruined everything with the group farting fest. Eventually, the trolls pick up Kalle (Tomas Alf Larsen) scent’s. Kalle is apart of the group, and he lied about not being a Christian earlier in the film. The trolls kill him, while the rest of the group manages a narrow escape. This shocking death couldn’t salvage this scene for me. The troll farts killed everything, and I was still too busy laughing, when Kalle’s life came to an end, so I couldn’t feel this tragic moment.

Found-footage films usually drive me nuts, but at times, the found-footage style of filmmaking did help this one. You actually get to see an up close view of the troll hunting adventures here, and the found-footage style does help everything feel more realistic, because I could really feel the danger in each mission. Still, TrollHunter did bore me to death most of the time, and this film does have its fair share of dull moments. Also, figuring out the true identity of this film drove me nuts most of the time. Were they trying to be serious here, or were they trying to make this into a comedy? I laughed a lot during this film, but I don’t think certain scenes were supposed to be funny, and at times, everything did feel like one big joke. You might enjoy TrollHunter, if you’re a fan of found-footage films, but this film didn’t do anything for me. The Norwegian version of this film was a disappointment for me, but the American remake could provide a different and more interesting version. Found-Footage films have became very popular, and I guess Hollywood couldn’t resist the temptation, so they’re going to remake TrollHunter. TrollHunter might gain some more recognition over the years, and a little fan following could give the remake a better chance. The American remake is supposed to hit theaters in 2014, and I will watch this film, because the remake could bring something different to the table.


The Ides Of March (2011) 8/10- I actually thought about giving up on this film early on. The early moments of this film bored me to death, and I did feel a sluggish pace. I was quickly losing interest in this film, but a shocking secret finally woke me up…..

Stephen Meyers (Ryan Gosling) begins to form a relationship with Molly (Evan Rachel Wood). Molly is the sexy intern for the campaign staff, and she is attracted to Gosling’s character. Molly and Meyers are sitting alone in a hotel room one night. They’re enjoying each other’s company, but Molly’s cell phone suddenly rings. Meyers decides to play around at first. He answers the phone….and he hears the voice of Governor Mike Morris (George Clooney)! Gosling is in shock, and he quickly hangs up the phone, without saying a word. Meyers wants some answers, and Molly explains the secret that could destroy Governor Morris’ chances of becoming the next President of the United states. Molly is a very attractive woman, she was drinking, and I guess the Governor couldn’t help himself, so they had sex. The Governor couldn’t resist Molly, but this encounter wasn’t a harmless one night stand, because Molly eventually became pregnant. Molly was pregnant with the Governor’s child, and the dedicated Junior Campaign Manager (Gosling) begins to panic. Molly doesn’t want to bring shame to her family, Gosling doesn’t want his hard work to go to waste, and he believes Morris is the right choice for the next President. He has faith in him, but the pregnant intern will obliviously cause some problems. Meyers eventually convinces Molly to get an abortion, and Meyers forces Molly to leave the campaign team. Meyers thinks Molly might become a disastrous risk, so he exiles her from the team, but Meyers still feels the serious effects of a downward spiral, because everything takes a tragic turn for the worst, after Molly’s abortion.
This big secret really did provide the jaw dropping moment of this film, and this revelation hit me like a hard slap across the face. The revealing of Molly’s secret really caught my attention. It was a tense and shocking moment, and this scene did provide an unbelievable speechless moment.

George Clooney delivered a very solid performance, but Ryan Gosling really stole the show with the leading role in this film. Gosling was the young and loyal Junior Campaign Manager, who believed in the campaign and Morris. He was a hot prospect, and everyone wanted a piece of him in this film. Gosling did a fantastic job of showing some real raw emotions, and he could express these emotions through his body language and facial expressions.

Also, loyalty and betrayal are two important themes in this film. This film is filled with some unreal backstabbing moments, and The Ides Of March does feature a good amount of slimy and treacherous characters. Phillip Seymour Hoffman’s speech about loyalty was a great moment in this film, and you could really feel the passion in his voice, as he lectured Gosling’s character. This is a fictional political drama, but the cast really helps the story feel so realistic, and the filmmakers don’t hold anything back here, as they show the audience the rough and nasty side of politics.

The Ides Of March is a shocking and intense political drama/thriller, and the acting in this film is outstanding. George Clooney’s style of directing is kind of bland and plain, but this film does feature a good story, and the entire cast helped take everything to another level. I didn’t expect too much from The Ides Of March, but I was blown away by this, and this film does rank high on my list of 2011 favorites.
 
11-11-11 (2011) 5/10- Joseph (Timothy Gibbs) is a successful writer, but he loses his faith in God after the tragic and unexpected deaths of his wife and son. Joseph becomes a bitter and lonely man, and after surviving a brutal car accident, Joseph travels to Barcelona, Spain to visit his brother and dying father. Samuel (Joseph’s brother) is a priest, and he tries to restore his brother’s faith, but Joseph’s anger and bitterness are too strong, and he doesn’t want to believe anymore. But a series of ominous warnings and demon sightings change everything, and Joseph’s fears grow stronger as time progresses. Joseph is put to the test, and time isn’t on his side, because one thing is clear, something bad will happen on 11-11-11.

11-11-11 does have its creepy moments, this film does provide a chilling and eerie atmosphere most of the time, there is some good tension here, and this film does feature a few jump scares. The acting is decent enough, and I enjoyed Timothy Gibbs’ character here. He was the broken man, who didn’t want to believe anymore. He isolated himself from everyone, and he struggles to reconnect with his family. Joseph was someone, who I could feel for, and Gibbs did deliver a believable performance. And this film did do a good job of building some nice suspense. 11-11-11 was an important date here, and I really could feel a strong sense of urgency, as the big date drew closer. I could always feel the danger, because they do provide a good amount of clues, warnings, and reminders here, and the 11-11-11 hype within the film was a nice touch. Also, I enjoyed the arguments about religion in this film. Samuel was the positive and faithful priest, who had strong beliefs, but Joseph didn’t want to believe anymore. He lost his faith, and he was an angry man. Joseph’s lack of faith sparked a lot interesting arguments throughout this film, and I enjoyed the debates between the group of people who still had faith and the non-believer (Joseph).

I enjoyed 11-11-11 for the most part, but I did have a few problems with this film. First of all, this film can feel predictable at times. This one does go through the motions most of the time, and the story does have its tedious moments. Also, I really couldn’t understand the relationship between Sadie (Wendy Glenn) and Joseph. Joseph and Sadie know each other because they are members of a support group, and they do form some sort of bond, but the true nature of relationship can be unclear most of the time. Sadie obviously cares for Joseph, because she flies to Spain to help him unravel the mystery of 11-11-11. But these two never share a love connection, so they really aren’t heading towards a boyfriend/girlfriend relationship. I thought they were best friends, but at first, Joseph is surprised by Sadie’s arrival in Spain, and Sadie does look like this obsessive “stalker.” Sadie and Joseph obviously care about each other, but I didn’t know where their relationship was headed, and this is something that drove me nuts, as I watched the entire film.

I did enjoy 11-11-11 for the most part, but overall, this film does have an average feeling. I wanted to give this film a lower score, but the twist at the very end caught me off guard, and the big surprise really did feel shocking. 11-11-11 really doesn’t bring anything new to the table for horror films with religious themes, but this can be an enjoyable film. I was disappointed at times, but 11-11-11 really isn’t as bad as the critics are making it out to be, and I am happy I took a chance on this.

The Shortcut (2009) 1/10- This one starts of with a flashback from 1945. Ivor Hartley (Daniel Maslany) and Irene (Tracey-Lynn Pugsley) are a young couple, it’s late at night, and they’re leaving the homecoming dance at their high school. They’re on their way home, but the happy couple decides to take a shortcut through the woods. Yeah, that’s a good idea. It’s late at night, so let’s walk through the deep dark and secluded woods, because if something happens nobody will find us, and nobody will be able to help us. Ugh. Anyway, Ivor and Irene start to make out, Ivor wants to go all the way, but Irene isn’t ready. Ivor doesn’t accept this, so he tries to rape her. Irene is able to fight off Ivor, and the disgruntled boyfriend leaves her alone. Irene tries to find her way home, but she is attacked by a small boy. Benjamin Hartley hits Irene in the head with a rock, and she dies instantly. This kid has some serious mental problems, and he thinks the shortcut is his property, and he will kill anyone who trespasses on his land. The little boy’s parents don’t want to bring shame to their family, and they don’t want to lose their son, so they decide to imprison him inside their house. They secure this lengthy chain around his neck, and Benjamin spends the rest of his life in seclusion.

The story then shifts to the present, and the film begins to focus on Derek (the main character). Derek (Drew Seeley) is the new kid in town, and he’s having some trouble, as he tries to fit in, and he has to adjust to a new life style. Derek’s little brother, Tobey (Nicholas Elia) comes home one day, and he’s covered in blood. Tobey tried to take the infamous shortcut home, but he was scared off by an old man (Raymond J. Barry). Tobey found a dead dog, and the old man is an instant suspect. Eventually, the actions of the creepy old man, who guards the shortcut become more suspicious, Derek forms a team with his friends from school, and they go on an amateur detective mission. Disappearing dogs have become a serious problem, the teens suspect the old man, and they decide to explore the mysterious and dangerous “shortcut.” The teens find some answers, but they also discover a horrifying secret…….

The old man finally leaves the house one night, everything is safe and quiet, so the teens see this as a perfect opportunity to snoop around. Some of the teens do find a good amount of dog collars, but they also find another old man in the house. He has a lengthy chain around his neck, and this man could be a victim of the creepy old man, who lives in the house. The teens try to rescue the old man, but their gesture of kindness doesn’t payoff. The imprisoned old man is actually Benjamin Hartley, who was shown in the flashback at the beginning of the film. He’s grown older, and his brother, Ivor hides him inside the house, and he kills anyone who sees him. Ivor was the guardian of a dark secret for many years, and he secluded himself inside the house. Anyway, Benjamin kills a few of the teens, but Derek is able to grab a sledgehammer. He wants to deliver the final blow, but Ivor shoots him to death. Apparently, Ivor can’t deal with the burden of hiding his murderous brother, and the reclusive lifestyle is too much to handle, so Ivor turns the gun on himself, and he blows his brains out. The murdering brothers are dead, Lisa (another teenager, who followed Derek and the others) and Derek are the only two remaining survivors, and everything finally seems calm.

Derek and Lisa (Shannon Woodward) are the only two remaining survivors. Lisa is recovering from an injury, but her injury isn’t her biggest problem, because she is suddenly stabbed to death by Tobey? Derek’s little brother appears out of nowhere, and at first, Derek is in shock, but then, he quickly comforts Tobey??? Earlier in the film, Derek mentions their dead father, but the audience really doesn’t know what happened. As the brothers hide Lisa’s body, Derek finally reveals the truth: Tobey is the one, who killed their father years ago, and Derek helped him cover it up.

Yeah, the final moments of this film pissed me off. Throughout the film, Tobey and Derek were two characters, who I wanted to feel for. They were trying to adjust to a new lifestyle, and they didn’t have a father. But all of the sudden, Tobey just kills Lisa for no good reason? I just couldn’t buy into the killer little brother and his accomplice, Derek, because this big surprise at the end just felt so random, and they never give any real reasons or clues for Tobey as a killer. They spent so much time building up Tobey and Derek, and the character development was believable, because I did want to feel sympathy for them, but they threw everything out of the window, because they wanted to end the film with a shocking surprise. I couldn’t believe this, and the ending of this film did cause a facepalm for me.

Overall, I thought The Shortcut was pretty shitty, and they really ruined the time-shifting style of storytelling here. Flashbacks from the past do show the early stages of the killer’s murderous rampage. The audience sees the killer as a kid, and we get to see how the killer’s actions affected his family. This style of storytelling could’ve worked, but we don’t actually know who the killer is until the very end of the film. The story wants you to believe the old man (Ivor) as the killer, but this isn’t the case, because they throw a big swerve at you in the final moments of this film. Also, the audience doesn’t know too much about the old man, who is shown throughout the film, so if he actually was the killer, the flashbacks wouldn’t help establish a real connection, because they really don’t reveal any major details about the old man’s personality or personal life.
In the end, The Shortcut is just another reason for me to bash Adam Sandler (Sandler was an Executive Producer for this film). This is a horror film, but this film isn’t scary at all. There isn’t any real tension here, this film didn’t provide any spook moments for me, The Shortcut can be pretty boring most of the time, and I hated the ending. This film does feature a nice set of characters, but the acting here is very mediocre. The Shortcut had some potential at first, but this film just gets worse as time progresses.
 
Trespass (2011) 3/10- Usually, I give Nicholas Cage a lot of shit for his films, but Cage wasn’t bad here. In fact, I thought his performance was the highlight of this film. Cage was very believable as the desperate man, who would do anything to save his family. Nicole Kidman also delivered a solid performance. At times, it did feel like she was just going through the motions, but Kidman did do a job of showing some real emotion in this film. She was the concerned and scared wife, who wanted to help save her husband, and I did enjoy her character for the most part. Also, Liana Liberato wasn’t bad here, because she was believable as the young and rebellious teenager daughter, who could provide plenty of headaches for any parent. The acting in this film is very solid, and the majority of the cast is pretty enjoyable. And Cam Gigandet actually surprised me here. I’ve always thought he was a horrible actor, but he was pretty decent in this film. Gigandet was the psycho, who was obsessed with Nicole Kidman, and he created this fantasy relationship in his mind. Gigandent is a sick man, and he really shocked me in this film, because I usually expect the worse from him.

Trespass starts out okay at first, and this film does move at a nice fast pace, but everything just feels so bland most of the time. This is supposed to be a psychological thriller, but this film really doesn’t provide any thrills. Trespass can feel so dull most of the time, and the many scenes that feature these lengthy shouting matches between Cage, Kidman, and the intruders do become very annoying after a while. Yeah, I get it, Cage and Kidman are fearing for their lives, they won’t let the intruders intimidate them, and they try to make some deals that will secure their safety. But the negotiations with intruders never really go anywhere, and they always go back to square one, when all of the yelling ends.

Trespass could’ve been something special. The story was actually decent enough, Kidman and Cage tried to save this one, but in the end, Trespass is just a very mediocre film. This film could’ve been an excellent psychological thriller, but Trespass just feels like straight-to-video material most of the time. The “we’re trapped inside our house, while other people are trying to kill us” stuff has been done before, and it has been done better (Panic Room would be prime example). I want to point the finger at Cage here, because I usually can’t stand him, but he doesn’t deserve any of the blame here. Joel Schumacher’s bland style of directing doesn’t help this film, and Trespass will be remembered as another stinker on his resume. This wasn’t as bad as Batman & Robin, but Trespass definitely deserves a spot on Schumacher’s list of failures.

Tower Heist (2011) 7/10- I can’t stand Brett Ratner, but my hatred for Ratner couldn’t ruin this film for me. For the most part, the story is pretty predictable, but they do deliver a nice surprise at the very end. There are some nice twists and turns in the final moments of this one, and I really did enjoy the surprises, because everything felt so unexpected, and I was caught off guard the entire time.

Tower Heist can provide some good laughs, and the cast was just excellent here. Tower Heist features a nice set of unique characters, and Eddie Murphy was hilarious here. I gave up on Eddie Murphy a while ago, but his character was the highlight of this film for me. Murphy’s performance reminded me of his work in the Beverly Hills Cop films and both 48 Hrs. films (yeah, I actually enjoyed Another 48 Hrs., and this film doesn’t deserve all of the hate it gets). Murphy was at his best here, he was comfortable with his character, and he was very smooth in this film, as he portrayed the fast-talking and untrustworthy crook. Also, Ben Stiller didn’t annoy me in this film. Usually, I can’t stand Ben Stiller, because his performances can feel soooo forced most of the time, and he usually tries way too hard. But Stiller didn’t go over the top here, and he was toned down for the most part. Stiller was the loyal building manager, who found himself in a tricky situation. Stiller did have his humorous moments here, but he wanted to help his team members, he was a voice for the people, and he was very enjoyable as the group leader, who organized the elaborate heist. Murphy was excellent here, but the entire cast really did provide a great collective effort. Tower Heist features a good amount of entertaining characters, this film is loaded with some solid performances, and Michael Pena didn‘t annoy me. In fact, I enjoyed his character throughout the film. Also, Alan Alda was a perfect choice for Arthur Shaw. Shaw was the heartless and cold Wall Street billionaire, who looked down on the little guy. Shaw thought all common men or “clock punchers” were disposable, and he thought they were beneath him. Shaw was a good bad guy, and Alda’s performance took everything to another level. This character could provoke some real anger, because Shaw represented the type of rich and powerful businessman, who was soulless, and he didn’t care about the people, who worked regular jobs, because he thought they were expandable assets.

Tower Heist is a very hilarious crime comedy, and the cast is just superb here. I couldn’t stop laughing throughout this film, and Tower Heist really doesn’t feature any dull moments. At first, I thought Eddie Murphy would ruin this film, and his presence didn’t excite me. But Murphy’s performance reminded me of his glory days, and I hope this can be the first sign of comeback for him.

Killer Elite (2011) 5/10- I know I’m being too generous with this rating, because Killer Elite isn’t that good, but I really enjoyed Robert De Niro’s character in this film. De Niro was the smooth and cocky hitman, and De Niro was in top form here. De Niro was sharp in this film, and this performance almost made me forget about those awful Fockers’ films.

Killer Elite lands on my list of films that could’ve been so much better. This film does feature some thrilling action scenes, and there is some good suspense here, but the story just felt so damn confusing most of the time. At first, I thought this film was about Danny (Jason Statham) wanting to get out of the life. The execution of his latest target caused a traumatic experience for him, but Danny was forced into a situation, where he had to accomplish a series of missions, and these missions had to be completed, if he wanted to save his best friend (De Niro). But as some time progresses, the story begins to focus on this conspiracy that involves the British government. And they did put a good amount of focus on Clive Owen’s character here. Spike Logan (Owen) is the determined and loyal ex-SAS officer, who doesn’t want to let go of the past, and they do reveal a good amount of information about his character. I also can’t forget about Bakhait (Firass Dirani). Bakhait is the rich and spoiled son. His father is dying, but his father wants him to regain control of the land he once controlled, so when you stop and think about it, Bakhait is an important piece of the puzzle here. They spent so much time trying to explain everything, when it comes to the different storylines and characters in this film, and at times, this film did feel like one gigantic jumbled mess.

Killer Elite can be an entertaining action/thriller, but this film does feature some dull moments. I want to give this film a lower score, but De Niro really surprised me here, and I can’t deny how much enjoyed his performance.
 
Paranormal Activity 3 (2011) 4/10- I’m sorry, but no. Paranormal Activity 3 is another one those films I really wanted to like, and I did want learn more about the story, but I just saw the same old routine here.

When it comes to the scare tactics in this film, they did make some minor changes again, and the little tweaks did feel refreshing at times, but for the most part, they stuck to the same formula they used in the previous films, when trying to provide spook moments. Yeah, this film did provide some nice jump scares here and there, but most of the time, I felt like I was watching the same old film again. And I wasn’t a fan of the ending here. The ending just left me with this “That’s it??? Really!” feeling, and I couldn’t believe what I saw on-screen. This film featured some more new characters, and I thought this film would provide a lot more details about the story. I did see some revealing home movies that featured Katie and Kristi, and I did see the early stages of the invisible demon’s terrorizing rampages, but I still didn’t feel like I learned anything here. They do introduce more characters here, and they do show you how it all began, but I still had to imagine a lot of major details in this film. I still had to guess what could’ve or might’ve happened. I still had to figure out things for myself, and this prequel didn’t provide any kind of satisfying payoff for me.

In one of the commercial advertisements for this film, a certain quote or message (I’m not sure which one it was) warns the audience about the final fifteen minutes of this film: “The last fifteen minutes of this film will mess you up for life.” They used this as hype material for this film, but they should’ve changed it to “The last fifteen minutes will save this film.” Yes. There is some nice suspense towards the end of this film, the spook moments fly at you non-stop, and there is some nice tension towards the very end, but the final fifteen minutes didn’t ruin my life. The final fifteen minutes woke me up (because I did feel bored at times), but the final moments of this film didn’t traumatize me, or scare me to the point, where I pissed in my pants.

You‘ll probably enjoy this, if you love the Paranormal Activity franchise and found-footage horror films, but Paranormal Activity 3 didn’t do anything for me. The acting is still pretty mediocre, the ending was a HUGE disappointment for me, they pretty much stuck to the same formula, when trying to provide scares, and the Paranormal Activity franchise is starting to give me the runaround. Yeah, I was introduced to some new characters here, and I did get to see some freaky events in Katie and Kristi’s childhoods, but I still didn’t learn too much here. They do give the audience some new material, but I just some new home movies that featured different people here.

The Three Musketeers (2011) 5/10- The Three Musketeers can be a fun action/adventure film most of the time. The majority of the sword fights are entertaining, and some of the flashy action scenes can be enjoyable. The Three Musketeers does provide some nice special effects, because the CGI in this film did look pretty good. The acting in this film is pretty solid, and Orlando Bloom actually surprised me here. I usually don’t expect anything good from Bloom, but he was a decent enough villain here.

The Three Musketeers can be enjoyable as a mindless and fun action blockbuster most of the time, and there is some good humor here, but this film doesn’t bring anything special to the table. This just feels like another Three Musketeers film with better special effects, and this new version doesn’t set any type of standards. I want to give this film a lower score, but I really enjoyed the final battle in this film, because the final showdown did provide a good amount of action and excitement for me. The ending for this film does tease a sequel, but the thought of another film doesn’t excite me at all. The Three Musketeers can be an enjoyable film, but I don’t have that strong urge for a sequel.

You shouldn’t expect anything great from this film. You’ll see a lot of flashy sword fights and battle scenes here, they do show a lot of cleavage in this film, and the story is very predictable, but The Three Musketeers can be a fun and enjoyable popcorn flick.

On a side note, Milla Jovovich complained about Summit Entertainment’s market campaign for this film a while ago. Jovovich voiced her displeasures about Summit Entertainment on Twitter, and of course they weren’t too happy about this. Apparently, she wanted The Three Musketeers to be marketed as a family friendly film, and she was upset about all of the attention the new Twilight film received (Summit Entertainment also distributes the Twilight films), and she thought The Three Musketeers deserved more spotlight. Yeah, I like Jovovich, and I don’t think she’s a bad actress, but she is dead wrong for a few reasons:

1. The Three Musketeers really isn’t a family friendly film, and there is a reason for the PG-13 rating here. The action scenes do have their moments of violence, this film does feature some sexual innuendos every now and then, and as I said before, there is a good amount of cleavage here.

2. The Twilight films are a bigger deal, and you can’t deny this. The Twilight films always rake in a good amount of cash at the box office, this series does have a nice sized fan following, and the Twilight film series has become one of the more successful cash cow franchises over the years. It really is a wise business move, when you stop and think about it. Why should Summit Entertainment waste time, energy, and resources on a forgettable blockbuster that won’t make a noticeable impact at the box office? Twilight will still be a big deal in the coming months. People will still care about that film, but The Three Musketeers will fade away soon enough, this isn’t the first Three Musketeers film, and this film really doesn’t raise the bar for Three Musketeers films.

Drive (2011) 10/10- Extraordinary. Drive is currently at the top of my list for the best film in 2011, and I really was blown away by this. The cinematography was gorgeous and mesmerizing, the soundtrack was amazing, and this film really did feature some good acting. Everything blends together so well in Drive, and it did feel like I was watching the perfect movie here.

Ryan Gosling does a fantastic job wit the lead role, and for me, his character was the highlight of the film. Gosling is the quiet loner, who wants to lend a helping hand. He has feelings for Irene (Carey Mulligan), but at the same time, he wants to help her young son, and his father, who was recently released from jail. Gosling wanted to help the family, but everything goes wrong, when the day of the big heist finally arrives. Gosling was very comfortable with his character in this film. He was the smooth loner, who had a good heart, and I liked the idea of Gosling’s nameless character here. Gosling is always referred to as “The Driver” in this film, and I thought this was a nice touch, because this gave Gosling’s character some more mystique. Gosling was outstanding here, but this film did feature a good set of performances. Ron Perlman (Nino) actually surprised me, because I usually don’t have high expectations for his work. But Perlman was very believable as the cold-blooded mobster, who wanted to eliminate all of the lose ends. Albert Brooks (Bernie) was a nice addition to the cast. Bernie was right by Nino‘s side, when the blood shed begin. Bernie just looked like a real slimy scumbag, and I always had that “don’t trust this guy!” feeling, when I saw him on-screen. Carey Mulligan was the beautiful stranger next door, and I really wanted to feel for her character. At first, she’s a single mother, but she begins to form a relationship with The Driver. But everything changes, when her husband returns from jail. Irene has to become the family woman again, but she still has feeling for The Driver, and an uncomfortable situation does begins to unfold. Mulligan delivered a fine performance in this film, and Drive does feature a good amount of characters, who I wanted to care about.

Drive is a very unique and stylish action/drama film, and the visuals are absolutely stunning. This film does feature some great tension, there are a few moments of thrilling action here, and the graphic violence in this film can feel shocking. Drive could make an impact at the 2012 Academy Awards, and this film shouldn’t be forgotten, when Oscar season rolls around.
 
Martha Marcy May Marlene (three and half out of four stars)
Martha Marcy May Marlene is so far the scariest movie I've seen all year. Granted I'm still waiting on The Skin I Live In, MMMM (I'm going to abbreviate the title from now one) is quite terrifying. Is it that things jump out and scare you? No because that isn't scary. I say startling is the right term. Is MMMM a horror movie at all? Once again the answer is no. MMMM is creepy in the way that it feels realistic. Maybe it's just me but cults are frighting.

I had a dream about two weeks before seeing this. Some reviews were out and I was doing some reading. That night in my dream I was apart of the cult/commune in the film. I tried to escape but was chased into the woods. John Hawkes was gaining fast when I woke up. I'm not against the idea of a commune (I love the idea of it in The Beach) but here we're approaching Elizabeth Smart levels. The film is about Martha who is played in a tour de force performance by Elizabeth Olsen. It's an Oscar worthy role. Marlene at a weak point in her life joins a commune. They call her Marcy May and all the women answer the phone under the guise of Marlene (hence the title). The leader is Patrick and he is a powerful man. Patrick can be kind but also rough. He speaks with a cleansing aura that explains why so many are brainwashed into following his words. The other members help him work his way into new followers. It's not about religion but just closed off society. John Hawkes plays Patrick convincingly in a marvelous performance.

Martha escapes the community at the beginning of the film. Her sister Lucy (Sarah Paulson) picks her up and brings Martha to her vacation home. Lucy and her husband Ted (Hugh Dancy) are decent folk but can't deal with the irrational behavior Martha projects. Martha has forgotten almost of societies norms. The film flashes back and forth between Martha's time with Lucy and the cult with ease. The audience is often puzzled on when the transition has just happened. Yet that it the greatness of it. Martha says "have you ever had that feeling you can't tell if something is a memory or a dream?" She is having trouble distinguishing her surroundings and the films invites the audience to feel the same. The ending is one of pure brilliance. MMMM's acting, direction, script, editing etc. are near flawless. It's plot is one to get the audience involved in. It's a truly great film. Elizabeth Olsen has a bright career ahead of her.


J. Edgar (three out four stars)

J. Edgar is a film that needs to win Oscars. Not that it isn't good without them but who will remember this next year? Who remembers Hereafter with Matt Damon? Nobody because they all still think of Eastwood's Million Dollar Baby. This is a film made by people that internet forums just eat up. So J. Edgar for a while was a favorite for next year's Oscars. Well mixed reviews and disappointing box office may have dashed those hopes. Is this a bad movie? Of course not. Yet even the hardiest of audiences may get bored from time to time. We know (or should know) something about J. Edgar Hoover. He was the head of the FBI for decades and is responsible for what it is today. His face was iconic during the 20th century. The man had files on everyone and many suspect he only lasted in power as long as he did due to the way his image was portrayed.

Leonardo DiCaprio plays Hoover in quite the good performance. I can't say anything negative to what he brought to the table. Yet he won't be winning his Oscar here. Hoover hunts criminals (namely the Lindbergh baby kidnapper), has his secretary (Naomi Watts) stock secret files, lives with his mother (Judi Dench) and has a live long companionship with Clyde Tolsen (Armie Hammer). The film tells the story of Hoover's government career and not so much about those pesky rumors that did his name in (Although we get one scene of DiCaprio in a dress and let me say he can't pull it off like Cillian Murphy can in Breakfast on Pluto). When compared to other biopics this film is very well done. Authentic sets, good acting and steady pacing. Instead of following Hoover chronologically the film jumps through the years near seamlessly. This helps make Hoover more than a simple man but a image. It doesn't have a lasting appeal nor much interest going for it. I found myself only really drawn in for maybe three scenes. However it sets out to tell something about a Hoover and it does so well.

Like Crazy (three out of four stars)

I have little idea of what to make of this film. It's very personal in that it's a love story. However this isn't a classic film. It's almost 90 minutes of emotions. The film is only as good as what you put into it. So let's say your a hapless romantic, then you'll love this to death. If your cynical then maybe this movie will never click with you. I can say I'm still confused. Maybe I wasn't ready for it. The film is about loving that special someone which is something I've yet to do. I've been in lust once or twice but love is something different. Maybe down the road again I'll watch this again and see something wondrous. However I'm glad I can recognize the desired affect. As a film Like Crazy is innovative and brilliantly made. A movie that is only as good as what you make it; I don't know about real love but part of me loves that idea.

Jacob and Anna meet in class. The film actually jumps right into their relationship which is actually quite smart. After looking eyes in class one day Anna leaves Jacob a note on his car. They go out and things to go well. They start falling in young and happy love. Of course after graduation Anna must leave. She's in the USA on a visa for school and hails from England. She decides to violate her Visa and stay two months longer. She goes home for a wedding but upon returning is barred from the country. Honestly over staying your visa was stupid but hey that's what I put into the film. So Jacob and Anna are hopelessly in love but now have to deal with a long distance relationship. The film moves through a few years as they long for one another, agree to see other people, try their hardest to get the ban lifted and so on. Anton Yelchin plays Jacob in a very heartfelt performance. However it's Felicity Jones that walks off the winner here. It's a brutally emotional performance up there with Elizabeth Olsen in Martha Marcy May Marlene (I may prefer Olsen by a hair though). Some will feel what Jacob and Anna go through as it were happening to them. Others will see two kids who act foolishly. I see a movie that has a lot going for it in the end.
 
J. Edgar (two out of four stars)

I love films that deal with history. Imo, this film should have been a home run. J. Edgar Hoover is one of the most complicated figures in law enforcement history if not domestice law enforcement history. Leo DiCaprio had wanted to get the film made for an eternity and with Clint Eastwood directing, I went in thinking it would be a masterpiece. For me, it failed to reach that. Here's what's good about it: Leonardo DiCaprio's performance. He clearly is a remarkable actor and the performances of Naomi Watts, Judi Dench and Armie Hammer are quite good. The problem for me is the story isn't very well told or well paced. It touches on issues but doesn't go into as much detail as I would have liked. The civil rights era and his actions during that time receives very little detail. We don't see his meetings with all the presidents only with Robert Kennedy therefore giving us very little detail about his relationships with them and how those presidents felt about him. I mean you hear Nixon's thoughts but why not the other 7 presidents he served under. The film touches on a number of eras he was involved in, the women's right to vote, McCarthy era, civil rights etc., but doesn't give the detailed storytelling about his reaction and thoughts on people during those times well enough, at least not in the way I'd like to have seen. 2 hours about J. Edgar Hoover might not be good enough. Then there's the makeup. Judi Dench having her hair coloured to look younger is absurd. If you're going to show Edgar as a child, have a young actress play his mother. I think DiCaprio and Eastwood may get nominated for Oscars (if not win) for this film but I think a better film could have been made here.


A Very Harold and Kumar Christmas (two out of four stars)

I loved the original film and liked the second one. This instalment just felt forced. They just wanted to make a third film to make some money. There's nothing wrong with that, but the film series deserved a better ending. I mean the whole plot is to hunt down a Christmas tree, c'mon. There are some funny moments, but I was hoping for more.
 
Another Earth (three and a half out of four stars)

Another Earth is a mesmerizing film that touches upon deep emotional drama, scifi and the fear of the unknown. It's a stunning first feature by Make Cahill (the director) and a marvelous breakthrough performance by Brit Marling. She draws in the audience in the way a lead character should. Another Earth is another great movie this year.

To say that Rhoda (Brit Marling) may divide audiences on whether or no they like her may be a understatement. It's possible some will hate her and others will feel empathy. That's the making of a good character. Very early in the film Rhoda does something unforgivable. She's young and has just been accepted to MIT. She's had a few drinks (not necessarily drunk) and is driving home. Over the radio the broadcaster says that a new planet has been discovered and is visible to the naked eye as a blue star. Rhoda begins looking for it but is no longer paying attention to the road. She crashes into a another vehicle and kills the woman and child inside. The father/husband lands in a coma. Some time later the planet is much closer and appears to be a parallel earth. On this planet is another you. Maybe this Rhoda didn't hit that car that night? However our Rhoda looks to make up for what she's done to the man (William Mapother) she harmed in any way possible. Another Earth is engaging, greatly acted, contains original thought and provokes a response. It is truly a fine film.

The Help (three out of four stars)

The Help is a safe film. It doesn't dive deep into racial qualms but still addresses them to some degree. It's a feel good movie in the end. I'm not the biggest fan of these types of movies but I can recognize when one is well done. The Help is well acted and contains a story some will be drawn into. However it's not something that should be praised as groundbreaking. Just another decent feel good movie.

Eugenia "Skeeter" Phelam returns to her town after going away to study journalism. She lands a job but needs a little help with her article. It's the 1960's and the civil rights movement is still struggling to move forward. Aibileen (a great Viola Davis) is a black maid working in a white household. She's been through several and raises the children more than the actual parents ever will. Eugenia seeks Aibileen's advice on her column but soon decides to do something else. She wants to write a book about the maids who work in these households. It's Aibileen's story and book but just penned by Eugenia. Of course in the community this sort of thing will be frowned upon so they keep it a secret. It's a nice story but a tiresome after a long two and half hour running time. However the lead performances and fine supporting ones by the likes of Bryce Dallas Howard, Jessica Chastain, Octavia Spencer and Sissy Spacek make the film worth seeing.

The Descendants (four out of four stars)

To say that The Descendants is a perfect movie isn't a far off statement. I really can't see myself giving this anything else but a four star review. The Descendants is funny, dark, moving, gentle, soothing, sometimes brash and really just a movie that needs to be seen. Not a movie you "should" see, but NEED too. That's right people, this very well may be our Best Picture winner at the coming Oscars.

Our beginning is narrated by Matt King (George Clooney) in a very unique way. First he says that he lives in Hawaii and that despite him living in "paradise", he along with all the other residents have troubles. That you can live anywhere or be anybody and still have awful issues. Matt's wife was in a motorboat accident and has landed in a deep coma. It doesn't look good. Matt now needs to take care of his two daughters singlehandedly. Both daughters have the same issues (being foul mouthed trouble makers). The eldest is played by Shailene Woodley in a marvelous performance. I'd never thought I'd say the star of The Secret Life of an American Teenager should be an Oscar nominee, but perhaps I've said stranger in the past. To add to Matt's problems he finds out his wife was cheating on him and so begins a humorous and engaging attempt to confront this man. The last of Matt's present problems is the matter of land. He's the descendant of a Hawaiian princess that married a white settler. He owns a large portion of untouched land that he must decide (as the head of a trust fund) to keep it preserved or to sell for hundreds of millions dollars to hotel owners. His family isn't going to let this issue be delayed any longer. There are three fascinating stories here all with interesting characters that genuinely get you involved in the movie. Time flies when you're having fun and this film and I loved every second.

Alexander Payne (the director) is a carful man and thank god for that! He's the master of the adult comedy. The fact that this comes close to the quality of his masterpiece known as Sideways is reason enough to rave about this. Payne chooses his movies carefully and since stepping it up with Election, he's done nothing but great pieces of work. He's really that brilliant. I give this four stars not because it's the best movie I've seen this year (top ten though) but it holds up very well in it's field. The Descendants is a dramedy (comedy/drama) and is comparable to Sideways which is also a four star film. Look at it as the pinnacle of the dramedy while Sunshine Cleaning is about a two and half star film. How Saving Private Ryan is a four star war film while The Great Raid is about a two. Clooney leads this pitch perfect cast in a mesmerizing performance. It may just be his best when you take his typecast into consideration. People love Clooney so seeming him play awkward is both great and fresh. It's going to be a strange Oscar season this year but don't be surprised to see The Descendants to go home heavy handed.

Hugo (three and a half out of four stars)

Hugo warmed my heart. Its magical aura surged through me to leave me in a state of bliss. It's one of the year's great films and maybe its most versatile. On one hand it's a darling kids movie of adventure. However what I saw swept the floor with me. This is one the greatest dedications to old cinema I've had the pleasure of viewing.

Hugo (a marvelous Asa Butterfield) lives in the walls of train station. His father died in a accident and he was left in the care of of his uncle. His uncle repaired the clocks at this train station before he left for a life of boozing. Hugo now operates the clocks, steals food when necessary, avoids the station inspector (Sacha Baron Cohen) and also takes toys. These toys have parts he needs to finish the automaton that Hugo and his father were repairing. It's the last thing of his father that Hugo has. He needs a key that mysteriously his new friend (Chloe Grace Moretz) keeps around her neck to finish it. Her godfather gave it to her.

The godfather is George Melies (Ben Kingsley), if you don't recognize the name let me due a brief history lesson. Melies was a magician turned filmmaker. He is credited with creating special effects in films. A Trip to the Moon is his most recognized film and rightfully so. It's a beautiful dream of cinema. Scorsese has made a film not only for kids but for cinephiles. It's darling to see the love for such a movement recreated by Scorsese. It's not a factual account of the man's life but it recognizes Melies' work. Scorsese is known for his gangster films but Hugo may be closest to his heart. This film is the soul of such a great man. It's a piece of art to love.
 
Bunraku (2011) 2/10- Guns are outlawed after a global war almost destroys planet Earth, but some people still make the choice to fight, they just use knives and fists as their weapons. Nicola, The Woodcutter (Ron Perlman) is the feared and powerful crime boss, who rules everything east of the Atlantic. Nicola’s reign of terror seems unstoppable at first, but two silent and deadly strangers change everything. The Drifter (Josh Hartnett) and the samurai, Yoshi (Gackt) slowly make some moves, and they soon form an unlikely bond. They don’t trust each other at first, but they do share a few common goals: both men want revenge, and they want to kill Nicola and his entire gang.

I actually had some high hopes for Bunraku, but this film was a major disappointment for me. Bunraku does feature some impressive visuals, but this film can feel so dull most of the time. Bunraku does feature its fair share of flashy fight scenes and beat downs, but this film really doesn’t provide any excitement. Some of the stylish fight scenes are fun to watch at first, but the large gang fights and beat downs can feel VERY tiresome after a while. Yeah, I get it, some of the characters in this film are deadly bad asses, and they have to flex their muscles every now and then. But the overwhelming overload of fight scenes and beat downs in this film gave me a headache, the action in this film wasn’t entertaining for me, and everything reaches the point of overkill pretty quickly.

Also, the majority of the characters in this film didn’t do anything for me. This film does feature a good amount of one dimensional and uninteresting characters, and I just didn’t want to care about them. The main set of characters in this film (Nicola, Yoshi, The Drifter) are all invincible bad ass killers, and their monotone voices and slow style of speech annoyed the shit of me. The different nationalities and backgrounds of these characters were the only way of telling them apart, because none of the characters really stood out here. Some of the characters in this film didn’t do anything for me, but I did enjoy Kevin McKidd, Woody Harrelson, and Demi Moore. Killer No. 2 (McKidd) was the loyal lieutenant in Nicola’s gang. McKidd was the charismatic and cocky psychotic killer, who would do anything for Nicola, and I enjoyed McKidd’s performance here, because he really did nail this character. For the most part, Killer No. 2 does fall into the into the invincible bad ass category, but unlike the others, McKidd DOES provide a unique and entertaining personality. Alexandra (Moore) is the broken woman, who can’t escape Nicola. Alexandra is Nicola’s lover, and she is a miserable and depressed woman throughout this film, because she chose to be one man’s “****e.” I wanted to feel for the Alexandra character in this film, and Demi Moore did deliver a solid performance. Woody Harrelson delivers another enjoyable performance here, and The Bartender (Harrelson) does provide some good comic relief, but Harrelson couldn’t save this one.

Bunraku can be a pleasing treat for the eyes, because this film does offer some impressive visuals, but overall, this is a very underwhelming and dull film. The constant barrage of over the top fight scenes and beat downs can become very annoying after a while, this film doesn’t provide any real excitement or thrills, and both of the major showdowns were a HUGE disappointment, because both of the final battles in this film did feature some stupid and silly moments. Bunraku is a very boring film, and this east meets west action adventure almost put me to sleep. Bunraku feels like this awful mixture of Sucker Punch, 300, and Kill Bill (both volumes), and this film really is a major failure on so many levels.

Immortals (2011) 4/10- Mickey Rourke. He is the ONLY reason why I didn’t go with a lower score here. King Hyperion (Rourke) is the main antagonist in this film, and Rourke did deliver a very solid performance here. Rourke’s presence always reeked of pure evil, and Rourke did bring something special to this character, because Hyperion was the cold and power hungry King, who wanted to dominate everything in his path, and Rourke did deliver a very believable performance here.

Immortals does offer some very impressive visuals, and the CGI in this film really looks good, but I just couldn’t get into this. For the most part, Immortals can be a very boring and dull film. The style of storytelling in this film can feel so incredibly bland, and this film doesn’t provide any real excitement or thrills until the very end. They didn’t go crazy with the large scale battle scenes here, they did save the real epic battle for last, and I actually thought this was a nice touch here. Still, Immortals almost put me to sleep at times, because this film can feel so boring, and the impressive special effects helped me stay awake.

Also, Luke Evans and John Hurt are enjoyable as Zeus here (this film features two different versions of Zeus), and Stephen Dorff (Stavros) was pretty entertaining. Dorff was the charismatic slave/thief, and Dorff was very comfortable with his character here. Everything flowed so well with him, and he did provide some good comic relief. But Henry Cavill’s (Theseus) performance didn‘t bring anything special to the table. He had the perfect look, but his performance was mediocre at best, and he really wasn’t able to carry this film as the lead man. And Freida Pinto (Phaedra, the Oracle priestess) didn’t do anything for me. For some odd reason, all of the movie news websites I browse on a daily basis put a lot of focus on this woman before this film’s release, but I couldn’t understand all of the attention she received. Yeah, I’ll admit, I haven’t seen Slumdog Millionaire yet (from what I’ve read, this film features her best performance), but for me, Pinto was just eye candy in this film. She really didn’t show any personality here, and her performance was pretty dull for the most part. Yes. Pinto is a VERY attractive woman, but Slumdog Millionaire was a critically acclaimed film, and it seems like she’s just riding the coattails of the success that film enjoyed, because I really didn’t see anything special in her here.

Immortals does offer plenty of “oooooo and ahhhhhh!” moments, because the visuals and special effects in this film are impressive, but Immortals was a gigantic waste of time for me. This fantasy/action film doesn’t offer too much excitement or thrills, and I just couldn’t get into this. This film was supposed to be something EPIC, but it wasn’t. The big final battle is very enjoyable, but the last stand towards the end saved this one. A film like this shouldn’t be so boring and dull for so long, and Immortals didn’t deliver the goods for me. Again, the final battle is very enjoyable, and the big showdown at the end does offer some moments of suspense, but I was already bored to death by then, and I didn’t have any strong positive feelings about this film. I wanted to like this film. I really did, and Immortals could’ve been something special, but this film should land on the list of major disappointments in 2011.
 
The Beaver (2011) 7/10- Walter Black (Mel Gibson) is a depressed and broken man, who was some serious mental problems. Walter has hit rock bottom, but he finds some solace in a stuffed beaver hand puppet. The talking beaver puppet helps Walter get back on his feet, and he slowly begins to bond with his family again. Meredith (Walter’s wife) wants to believe in Walter’s new found happiness, but she has trouble accepting his new best friend (the beaver). Porter (Walter’s oldest son) despises Walter, and he doesn’t want his father to be apart of his life anymore. Henry (Walter’s youngest son) is the only one, who fully accepts his dad and the beaver, but he is too young, so he really doesn’t understand the serious nature of the situation. The beaver gives Walter an unexpected resurrection, but Meredith (Jodie Foster) and Porter (Anton Yelchin) eventually grow tired of the loveable talking hand puppet, and everything takes a turn for the worst.

The Beaver does get off to a slow start, but this film does get better, as time progresses. The Beaver is an emotional drama, and the acting in this film is very solid. Jodie Foster, Anton Yelchin, and Jennifer Lawrence did deliver some very believable and enjoyable performances. And Mel Gibson was fantastic as the lead here. Walter was a depressed and lonely man, who wanted to give up on life. He didn’t want to live anymore, and his oldest son hated him. Meredith tries to help him, but Walter would rather live a miserable and lonely life filled with delusions, as he talks through the stuffed beaver puppet. The Walter character is someone who I could feel for, I wanted to root for him, and Mel Gibson really did a good job of showing some raw emotions here. The Walter character was the highlight of this film, and Gibson’s performance helped take everything to the next level.

The Beaver can feel very predictable at times, and the happy ending did feel kind of cheesy, but I still enjoyed this film. The Beaver is an emotional drama, this film featured a good amount of characters, who I wanted to care about, and this film is loaded with some very solid acting. Some people might have a problem with Mel Gibson and the talking beaver puppet here. I will admit, it DOES take some time to get use to Mel and his beaver friend, and the scenes, where Mel talks through the beaver puppet can feel silly at times, but the Walter character was a man, who had lost his mind. He was depressed, and the talking beaver helped him deal with real life, so in a way, the talking beaver puppet does make sense. Also, I thought they did a good job of balancing the humor and serious moments here. Gibson’s character talks through a beaver puppet for the majority of this film, so of course, Mel and the talking beaver can provide some unintentionally funny moments (for obvious reasons). When Mel was talking through the beaver in the early moments of this film, I had this “Really??? You can’t be serious!” feeling, but my feelings would quickly change, and I would start thinking “Whoa. This guy needs some serious help.” The Beaver is able to draw the line between drama and comedy, and the timing in this film was pretty good, because The Beaver always shifts gears at the right moment. The beaver puppet is a big deal here, but IF you can tolerate and accept Mel and the talking beaver, this CAN be an enjoyable film. But if you can’t stand the many scenes with the talking beaver, you’ll probably hate this film, and you’ll probably think The Beaver is one ridiculous piece of shit.

This film has received mixed reviews, but The Beaver really isn’t a bad film at all. It’s a shame, but this film probably won’t receive favorable praise from the mainstream world, and The Beaver will be buried on a list of forgettable films in 2011. Mel Gibson should receive another chance, because he is still a talented director and actor, but his recent psychotic tirades have put him on the black list, and I really hope he can make a comeback someday, because Edge Of Darkness and The Beaver are good films. These films deserve a more positive spotlight, but both films can’t escape the dark shadow of Mel’s tirades.


I Am Number Four (2011) 0/10- I Am Number Four has all of the elements for a successful action/science fiction franchise. This film does have an intriguing premise, a solid story, interesting characters, who you can care about, and I Am Number Four does feel like something different. I Am Number Four could’ve been the start of a refreshing and exciting action/sci-fi franchise, but this film was a colossal failure.

First of all, the acting in this film is FUCKING TERRIBLE. The majority of the acting in this film is noticeably bad, and Alex Pettyfer (Number Four) was an awful choice for the lead role here. Number Four is the main character, and he’s supposed to be the young hero, with a great burden. I wanted to root and feel for Number Four, but Pettyfer’s performance was SO unconvincing. Pettyfer sounded like he was reading his lines from a cue card, he was unbelievably dull and bland in this film, and his horrific performance really drags this film down. Timothy Olyphant (Henri) was okay here. He did deliver a decent enough performance, as Number Four’s guardian, but he couldn’t save this film. And Number Six’s presence in this film felt so random………..

In the early stages of this film, Number Six (Teresa Palmer) destroys a house. She uses her powers to shield herself from the explosion, and she disappears for a while. During Number Six’s absence, the story makes A LOT of progress, and Palmer’s character doesn’t receive any screen time…..but she pops up during the final battle????? Throughout the film, the audience is introduced to different characters, and the story does make a good amount of progress. Number Six is shown at the beginning of the film, but I really didn’t know too much about her character, but she shows up at the very end to help save the day? Number Six is a bad ass, and instead of hiding, she decided to take the fight to the Mogadorians (the evil aliens in this film). But Number Six is supposed to be an important character here, because she does help defeat the bad guys during the final battle, and she saves Number Four’s life. Also, Number Six is supposed to be a major piece of the puzzle in this film. Number Six’s partnership with Number Four is crucial, because the Number aliens are stronger, when they fight together, and these characters must join forces, if they want to protect Earth from the threat of the evil Mogadorians. Number Six is supposed to be an important character in this film, but she doesn’t receive too much screen time here, her random appearance at the end of the film doesn’t fit in, and she does look out of place during the final showdown. It just felt like they tried to cram her into the story at the very end, and Number Six’s heroic appearance didn’t do anything for me.
Also, I Am Number Four features these dark action scenes, and I seriously couldn’t tell what was going on, because I could barley see anything most of the time. The action scenes in this film were very corny, and the production values in this film were pretty bad. At times, It felt like I was watching a made for TV movie, and the special effects here really did look cheap and horrible.

I Am Number Four does leave a lot of unanswered questions, but I don’t want to unravel the mystery. As I said before, I Am Number Four does have all of the elements for a successful franchise, but this was an awful film, and they didn’t do enough to gather a fan base for a potential film series here. I Am Number Four is loaded with bad performances, the lighting is atrocious, the production values are horrendous, and I Am Number Four is a very shitty and forgettable action/sci-fi film. This film should earn a spot on Michael Bay’s list of enormous failures (Bay was an executive producer for this film), and this film will become that one gigantic stain on D.J. Caruso’s (the director for this film) career.
 
The Rum Diary (2011) 5/10- Ugh, this was hard rating for me, and I did want to give this film a lower score, but The Rum Diary really wasn’t that bad. Although, good acting really saved this film, because The Rum Diary can be a very dull and uninteresting film most of the time. Johnny Depp did deliver a very good and believable performance here, Aaron Eckhart delivered a fine performance, and he was very believable as the rich and successful businessman. Also, Giovanni Ribisi really surprised me in this film. Ribisi has always been a solid actor, but this film does feature one of his more memorable performances, and Ribisi was very enjoyable as the drunken oddball. This film is loaded with some very good and solid performances, but I was disappointed by Amber Heard’s character here. Heard’s acting wasn’t bad at all, but I thought she would have that one breakout performance I was looking for here, but it didn’t happen. Heard’s character is nothing more than eye candy, and I’ve seen this same type of character in Heard’s other films before. Sure, Heard’s character does suffer some setbacks here, and at times, I did want to feel for her character. She has some feelings for Paul Kemp (Johnny Depp), but she is already in in a relationship, and she is Sanderson’s (Eckhart) fiancée, so this obviously causes some problems. I wanted to have some more hope for Heard’s character here, but for the most part, Chenault (Heard) is just the hot and young blonde, who every man wants a piece of here, but Heard’s on-screen appearances did provide some drooling moments for me.

In the end, I expected a lot more from The Rum Diary. I was expecting a more thought provoking drama, and this film did have an intriguing premise, but for the most part, The Rum Diary is a very dull and bland film. If you’re a fan of Hunter S. Thompson, then you might enjoy this, but I couldn’t get into this boring and uninteresting film. It’s a shame, because the overall cast really gives a good effort here, and The Rum Diary could’ve been so much better.

YellowBrickRoad (2010) 6/10- A group of researchers go on a mission to discover the mystery of a dangerous trail named “YellowBrickRoad.” In 1940, the townspeople of Friar, New Hampshire were drawn to the mysterious trail by an unknown force. The townspeople vanished on the doomed trail, and they were never seen alive again. At first, everything is quiet, and the atmosphere is calm and peaceful, as the team of researchers explore the trail. But everything eventually takes a turn for the worst, when loud and ear-splitting music continuously plays out of nowhere, and an unknown evil force begins to reek havoc. Paranoia and fear overwhelm the researchers as time passes, and all hell breaks lose on YellowBrickRoad.

Ugh. I couldn’t decide on a rating for this film at first, because I didn’t know what to think about this one. YellowBrickRoad does have a very intriguing premise, and this film can feel mysterious most of the time. But YellowBrickRoad does feature its fair share of dull moments, and this film can be VERY bland. Technically, this is a horror film, but YellowBrickRoad doesn’t offer any spooky moments. Also, the ending doesn’t tie up all the lose ends for the big mystery, and you have to think about what could’ve happened. The story for this film did catch my attention, but the ending can feel disappointing, because you have to imagine a lot of the major details. Although, YellowBrickRoad does have its terrifying moments, and this film does feature some shocking and violent gore.

This was an extremely tough choice, but I decided to go with a favorable score for YellowBrickRoad. The acting in this film is pretty solid, and I wanted to care about the characters here. YellowBrickRoad is a character driven film, and the entire cast did deliver a nice set of believable performances. I wanted to hate Yellowbrickroad at first, and at times, I couldn’t get into this, but in the end, YellowBrickRoad delivered the goods for me. This was a thought provoking horror film, and the entire cast was enjoyable. This film can feel boring at times, but I was intrigued by the story, and this film hooked me in until the very end.

You probably won’t have any type of middle ground, if you decide to take a chance on YellowBrickRoad. You might enjoy the journey of the researchers, and the dangerous mystery of YellowBrickRoad, or you might think YellowBrickRoad is one of the most boring pieces of shit you’ve ever seen, and you will hate this film. It took some time, but this film did impress me, and I’m happy I took a chance on this one.

The Last King Of Scotland (2006) 9/10- Watching Forest Whitaker’s powerhouse performance was a real treat here. Whitaker portrays Idi Amin, the cruel and viscous dictator of Uganda. Whitaker’s performance was brilliant, because you really get to see the bizarre and complex personality of Amin here. In this film, Amin (Whitaker) could seem like a down to earth manly man. He was charismatic and he could be the type of guy, who you would want to have a beer with. But you also get to see the dark and twisted side of Amin here, and Whitaker was very believable, as the power-hungry and corrupt dictator, who would silence any doubters or suspected traitors. Whitaker’s performance was the highlight of this film. He was just great here, and Whitaker really did earn his Oscar for Best Actor.

The Last King Of Scotland was based on a fictional novel, so this really isn’t a true biopic. James McAvoy’s character is 100% fictional. This is a major detail, because Nicholas Garrigan (McAvoy’s character) is a HUGE piece of the puzzle here. Garrigan forms a bond with Amin, and he eventually becomes his trusted and loyal best buddy. McAvoy’s character does receive a lot of focus here, and Garrigan is a very important character in this film. This film does mix reality and fiction, and for some people this might be a problem, but the adapted screenplay and the source material didn’t bother me here. Bottom line, The Last King Of Scotland is a well made film, and this was a phenomenal experience for me.

The Last King Of Scotland is an outstanding drama, and the acting in this film is superb. Forest Whitaker steals the show here, but James McAvoy and Kerry Washington did deliver a pair of very solid performances. The Last King Of Scotland will give you a raw and gritty story about power and corruption, this film can be emotional and disturbing most of the time, and this film does feature some scenes of graphic and shocking gore. I loved this film, and I wish I would’ve found this one sooner.
 
Balada triste de trompeta (Sad Trumpet Ballad)/The Last Circus (2011) 8/10- This film starts off with a flashback from 1937. Against his will, a Happy Clown is chosen to serve in the Spanish Civil war. This clown has some mental problems, he goes nuts, and he eventually kills an entire platoon with a machete, while wearing his costume. The timeline quickly shifts to 1973, and the audience is introduced to Javier (the psycho clown’s son). Javier (Carlos Areces) wants to join the family business. He is inspired by his father, so he decides to join a circus. Javier wants to be a Happy Clown, but he’s a depressed, miserable, and awkward person, so he eventually becomes the Sad Clown of the circus. Javier is targeted by Sergio (the Happy Clown and star performer of the circus). Sergio (Antonio de la Torre) plays the role of the big bully throughout the film, and he is the raging mad man, who nobody wants to mess with, and he has a hot wife. Natalia (Carolina Bang) is Sergio’s wife, but she tries to seduce Javier, and Javier begins to fall in love with Natalia. A dangerous love triangle begins to unfold, and a very bloody and gruesome battle erupts between both clowns, as they fight for Natalia‘s love.

At first, I didn’t know what to expect from The Last Circus. This film did take me on one wild and bizarre adventure, but I actually enjoyed this one. The acting in this film is very solid, and this film did feature a nice set of unique characters. At first, the Javier character is this lonely outcast, who I wanted to feel for. He was the new guy, who couldn’t catch a break. He was Sergio’s bitch, and he didn’t know how to handle Natalia’s affections. But as time progresses, Javier becomes this psychotic killer, who will do ANYTHING to win Natalia’s heart, and his descent into madness was disturbing to watch. Sergio was the big shot clown in the circus, who everyone feared. Sergio’s uncontrollable temper caused a lot of problems, and Antonio de la Torre did deliver a very believable performance, as the raging clown, because I did feel legit hatred for this character most of the time. Natalia was the stunningly beautiful woman, who caused the violent battle between Javier and Sergio, and she was the reason for the dangerous love triangle in this film. Natalia was torn between her husband, and the shy guy, who wanted to protect her. For the most part, Carolina Bang is good eye candy here, but her acting does help this character, because towards the end of the film, Natalia becomes this broken woman. She doesn’t want to make the tough choice that could change her life, and it’s not an easy choice, because both clowns completely lose their minds towards the end of the film, so Natalia takes the easy way out. Natalia does suffer some physical abuse from Sergio, I wanted to feel sympathy for her character, and Bang’s performance was pretty damn good. You’ll see a lot of bizarre stuff in The Last Circus, but the main cast of characters (Javier, Sergio, Natalia) were very well written, and the acting helps take everything to the next level.

I wanted to give this one a lower score, because I felt like I was watching a porno sometimes. But the intense sex scenes couldn’t ruin this one for me, because I really enjoyed The Last Circus. The Last Circus is a shocking and emotional film, and the visuals are pretty impressive. This one is filled with some very graphic violence and gore, but this film could also make me laugh, because The Last Circus does feature a few humorous moments. Also, this film does feature a sad and heartbreaking ending, because nobody wins the viscous battle of love here. The Last Circus features one of the most dark and twisted love triangles I’ve ever seen, and I’m happy I took a chance on this film.

Some people won’t enjoy the bizarre and violent nature of this film. The brutal and disgusting gore might be too much to handle for a lot of people, and this film doesn’t become more easy to watch as time goes on. The bloodshed, gore, and violence reaches extreme levels, as this film progresses, and the levels of mayhem are out of control in the final moments of this one. The Last Circus brought a lot of emotions out of me, but this is another one of those films, where you won’t have any type of middle ground, if you decide take a chance on this. You could enjoy this film, and The Last Circus could leave you with that “WOW! THAT WAS AMAZING!” feeling. Or you might just hate this, and The Last Circus will leave you with that “…..What the fuck was that?!?!?!” feeling. You might hate or enjoy The Last Circus, but one thing’s for sure, you will remember this film.

Another Happy Day (2011) 8/10- Lynn (Ellen Barkin) is nervous about her oldest son’s upcoming wedding. Dylan (Michael Nardelli) is the crown jewel of the family, but Lynn’s younger sons continue to cause some serious problems in her life. Elliott (Ezra Miller) is a depressed drug addict with mental problems, and he is a real troublemaker, and Ben (Daniel Yelsky) can be an oddball most of the time. Lynn receives some problems from the tense and awkward relationship with her ex- husband, Paul (Thomas Haden Church), and his nasty wife, Patty (Demi Moore) doesn’t make anything easier. And everyone fears the arrival of Lynn’s depressed and suicidal daughter, Alice (Kate Bosworth), because her presence could cause an uncomfortable situation that would ruin the wedding. Lynn wants to have a calm and peaceful trip to her parents house, she wants to enjoy the wedding of her oldest son, but some old wounds within Lynn’s family begin to emerge. All hell breaks lose, as Lynn battles her ex-husband and his new wife, and the messy turmoil within Lynn’s family threatens the happiness of the big wedding day.

I’ll admit I had some very low expectations for this film, but Another Happy Day was a very pleasant surprise for me. The acting in this film was very good, and Ellen Barkin was just phenomenal here. Barkin was outstanding as the leading lady in this film, and she does deserve some recognition in the Best Actress category at the Academy Awards, because she really did deliver an Oscar award winning performance here. The Lynn character was this emotional train wreck, and she couldn’t catch a break throughout this film. I really wanted to feel a lot of sympathy for this character, and Barkin did deliver a very convincing performance in this film. Lynn was a broken woman, and Barkin did such a great job of showing some raw emotions in this film, because I could feel her anger, frustration, and sadness. Barkin was outstanding in this film, but Another Happy Day is loaded with some fine performances. Demi Moore was very solid in this film, and she was believable, as the nasty and coldhearted bitch, who wanted to make Lynn’s life a living hell. But when it comes to the Elliot character, I didn’t know how to feel. At times, Elliot can look like this disrespectful and immature punk, who needed some serious discipline, but you can also see a troubled teenager, who has some problems, and Elliot needed some serious help. Sometimes I wanted to hate the Elliot character, but there were times, where I wanted to feel sorry for him, because Elliot becomes an outcast towards the end of this film. Ezra Miller really impressed me, and this young actor should have a bright future in Hollywood. Thomas Haden Church (who could be an unbelievable douche and a wimp throughout this film), George Kennedy (Ed from the Naked Gun films), and Ellen Burstyn all deserve some credit for the high quality acting here, because their performances did help elevate this film. Oh, and I wish I could’ve seen more of Kate Bosworth, because she seriously needed some more on-screen time in this one.

At times, Another Happy Day can feel like a long and drawn out episode of Jerry Springer, and I thought they we’re going for the world record for frequently saying “fuck or motherfucker” in one film, because when it comes to the vulgar language, they don‘t hold anything back. Still, I really enjoyed Another Happy Day. This was an outstanding black comedy-drama, and the acting in this film is just superb. Another Happy Day does provide some good humor, but this film can be very gut wrenching and emotional at times, and the constant bickering within the dysfunctional family can provide plenty of shocking and intense moments. This film did bring some genuine uncomfortable feelings out of me, and Another Happy Day features a good amount of jaw-dropping moments. I thought about going with a lower score here, but Ellen Barkin’s performance was just great, and she did push this rating up for me. Barkin should receive a nomination in the Best Actress category, because she really deserves it.
 
J. Edgar (2011) 8/10- Fuck the critics. I LOVED this film. J. Edgar isn’t my favorite biopic (because Ed Wood will always be #1 for me), but I really enjoyed this one.

J. Edgar Hoover’s life was filled with controversy, and they didn’t hold anything back here. J. Edgar Hoover’s hard work and dedication turned the FBI into a highly successful and respected crime-fighting agency. But Hoover could also be angry, bitter, and he was a delusional man. This film does showcase Hoover’s achievements and milestones, the audience is given an in-depth look at J. Edgar’s career in the FBI, and they do show the struggles in his personal life. J. Edgar Hoover’s life is loaded with events that could’ve been made into a series of films, and I thought they did a nice job of balancing all of the material here. I thought they would shy away from the controversial stuff, but they didn’t. His abuse of power and the illegal methods he used to obtain evidence were showcased throughout the film. The audience also gets to see his rumored intimate relationship with Clyde Tolson (Armie Hammer), and Hoover being a possible cross-dresser was hinted at here. In this film, you will see Hoover’s disdain for Martin Luther King, Jr., and he was jealous of Melvin Purvis (Purvis is the man who put down John Dillinger, and the fame he received bothered Hoover). Also, they focused on Hoover’s close relationship with his pushy and overbearing mother (Judi Dench), and this was another very important part of his life. They didn’t try to present Hoover as this squeaky clean American hero in this film. They do acknowledge his achievements, but you will also see a troubled man, who abused his power to get the job done, and I enjoyed this approach, because it made everything feel more realistic.

The time-shifting narrative in this film has caused a good amount of complaints, but I didn’t have a problem with this method of storytelling at all. The time-shifting narrative does a good job of highlighting the ups and downs in Hoover’s career and personal life. The audience will see Hoover as the young and energetic man, who wants to make a change in the world, but when the timeline shifts to later stages of Hoover’s life, you’ll see a bitter old man, who’s full of regret and anger. Hoover becomes a depressed man, and I almost wanted to feel sorry for him at times, especially towards the end of the film. The time-shifting style of storytelling bounces back and forth pretty frequently, but I still enjoyed this technique, and I actually thought it was unique. Usually, I might have a problem with time-shifting narratives, because films that feature this method of storytelling usually involve different sets of actors and actresses, but that wasn’t the case here. J. Edgar features the same actors and actresses throughout the entire film, nobody changes here, and makeup effects are used for the older versions of the main characters in this film. I liked the idea of keeping the same set of actors and actresses for the entire film, because different actors and actresses can create confusion problems, and you don’t have to worry about an identity crisis here.

J. Edgar is loaded with some very solid performances, and Leonardo DiCaprio really delivers with the leading role. He was great as J. Edgar Hoover in this film, and he did provide a very powerful and believable performance. The acting in this film was superb, this film does feature its fair share of emotional moments, and this was one of the more informative biopics I’ve ever seen. J. Edgar really isn’t as bad as most of the critics are making it out to be, and I really can’t understand all of the hate for this film. Oh, and I marked out for Lea Thompson’s brief appearance in this film. I’m a HUGE Back To The Future fan, and Thompson portrayed Lorraine Baines McFly in the Back To The Future films, or you can simply remember her as Marty’s mom.

I’ve wanted Leo to win an Oscar for years, and he might have his best chance at the upcoming Academy Awards. Ryan Gosling should provide some tough competition, because I’m sure he’ll receive a nomination for his performances in Drive or The Ides Of March. Still, Leo could have his moment next year. The level of his competition will be fierce, but he does have a legit shot. Leo could win the big one next year, and I want to see him walk away with the gold.

Youth In Revolt (2009) 7/10- The story of the nerdy guy and his pursuit of the hot girl, who’s out of his league has been done before. Hollywood has used this type of story so many times, and these type of comedies can feel tiresome. Although, the predictable story usually doesn’t bother me most of the time. It all depends on the quality of the film, and Youth In Revolt does deliver.

Michael Cera was enjoyable here, and he was the PERFECT choice for the lead man. Nick Twisp (Cera) is the shy and socially awkward teenager, who can’t pick up woman. Nick wants to pursue Sheeni Saunders (Portia Doubleday), but he is extremely timid and uptight around women, and he isn’t the best talker. But Nick eventually gains some courage, and he has some help from François Dillinger (Nick’s alter-ego). For me, Cera’s character was the highlight of this film, and I really did enjoy his performance. I wanted to root for Cera, and I wanted to see his character break out of his shell here. Nick was chasing the girl of his dreams, but he also had to deal with some problems at home. He didn’t have the best relationship with his mother (Jean Smart) and her new boyfriends (Zach Galifianakis and Ray Liotta) caused more trouble. I wanted to feel for Cera’s character here, and I actually liked the idea of an alter-ego. François Dillinger represented the bold and rebellious side of Nick’s character. I enjoyed the many scenes where Francois wanted to push Nick into manhood, and the editing was very well done here, because François and Nick do seem like two different people most of the time. Also, I will give Cera some credit for his portrayal of the Dillinger character. I am a fan of Cera’s films, but he always portrays the nerdy guy, who can’t catch a break, and I didn’t think he could provide a believable performance as Dillinger. Well, I was wrong. Dillinger was the smooth and cocky ladies’ man. He was the rebel, who wanted to shake things up, and Cera did deliver a believable performance.

I wish I could’ve seen more of Zach Galifianakis, but I still loved this film. Youth In Revolt features a touching and sweet love story, this film is filled with good humor, and the acting is very solid. The addition of François Dillinger does provide a nice twist for the overused story about the nerdy guy chasing the hot girl, and François’ presence does help this film feel different. I haven’t read the book yet, but I will try to find it someday, because Youth In Revolt was a nice surprise for me.
 
Texas Killing Fields (2011) 3/10- Three detectives (Mike Sounder, Brian Heigh, Pam Stall) try to work together, as they unravel the gruesome mystery of a series of murders that involve women. The bodies are dumped in the infamous “Killing Fields,” and the detectives struggle to catch the sick and crafty murderers. Everything doesn’t go so smoothly at first. Pam Stall (Jessica Chastain) is the tough detective, who won’t take shit from anyone, and for the most part, she works by herself, but everyone needs some support every now and then, so she seeks some help from Detective Brian Heigh. Heigh (Jeffery Dean Morgan) is an understanding man, who has strong faith. He’s cool, calm, and willing to help, but Brian’s partner, Mike Sounder (Sam Worthington) doesn’t like the idea of crossing boundaries. Mike has anger problems, and he is a hot head. Mike is Pam’s ex-husband, but Pam works in a different jurisdiction. Mike is VERY strict, when it comes to working within the assigned jurisdictions for any detective. Mike doesn’t want to cross into Pam’s jurisdiction, and there are still some hard feelings between the former married couple. Brian wants everyone to get along, tensions continue to flare, but time is running out, as mysterious killers reek havoc in the state of Texas.

Good acting saves this one from a lower score here. Sam Worthington’s routine as the hard ass cop/bully can feel tiresome at times, but his performance is still pretty enjoyable for the most part. Worthington is very believable in this film, and his character does provide some entertaining moments. Jessica Chastain continues to blow me away, and she should receive some kind of award for the best breakout star in 2011. Chastain was very comfortable with her character in this film. Chastain’s good looks didn’t damage the toughness of her character, because Chastain was the strong and confident woman in this film, and Chastain did look like the perfect choice here. Jeffery Dean Morgan was pretty decent here, and Chloë Grace Moretz continues to add to her reputation as one of the best child actresses in Hollywood, and Moretz was very convincing in this film.

There’s nothing wrong with the acting in this film, but I just couldn’t get into Texas Killing Fields. The good cop (Jeffery Dean Morgan)/bad cop (Sam Worthington) routine during the integration scenes in this film can feel VERY redundant after a while, and Sam Worthington repeats the SAME FUCKING LINE after each one of these scene: “Don’t look at me like that!” I know I sound very nitpicky here, but Worthington’s catch phrase in this film drove me nuts. I just wanted to facepalm during these scenes, and the good cop/bad cop strategy in this film can be so annoying. Also, the obvious foreshadowing in this film gives away the identity of the killers. The foreshadowing for the identity of the killers constantly occurs throughout the entire film, and this just KILLS the suspense for this one, because the foreshadowing isn’t crafty at all. You can clearly see who the killers are, and it’s just so damn obvious.

Also, the plot in this film can feel confusing at times. At first, this film does focus a good amount of attention on the murder mystery, and it makes sense, because this is a CRIME THRILLER. But the tone of the story begins to change, and the storyline shifts to the problems with Little Anne. Little Anne (Moretz) is the victim of a neglectful and abusive family, and this film does focus a good amount of time on her character and family problems. Moretz’s character makes this one feel like a drama at times, and Texas Killing Fields constantly shifts gears, as they bounce back and forth with both storylines. I wasn’t sure what I was watching most of the time. I could’ve been watching a drama about a little girl and her abusive family, or I could’ve been watching a crime thriller with a murder mystery. The mix up doesn’t help anything, and both storylines can cause problems here.

Texas Killing Fields does feature a chilling and eerie atmosphere most of the time (mainly during the scenes that feature the “Killing Fields“), but this film was still a huge failure. This is supposed to be a crime thriller, but Texas Killing Fields can be so fucking dull and boring. I almost fell asleep as I watched this film, there isn’t any real suspense here, and the brief action scenes (if you can even call them that) didn’t do anything for me. The ending is so predictable, the attempted swerve didn’t fool me at all, and this one just slowly goes through the motions the entire time. Texas Killing Fields could’ve been something special, the story really wasn’t that bad, but this film does have a strong cookie-cutter feeling, because Texas Killing Fields just feels like a typical crime thriller, and I’ve seen this same type of film so many times. Jessica Chastain, Sam Worthington, and Chloë Grace Moretz helped push this to a three for me, because I was prepared to go with a one here.

The Sitter (2011) 1/10- Jonah Hill and Sam Rockwell tried to save this one, but they couldn’t. The Sitter starts out with some promise, but this film just becomes one gigantic mess as time progresses. First of all, they tried to cram too much stuff into this film. They try to explain so many storylines here, and an enormous feeling of a clusterfuck mess does ruin this one. Just take a look at all of the storylines they try to explain in this film:

-Noah (Jonah Hill) tries to help his drug addicted “girlfriend,” but Noah’s kind gestures don’t payoff, because his girlfriend can be a real scumbag. She needs him to score some drugs, and she just uses him for some other stuff I can’t go into details about. Marisa (the girlfriend) really doesn’t care about Noah at all, but Noah is too naive to accept this.

-Sam Rockwell is the eccentric drug kingpin, who can have a mean streak. Hill’s character has to take the blame for some stolen cocaine, and Noah must elude the dangerous drug dealer, while trying to keep the kids safe throughout the film.

-Noah has some problems with the trouble making kids he chooses to babysit. For the most part, the kids can be trouble making brats, who will stop at nothing to make Noah’s life a living hell. But these kids also have some serious issues:

Slater (Max Records) has some social problems, he’s upset over losing his best friend, and he might be a homosexual. Blithe (Landry Bender) is obsessed with wearing makeup, she craves acceptance, and she knows about her father’s affair with a co-worker. And Rodrigo (Kevin Hernandez) has some serious anger problems. He likes to blow stuff up with real bombs, and he is a proud rebel outsider. But as the film progresses, Rodrigo shows his sensitive side, because he is an adopted child, and he doesn’t feel the love and care from his new family.

-Noah’s mother is a lonely woman, and she needs to find a new man, and Noah gives his best effort to help his mom.

-Noah has an awkward and distant relationship with his father. Noah wants his father’s love, but Noah’s father has a new family, and he wants to put Noah in the rear view.

-Noah also has to deal with an angry woman from his high school days. This woman still has some bitter feelings about an incident that occurred at a high school party, and she has a score to settle with Noah.

-Oh, and Noah receives some love signals from another woman, who actually cares about him. This woman (I don’t care to know her name) likes and accepts Noah for who he is. Noah eventually realizes this, and he forms a bond with this new woman.

The Sitter can feel like an incredibly misguided film most of the time, because they try to cram SO much shit into the story, and everything just feels like an awful mess. Noah tries to mentor the neglected children in this film, he tries to become a man, and we also have to deal with drug dealers, who want to kill Noah. The Sitter tries to throw so much stuff at you, they try to focus on the many characters in this film, as they bounce back and forth with the different storylines, and it really doesn’t work at all, because this can be one confusing film.

Jonah Hill has his moments here. He did make me laugh most of the time, and he did give a good effort here. Sam Rockwell was just hilarious, but as I said before, they couldn’t save this film. Rockwell and Hill were very enjoyable here, but this film did feature its fair share of annoying characters (including the little kids), and they really did ruin this film for me. And J.B. Smoove was trying way too hard here. His performance felt so forced, and I couldn’t stand him in this film.

Hill and Rockwell provided most of the laughs in this one, because this film does feature a good amount of boring and dull moments, and the majority of the humor didn’t do anything for me at all. There were times where I tried to laugh, but I just couldn’t, because most of the humor in this film can feel so forced. The Sitter should’ve worked as a mindless and fun comedy, that features a wild and whacky adventure, but they really dropped the ball here. This was an awful film, and Jonah Hill’s post Superbad career hasn’t been too successful so far.
 
Hugo (2011) 9/10- After the deaths of his father (Jude Law) and uncle (Ray Winstone). Hugo (Asa Butterfield) is all alone in the world, and he must live inside the walls of a train station. Hugo tries to avoid the strict Inspector (Sacha Baron Cohen), who enjoys capturing children with no parents. Hugo tries to avoid a childhood inside the orphanage, and Hugo desperately tries to repair his father’s automaton at any costs. Hugo believes the automaton will deliver one final message from his father, and Hugo decides to go an adventure for some answers, because he can’t escape the feeling of some much needed closure.

Usually, 3D films don’t do anything for me, and I really haven’t been a fan of the 3D craze over the past few years, because these films are MAJOR rip-offs most of the time. But Hugo doesn’t fall into the category of films with shitty 3D effects. The 3D effects in this film were amazing, and the eye popping moments really did look incredible. The 3D effects gave this film an extra boost, because the 3D helps the magical world of Hugo feel more extravagant. Hugo ranks high on my list of films that feature great 3D effects, and the 3D for Hugo does deserve some recognition.

Hugo is an outstanding film, and the acting was excellent here. It’s hard to pick a standout star in this one, because the entire cast really gives a great effort, and Hugo is loaded with some very enjoyable performances. Ben Kingsley come close to the status of the true star in this film. His performance was very believable, and he did seem like the perfect choice for the Georges character, because I wanted to feel for the bitter and heartbroken old man, who didn’t want to believe in magic and happiness anymore. Kingsley was great, but Chloë Grace Moretz, Asa Butterfield, Helen McCrory, and Sacha Baron Cohen all deserve their fair share of credit, because they played their part in helping Hugo achieve the status of an unforgettable experience. Hugo is filled with some breathtaking visuals, this tale of fantasy can feel magical and extravagant, and Hugo is one the best holiday films I’ve ever seen. Hugo also features its fair share of heartwarming moments, and this film is loaded with characters, who you can actually care about.

Martin Scorsese continues to add to his legacy as one of the greatest directors of all time, and this film won’t be remembered as a failed experiment for him, because Scorsese did step outside of his comfort zone here. I wanted to take a chance on this, because Martin Scorsese is my favorite director. He really did deliver the goods here, and Hugo deserves serious recognition as one of the best films in 2011.

The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo (2009) 9/10- The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo does provide a very intriguing and disturbing mystery, this film is filled with some excellent suspense, but the rape scenes in this film just felt so unnecessary. I guess they we’re trying to make the Lisbeth character seem more edgy. They wanted to her to look like a bad ass, and they wanted to give her character an extra boost, as the tough girl, who could kick your ass. But the Lisbeth character did not need the boost. Lisbeth’s hardcore Goth girl look plays a part in establishing her character as the outsider, who won’t take shit from anybody. And Lisbeth proves herself as bad ass, during the violent fight scene that takes place in a subway. Also, Lisbeth showcases her defiance and rebellious attitude during the meeting with Dirch Frode (Ingvar Hirdwall). All of this occurs in the early stages of the film, and all of this takes place before the rape scenes. The rape scenes feel very unnecessary, because Lisbeth being a bad ass is no secret, and you can clearly see this before the rape scenes take place. I might be jumping the gun here, because I haven’t read the books these films are based on just yet, so you could say I don’t have the thorough and detailed knowledge and understanding of the Lisbeth character. The flashbacks in this film did give me some clues, and Lisbeth’s character gives hints of a troubled past, but I still don’t know the entire backstory for this character. Still, the rape scenes just felt like a cheap attempt to get some shock value reactions from audiences, and this film would’ve been fine without them.

The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo is a well made film, and my distaste for the rape scenes didn’t ruin this one for me. The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo can be difficult to watch to watch most of the time, because this one does feature some graphic violence, and this can be a very dark and disturbing film most of the time. But The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo does feature some very good acting, and Noomi Rapace was excellent as Lisbeth. This film does feature some good suspense, the surprises during the final moments of this one do feel genuinely shocking, because this film throws a good amount of curveballs at you, and the constant twist and turns will keep you guessing until the very end. The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo is a very good film, but this one does feature a good amount of “hard to watch moments.” If you don’t have a high tolerance level for some disturbing and sick stuff, then you might want to avoid this one, because when it comes to the violent rape scenes and sadistic torture, The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo doesn’t hold anything back.

David Fincher’s remake of this film will hit theaters next week, and I can’t wait to see it. The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo (2011) has been on my most anticipated list of films for 2011. Fincher should provide a unique perspective, and the trailers for this film do look great. This film has already received its fair share of favorable praises, the novels are very popular, so this film could shake things up at the box office.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Dagger Dias
  • Sticky
The Movie Reviews & Discussion Thread
2 3
Replies
64
Views
24K
Mitch Henessey
Mitch Henessey
J
Book Review Thread
Replies
2
Views
1K
JamJam
J
Dagger Dias
Favorite Soundtrack: Movie Edition
Replies
6
Views
2K
Mitch Henessey
Mitch Henessey
M
The Greatest Movie Character (Mini-Tournment)
Replies
14
Views
3K
TheHeartbreakPunk
T
Kermit
Mobile Game App Review Thread
Replies
1
Views
3K
Kermit
Kermit

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 128 (members: 0, guests: 128)

Forum statistics

Threads
174,839
Messages
3,300,775
Members
21,726
Latest member
chrisxenforo

Share this page

Back
Top