didonatope Reviews

Furious 7 (2015)

Furious 7, simply put, is one of the best popcorn films of all time.

[3 April 2015]

Over the past 14 years, the Fast & Furious franchise has certainly come a long way. Over the course of seven films, the characters went from hijacking trucks in East L.A. to high-tech espionage missions in Abu Dhabi. It's quite obvious that the cast and crew wanted to make Furious 7 the best and biggest film in the franchise. Considering the many obstacles they had to overcome, to say they succeeded in the end would be a gross understatement. Furious 7, simply put, is one of the best popcorn films of all time.

Picking up where the last movie left off, Deckard Shaw (Jason Statham), finds out that Dominic Toretto (Vin Diesel) and his crew severely crippled his villainous brother. As a result, Shaw makes it his mission to harm Toretto's "family" in any way he can. After killing one of Toretto's close friends, Toretto decides to go after Shaw. Meanwhile, the CIA plans to use Toretto's vendetta against Shaw as leverage to help them stop a dangerous criminal (played by Djimon Hounsou) from threatening national security with a high- powered computer chip.

Some may call this plot a mess, but I felt that a crazy plot like this was suitable for a film that is intentionally over-the-top and silly. When you combine an outlandish plot with a generally light- hearted tone and lovable characters, you get the perfect example of escapist entertainment done right.

Many action films make the mistake of putting bland, stone-faced characters in outlandish set pieces. The result is usually a film that looks good, but isn't worth seeing again. Just like most of its predecessors, Furious 7 avoids this mistake and gives audiences some amusing, badass and heartfelt characters to root for. Whether it's Tyrese Gibson's cowardly-lion-type character or Michelle Rodriguez's mentally-vulnerable but kickass character, fans of the franchise will be more than happy to see their favorite characters return to the big screen.

Even the new characters stand on their own as fine additions to the series. Nathalie Emmanuel and Djimon Hounsou add some flare to the film and Jason Statham has his best role yet, playing a villain that you'll love to hate. In a career of mostly heroic roles, it's actually a nice change of pace to see him play the villain.

Vin Diesel is as excellent as usual, playing Dominic Toretto with a smooth personality that's occasionally pushed over the edge when his family is threatened. Paul Walker, in the scenes shot before his tragic death, shines one last time as Brian O'Conner, an ex-FBI agent with all the right moves. It is quite bittersweet seeing these two characters interact this time around; it is the last time that they will be together, but the actors give the necessary heart and effort to make their characters work.

In regards to Paul Walker, with the exception of a few choice shots and angles, it is almost impossible to tell when he is on screen or when it is his CGI double. Those fearing an awkward uncanny valley situation will be pleased to know that the CGI in this film is first-rate and practically un-riffable. Even when it's obvious which scenes were added to write off Paul Walker's character, the way they wrote him off of the franchise is both respectful and touching. Kudos to Peter Jackson's Weta Workshop for giving Paul Walker a proper farewell.

Now it's time to address the heart of the movie; the main reason why people come in droves to see this: the INCREDIBLE set pieces. I think it's pretty clear to see that the filmmakers put their all into this, and director James Wan does an excellent job calling the shots. The cars are as slick and gorgeous as ever, and seeing them crash through buildings and fall from the sky is sure to please.

There's something about the way the action is shot that really makes it worth watching. Unlike some more subpar action movies, the set pieces are comprehensibly edited and allow the audience to get immersed in what's going on. In an Imax movie like this, immersion is extremely important, and audiences are sure to be thrilled to the edge of their seats.

This movie never falls short on the cheesy thrills. Some intentionally hilarious but nonetheless awesome scenes include driving a car between three skyscrapers, Dwayne Johnson flexing out of an arm cast, dropping cars out of a plane, and Jason Statham putting on his sunglasses as he walks from an explosion. It doesn't get more lovably cheesy than this. This movie is like a giant ice cream sundae: sweet, deliciously thrilling, and perfectly aware of how over-the-top and awesome it is.

The only real drawback I had to this film was that they didn't really get a chance to tie in the third film. Yes, an event from the third film is revealed to have fueled the plot, but it was kind of an odd choice to have Lucas Black show up for a minute before disappearing. I wasn't really a fan of his character in the third movie, so I was hoping they could redeem the character by having him join Toretto's team in this movie. That unfortunately didn't happen, so his cameo felt like a waste.

Overall though, Furious 7 is a triumph in every sense of the word. It's a triumph for the franchise, it's a triumph for action movies, it's a triumph for the cast and crew, and Paul Walker would be proud. Great job guys!

Oculus (2013)

Not for the Squeamish

[9/10 · 11 April 2014]

"Oculus" is one of those horror films that you rarely see in recent years: a wide-release scary movie with an actual sense of dread and horror. This along with last year's "The Conjuring" and "You're Next" could easily signify an improvement in Hollywood horror.

Starring up incoming actors Karen Gillan (appearing this summer in Guardians of The Galaxy) and Brenton Thwaits (appearing in this summer's "Maleficent"), Oculus tells the disturbing tale of two siblings going face-to-face with a supposedly haunted mirror that haunted them as children. After the brother Tim (Thwaits) is released from a mental institution, his arguably more unstable sister Kaylie (Gillan) recruits him to take part in an experiment to prove that an antique mirror is responsible for the death of their mother when they were kids.

In the wrong hands, this plot could have been handled haphazardly and poorly. However, writer/director Mike Flanagan and co-writer Jeff Howard do a fine job in crafting a genuinely unsettling but well-made experience. The structure of this film is fantastic. While other films like "Twilight: Eclipse" and "Man of Steel" poorly execute flashbacks into the main story, "Oculus" actually uses flashbacks to its advantage. Throughout the movie, the audience is shown what happened to the main characters as children. Instead of showing all of the events chronologically, the writers make the wise choice of interspersing the events of each story (the past and the present) in a parallel fashion. For example, what happens at the beginning of the past's story is shown back-to-back with what happens at the beginning of the present's story. The events are shown in a way that both stories reach full circle by the end. In many ways, the structure itself is symbolized by the mirror; the past and present are reflected and shown parallel to each other.

Moreover, the sheer unpredictability of the plot makes the terror even more effective. Considering that the characters are both mentally traumatized by the events of their childhood, it isn't sure at the beginning whether or not the mirror is actually haunted. Before the answer to that question is revealed, the main characters constantly have disorienting hallucinations. Whether it's suddenly finding themselves in another room or seeing people that aren't there, the story is reminiscent to a nightmare where nothing you do can stop what's going to happen. No matter what the characters do, there is always a sense of not knowing what really happened and what didn't. The Grade-A editing of this film certainly helps its effectiveness too.

Something else that makes this a superior modern horror film is the lower-than-average emphasis on cheap gore. While there are some bloody, grisly scenes in "Oculus," their sporadic appearances make them even more terrifying when they show up. The violence is mixed perfectly with the creepiness to ensure a much more terrifying experience than the average moviegoer would expect. It is perhaps the first time in quite a while where I could take gory scenes seriously. The same goes for the performances.

Karen Gillan and Brenton Thwaits elevate a fine script into a masterful film with compelling, honest performances that make the film much more raw and fear-inducing. I for one am looking forward to seeing their blockbuster debuts this Summer; with performances like these, I'm sure they will make it to the big time in no time.

While I'm not expecting "Oculus" to do HUGE numbers at the box office, I sincerely hope a sequel is made (a theatrical-level one, not a poor direct-to-DVD one). Without spoiling the film, the plot is tied up nicely at the end, a fine franchise could certainly be made of this. If you're a fan of disturbing, creepy, competent horror films, I'd highly suggest checking this one out. Be prepared though; I can honestly say it is one of the more disquieting films I've seen in recent years.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014)

One of The Best

[10/10 · 4 April 2014]

For more reviews, visit cinegrade.org

In the past few months there have been many reasons to be excited for the sequel to 2011's "Captain America: The First Avenger." From Black Widow's promised prominence in the plot to the intrigue of how Captain America himself will adjust to the modern world, the hype for this movie has been overwhelming to say the least. On top of that were the glowing early reviews, some of which saying that "Captain America: The Winter Soldier" is even better than "The Avengers." I'm sure the question on everyone's minds is: "does this live up to the hype?" You bet.

The sheer amount of suspense and political intrigue in "Captain America: The Winter Soldier" would make it a fine sequel on its own. However, not only does this film manage to surpass the excellent first installment, but in some ways surpass "The Avengers."

Taking place after the events of 2012's "The Avengers," Captain Steve Rogers (played by Chris Evans reprising his role) struggles to adapt to a world shrouded in fear and obsessed with security. Now working for the government organization S.H.I.E.L.D, Rogers faces the conflict of being ill-informed of his recruiters' ulterior motives and hidden agendas. The retro, simplistic era of the 1940s is far behind him, and Rogers must use his skills and wits to take down a possible conspiracy inside of S.H.I.E.L.D. Coming along for the ride are Black Widow (played reliably well by Scarlett Johansson) and newcomer The Falcon (played by Anthony Mackie of "Pain and Gain"). Together they must take down a force none of them expected to face.

Unlike previous Marvel films like "The Avengers," and "Thor," the plot of this movie is much more down-to-Earth. In today's world of NSA controversy and outright paranoia, many plot elements in this film give it a very modern and relevant feel. In many ways, this is a stark contrast to the retro, swashbuckling feel that the first "Captain America" gave off. This is a perfect way to tell the Captain's story; Steve Rogers has been thrust into the modern day against his will, and after the fantastical events of "The Avengers," he is just now starting to be affected by today's mentality of security. It's indeed very interesting plot foundation for a superhero film.

As well as being a fine continuation of the first film's story, the new elements that this film brings to the "Captain America" series are quite good enough for the film to stand on its own. Even those who didn't care for the first movie could get a kick out of them. Among the new characters is The Hawk, an ex-military superhero introduced in this film. This character is immensely likable, partly because of Anthony Mackie's fine performance, but mostly because they introduce him from the very beginning and flesh out his character.

Also joining the cast is veteran actor Robert Redford as the sinister Alexander Pierce. Redford is the type of villain that is rather refreshing to see in a superhero film: villains unaided by superpowers or violence and who carry the story with wits and malice alone. He doesn't need a mech-suit or psychic abilities, but he is a fine menace for the First Avenger to go up against.

In addition to the fine new characters, every action set piece in this movie is both exhilarating and an absolute thrill to watch. What makes them even better is that they are accompanies by a gripping story with plenty of shocking and even emotional twists and turns. Even after seeing aliens invade New York in "The Avengers," this movie's more grounded approach to storytelling gives a sense that the stakes are higher than ever in the Marvel Universe. Fear not though, this movie is far from a dark one, and there is plenty of that good ole' Marvel humor to give some levity. I'm pretty sure that audiences won't be prepared for how intense the story alone is.

It's not very common that audiences get an April movie that's not only great, but exceptional. "Captain America: Winter Soldier" is indeed a masterpiece, and as much of a bold statement as it seems, it is one of the best superhero movies I have ever seen. The amount of sheer quality it possesses makes it an absolute must-see.

Need for Speed (2014)

A Bumpy but Fun Ride

[7/10 · 14 March 2014]

While this movie certainly does have its flaws, it is far from the disaster it could have been. I dare even to say that with the delay of the next Fast and Furious movie, this is a pretty decent holdover for vehicle-based action fans.

"Need for Speed" tells the story of a driver and mechanic named Tobey Marshall (played by Aaron Paul of "Breaking Bad"). Marshall seeks to avenge the death of his brother by defeating his slaughterer, millionaire car-enthusiast Dino Brewster (played by Dominic Cooper of "Captain America: The First Avenger"). Not wanting to be bested, Brewster places a bounty on him, and it is up to Marshall to get to the race before Dino's goons kill him.

Let me start out by saying that I have not played any of the "Need for Speed" video games, even as a kid. I'm personally more of a fan of the Midnight Club games. Nevertheless, I'm at least sure that fans of racing games in general will love the set-pieces in this movie. Many of the vehicle stunts use real cars, and the near-flawless cinematography fits the high-octane race scenes perfectly. Viewers will certainly be on the edge of their seats with every crash and tight turn. The cars themselves are also pleasing to look at. From Ferraris to Lamborghinis to Mustangs, every vehicle is sleek and a pleasure to watch race on the track.

The race and chase scenes themselves are were this movie really shines. With every set piece come the sounds of revving engines and screeching tires, set perfectly to fine camera work and editing to give a truly exciting experience. While I am not one to complain about the use of CGI, the lack of it in the film's production gave a much more believable look to the crashes and races, especially when the film cuts to go-pro- filmed footage of the airborne vehicle. To me, the use of the go-pro gave me the same exciting, immersive feeling that I felt while watching the barrel scene in "The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug." When used well, I can honestly encourage filmmakers to use the go-pro camera to film

A common criticism of the plot is that it is completely ridiculous and not in any way plausible in the real world. While this is certainly true, I feel that in an action/eye-candy oriented film like this, that it is best to leave your complaint notebook at the door and immerse yourself in the film's world.

When the suspension of disbelief is applied the story itself is not half bad. "Need for Speed's" story was conceived by Academy-Award nominated screenwriter John Gatins and his brother George. Without giving anything away, the plot provides plenty of interesting events to keep the story moving and even bothers to throw in some character development. It's far from an all-out character study like "Her," but there are still a decent amount of scenes that bother to get the audience to care about the characters. Each character is given a decent amount of screen time, and I actually walked out remembering some of the characters. From the brooding but sincere Tobey Marshall to the comic relief of his friend Benny (played by musician Scott Mescudi –a.k.a. Kid Cudi), I felt that the fleshed out characters really added some meat to the action.

Though the story and characters themselves are not too shabby, I had a lukewarm opinion on the screenplay. Unfortunately, John Gatins only helped conceive the story. His brother George wrote the screenplay by himself, and his results are mixed. In films like "Fast and Furious 6" and "Iron Man 3," the screenplay is well balanced with good humor and light drama to blend well with the fun factor. Here is a different story; the film's tone will often switch from humorous antics (one such scene involving streaking at an office) to borderline-melodramatic scenes (such as one hospital scene). It is quite jarring and it feels as if Mr. Gatins was trying to take the film more seriously than it should have been taken.

Another thing I have to say is that this film felt a tad too long. Clocking in at over two hours, "Need for Speed" does contain some scenes that feel like they could have been cut and are there just for filler. While I did admire the development of the characters, some of the dialogue simply repeats what was already stated, leaving me to say "OK, I get it" a few times in my mind. Perhaps if the film was trimmed about 10-20 minutes short, then it would have been much smoother to suit the sleek action sequences.

This film is far from perfect, though to be honest, I was honestly entertained by it. While it's impossible to deny that Hollywood has had a bad reputation adapting video games into movies, this was honestly a pretty good attempt. It's not the saving grace of video game adaptations, but in my mind it is absolutely a step up from busts like "Resident Evil: Retribution" and "Silent Hill: Revelation." If you love thrilling races and colorful cars, I can almost guarantee that you'll be entertained.

Mr. Peabody & Sherman (2014)

Worth Your Time

[9/10 · 7 March 2014]

After the February smash hit: "The Lego Movie," "Mr. Peabody & Sherman" certainly does have a tough act to follow. Despite this, "Mr. Peabody & Sherman" certainly does bring another high-quality piece of family entertainment to the big screen.

Surprisingly, the film's story is quite strong. Based on the retro cartoon of the same name, "Mr. Peabody & Sherman" centers on a highly intelligent dog named Mr. Peabody (excellently voiced by Modern Family star, Ty Burrell) who adopts a young boy named Sherman (also excellently voiced by 8-year-old Max Charles). Peabody takes Sherman on adventures through time with his super advanced time machine known as the "Way Back". After a series of incidents, the duo must travel to different time periods and eventually have to fix a potential hole in the space time continuum.

Many recent films based on retro cartoons (such as the abysmal "Scooby Doo" and "Smurfs" films) have failed to provide a good screenplay to accompany its animated hijinks. This film, however, is packed with witty dialogue and good morals about unconventional families, fatherhood, and childhood struggles. Mr. Peabody and Sherman are surprisingly deep characters. The fact that Sherman has been raised by a dog does eventually cause a rift between the two. In the beginning of the movie, Sherman is teased at school and called a "dog" because his father is one. Also faced with his own maturing, Sherman wishes to do more things on his own. Peabody, meanwhile is apprehensive of Sherman doing things on his own, as he fears inside that Sherman will outgrow him. This is quite a lot of conflict for a "kid's movie."

Luckily, the thematic elements are interspersed with charming humor and exciting visuals. Each time period is filled with beautifully animated landscapes and enjoyable characters with top-notch vocal performances. In 18th century France, Marie Antoinette (voiced by Lauri Fraser) is portrayed as a bubbly, naive, cake-obsessed aristocrat who is constantly stuffing her face with dessert. In ancient Egypt, palm trees, pyramids and towering statues show a clear rose gallery of effort from the animation team.

It's also worth pointing out that this film has some of the finest voice acting I have ever heard in an animated feature. Ty Burrell and Max Charles bring believable emotion and jocularity to Peabody and Sherman respectively. Burrell gives Peabody a suitably intellectual and clear sounding voice, giving an extra jolt of likability to the character. Max Charles shows an excessive amount of talent for an 8- year-old (probably younger when the dialogue was recorded), making Sherman a believable young boy with a roller-coaster of emotions throughout. An all-star supporting cast including Steve Colbert, Ariel Winter, Stanley Tucci, Patrick Warburton, Dennis Haysbert, Allison Janney, Leslie Mann and even Mel Brooks are certainly a treasure to listen to as well.

In regards to its historical accuracy, though this film does certainly have its share of jarring anachronisms (such as heart-printed underwear and an actual working flying machine made by Leonardo da Vinci), there is certainly a decent amount of informative elements in the historical scenes. Kids may actually be delighted to learn about how Marie Antoinette helped ignite the French Revolution and how George Washington didn't really cut down a cherry tree. The film makes the wise decision of being a colorful family adventure film while still having some informative elements. LA Times' film critic Betsey Sharkey recently criticized this movie for being "too smart for its own good," saying: "Mr. Peabody's "teaching moments" will sail right over the heads of kids while requiring adults to pay attention." With all due respect, Ms. Sharkey, I feel like the "teaching moments" are what make this movie stand out from other family fare. The fact that the filmmakers bring some education to the screenplay really shows that they have faith in a kid's ability to watch a movie.

In all fairness, one common criticism I do somewhat understand is the film's somewhat convoluted second act. Without giving anything away, I do have to admit things get pretty hectic. However, after many years of watching movies with time travel, I've learned to put down my complaint notebook and enjoy the movie. Let's face it: it's pretty much a guarantee that a movie involving time travel will have at least a couple of plot holes. Even excellent time travel films like "Looper" and "Back to the Future" have plot holes. However, those discussions are for another day.

At the end of the day, "Mr. Peabody & Sherman" is a beautiful, funny, and even heartfelt film that families from every background will get a kick out of. It is enjoyable to watch, and I dare even say it's one of Dreamworks' best efforts to date.

Pompeii (I) (2014)

Enjoyable Eye Candy

[6/10 · 20 February 2014]

It's pretty much impossible to say that "Pompeii" is a flawless film. It's love story is clichéd and and its lighting at times leaves much to be desired. On the other hand, I believe the term "guilty pleasure" fits perfectly here, as I certainly enjoyed this movie enough to recommend it.

"Pompeii" tells the story of the legendary natural disaster that covered the Italian city of Pompeii and its residents in ashes, preserving their bodies for eternity. Like "Titanic," "Pompeii" mixes in a star-crossed lovers story into the disaster genre. Following the rich- girl-loves-poor-boy trope, a wealthy woman named Cassia (played by Emily Browning of "Sucker Punch") falls in love with an enslaved gladiator named Milo (played by Kit Harrington of "Game of Thrones"). When Pompeii's volcano erupts, it is up to Milo to save Cassia from being left to die in the eruption (there is more to the story but I don't want to give anything away).

Admittedly, the love story is by far less convincing than the one in Titanic. The two leads Cassia and Milo spend a bare minimum of time getting to know each other and their relationship lacks development. However, in a disaster movie that focuses more on providing audience- pleasing thrills, this is much less of a problem than it could have been.

On the contrary, Milo's relationship with a fellow slave named Atticus (played by Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje of "Thor: The Dark World") is surprisingly well developed throughout the film. In the first act, Milo learns that he must face Atticus, a man who has been promised freedom after one more battle. Several scenes of dialogue in a prison cell and action in the arena they are forced to fight in give the audience a good feel for who these characters are and give a good enough reason to root for them. Considering that this is a disaster movie made by Paul W.S. Anderson, both characters have a substantial amount of substance to them, and the actors give good enough performances to make their friendship believable.

On the subject of Mr. Anderson, I have never really been a fan of his work. "The Three Musketeers" was mediocre at best and his "Resident Evil" movies are absolutely dreadful. Here he seems to have improved his ability to tell a story, though there are a few flaws here and there that carry over from his other works. Much like "Alien vs. Predator," Anderson struggles to properly light a few nighttime scenes, casting what could have been a great looking shot into 50% blackness. In addition, his editing can occasionally be choppy, but compared to something like "I, Frankenstein," it's nowhere near as jarring.

To his credit, which I believe is often overlooked, Mr. Anderson certainly knows how to stage and take advantage of an action setpiece. One scene involving gladiators fighting soldiers chained to a spiked pillar made full use of its environment, and will likely have audiences entertained. Something else worth nothing are the special effects; they are very well done and it is clear that the VFX team put a lot of effort into bringing the legendary eruption of Mt. Vesuvias to the big screen. What's even better is the 3D; lately 3D has been sorely mediocre in Hollywood films, but in this case it is very effective. From volcanic ashes to falling beams of wood, "Pompeii" succeeds in taking full advantage of the 3D technology with stunning results.

The last act of the film is among one of the most thrilling disaster scenes I have ever scene in recent years. Fans of disaster movies will likely be pleased by all of the mindless carnage and destruction, and like "2012," the visual grandeur is seat-grippingly epic.

"Pompeii" is nowhere near a high-quality film, nor is it free from typical Hollywood clichés. However, this was not a film that left me feeling insulted or just jaded. Rather, this was actually a memorable disaster/action period piece that I could easily recommend taking some friends to see. The experience alone is pretty damn cool.

I, Frankenstein (2014)

Not Worth A Rental

[2/10 · 23 January 2014]

To say that "I, Frankentein" was a waste of time would be an understatement. Much like "Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters," "I, Frankenstein tries to re-invent a classic tale for the action audience with little success. Though to be fair, "Witch Hunters" at least had some moments of memorable silliness and creative set pieces. "I, Frankenstein" has neither, nor does it present its audience with decent writing or memorable thrills.

The plot itself is a mangled-up mess and a failed attempt to re-invent Mary Shelly's classic character. In this film, Frankenstein's monster (played by the seemingly disinterested Aaron Eckhart) somehow gets involved in an ongoing battle with demons and gargoyles after the events of the classic story. Everything from his backstory to the motivations of the demons and gargoyles is told in rushed exposition and gives absolutely no time for the audience to care about any of the characters. It doesn't help that the editing and pacing is extremely choppy, often skipping hours and years into the future with no reasonable transition.

In the span of what feels like five minutes, the film tells Frankenstein's backstory, introduces the demons and gargoyles, explains their ongoing war, shows a training montage of Frankenstein learning to use the gargoyle's weapons, and suddenly cuts from the 18th century to present day. Nearly all of this is done in cheap narrated exposition and it kills the possibility of the audience getting attached to the characters.

Now, I'm sure many people can overlook a lackluster script if a movie has "good action." Unfortunately, this movie fails in this department too. All of the fight scenes are bland and dull with redundant, badly executed CGI. Perhaps the most frustrating example of this is that every time a demon is killed on screen, it turns into a swirling fireball. This effect looked cool for about a minute and it quickly got stale, especially when the demons are dying left and right and the effects start to look like they've been copied and pasted.

The PG-13 rating also takes away the possibility of even a little gore to entertain the horror buffs. This is especially a shame because there are some very sleek and polished weapon designs that look like they could have been used for some good ole hack-and-slash fun.

Little effort seems to have been put into this film, and even a big-time star like Aaron Eckhart can't elevate the material. Here he seems dazed and bored, almost as if this film was just a project to waste some time. In fact, none of the actors seem interested, and with the exception of maybe two awkward line readings, there is nothing to laugh at either.

Like many films released in January, "I, Frankenstein," comes across as filler and it is not even worth a view on Netflix streaming. Between the poor script, the dull characters and the bad effects, there is next to nothing here worth enjoying. After watching this, I actually appreciated "Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters" more; at least it had some effort put in it.

Ride Along (2014)

A Not Great, but Enjoyable Ride

[6/10 · 16 January 2014]

Fresh off of his hit stand-up comedy film, "Let Me Explain," Kevin Hart returns to the big screen with "Ride Along." While it may be far from the most memorable comedy, I can't help but admit I enjoyed sitting through it.

Kevin Hart plays Ben, an eccentric man who wants to marry the love of his life, Angela (played by Tika Sumpter). Before he does, he seeks to get the blessing of her brother James (played by Ice Cube), a tough, loose cannon cop. In order to prove he's worthy of marrying James' sister, Ben must join James on a day on his job as an officer. Eventually, the two get wrapped up in a case neither of them were expecting.

As expected, the film plays out like a typical buddy-cop comedy: a cop teams up with someone he doesn't like or agree with and the two have to attempt to get along. While this basic plot line has indeed been done to death, this film makes the fortunate decision to skip out on many movie clichés. There is no third-act-breakup, no mopey montage, and no "you're off the case" or "you're fired" scene. While a lack of these clichés does hamper the conflict, it is quite refreshing to see them absent from the film. On the other hand, the script lends itself to other flaws. Several scenes seem to be included for the sole purpose of filling time (such as a random cameo by Jacob Latimore that amounts to nothing). Moreover, the story can be very predictable at time, even with a couple of random and nonsensical plot twists thrown in. Still though, there is a lot of good to this film.

The dialogue, while far from quotable, is consistently funny and is almost guaranteed to keep the theater laughing. The jokes are delivered on a regular basis and never stray too far into campy or mean-spirited territory. Unlike films like "Identity Thief" and "A Madea Christmas," the tone of the film never strays from a comedic romp and always keeps the laughs coming.

Kevin Hart's performance itself is arguably worth the price of admission. Hart's lines are delivered with the impression that he is enjoying making this movie, and his high-energy presence is sure to please his fans. If you are a fan of Kevin Hart, you will most likely enjoy his screen-presence and his great chemistry with Ice Cube even if you find the script to be lacking.

"Ride Along," may not go down as a comedic legend, but in my eyes, it is certainly worth checking out at least as a rental. The flawed script can indeed be overlooked by the gleeful dialogue and Kevin Hart's enthusiasm. I'd say give it a shot, it wouldn't hurt to check it out.

Frozen (I) (2013)

Another Disney Champion

[9/10 · 29 November 2013]

The holiday season is here once again, and I cannot think of a better way to spend it with your family then taking them to see "Frozen," Disney's newest animated masterpiece. Returning to the musical renaissance style that was explored by 2010's "Tangled," "Frozen" to tell its version of Hans Christian Anderson's classic story, "The Snow Queen." Despite its loose relation to the source material, Frozen still manages to be a charming, heartfelt musical event that families of all ages will enjoy.

In the magical kingdom of Arendelle, a young princess named Elsa (Played by Idina Menzel of "Glee") possesses the power to freeze anything and conjure snow and ice with her mind. After nearly injuring her younger sister Anna (Played by Kristin Bell of "Veronica Mars" and "Hit and Run") as a child, her powers are kept a secret from the kingdom, and Anna's memories of her powers are erased to protect her. This introduction scene is short but sweet, and it really gives the audience a good sense of Elsa and Anna's relationship. Elsa is forced to shut Anna out of her life despite how much she loves her, and Anna just wants to spend more time with her sister, and can't even know why she can't for her own protection.

When Elsa finally becomes old enough to be coroneted as queen, an incident at the ceremony reveals her powers to the whole kingdom. Fearing that she will be persecuted by the other kingdoms and her own people, she runs to the mountains in hiding, building herself an ice castle to spend the rest of her life in. In her despair, she brings an eternal winter upon Arendelle. In a rather progressive plot point, Anna bravely decides to venture out on her own to find Elsa and bring summer back to the kingdom. For a princess, this is quite a movement from the days of princesses waiting for their prince to save them.

Anna is an extremely well developed female lead. In addition to her interesting back story and progressive nature, she is far from a flawless Mary-Sue type character. She is rather clumsy and awkward, and is willing to fall in love with a man she just met as evidenced in the song "Love is An Open Door." The latter trait at first comes across as cliché, but luckily, the film acknowledges the latter flaw to let her develop throughout the film.

On her journey, she will meet the bulky but immensely likable Kristoph (played by Johnathan Groff of "Glee"), a male lead that is just as clumsy as Anna. He is joined by his reindeer, Sven, an adorable character that charmingly falls into the "All Animals Are Dogs" trope that honestly never gets old. Also joining the troupe is a snowman Elsa and Ana made as kids named Olaf (played by Josh Gad of "The Book of Mormon"). Many Disney films have a comic relief character that is there "for the ride," however, Olaf is perhaps one of the most useful and likable comic relief characters I have ever met. Throughout the film, Olaf helps the characters on their journey and does a lot more than make jokes. He is even given a bit of depth, having his own song, "In Summer" that details his comically ironic curiosity for summertime.

In addition to the witty, smartly written script, the musical numbers are all charming and smile-worthy. From grand-scale numbers like "Let it Go" to charming, character-building numbers like "Fixer Upper," Frozen provides plenty of musical splendor to please the whole family. Expect a sing-a-long version to pop up soon.

On top of this, the animation is stunning to say the least. From the droplets of frozen rain on the trees to the ice-built castle of Elsa, viewers will be astounded by the scenery and beauty of the world introduced to them.

Frozen is a wonderful experience to add to Disney's legacy full of quality entertainment. Almost every cliché it faces can easily be brushed aside and it is certain many will adore it. There is no doubt in my mind that this film will be adored for generations. Good show Disney, good show.

The Great Gatsby (2013)

A Visualized Novel (Minor Spoilers)

[10 May 2013]

When I first heard about writer/director Luhrman's return to film; I was actually pretty excited; his visual thrills and his mixing of modern pop culture and period drama made Romeo + Juliet and Moulin Rouge two of the most aesthetically memorable films ever. However, Many people reasonably questioned his ability to bring F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby; one of the biggest novels of all time to the big screen. The book put more of an emphasis on character drama and conflicts in society than artistic grandeur. Having just seen it, I can honestly say that his direction was as much of a success as it was a problem.

The film centers around Nick Carroway (Played by Toby Macguire of Spiderman and Brothers), a former writer, telling the story of how he met the infamous Jay Gatsby (Played by Leonardo DiCaprio- see below); a small town man who turned his life of low income and misery into a wealthy life of parties and liquor. Throughout the film, Nick gets caught in the middle of a series of scandals including his married cousin Daisy (Played by Carrey Mulligan of An Education) and Gatsby's secret romance. What follows is a slew of chaotic events that could destroy everyone and everything including Nick, who didn't want any part of it.

As one can imagine, this film about the roaring 20's contains a lot of drama, betrayal, lust and intensity. All of these elements ad more are expressed through the film's use of colorful sets and costumes as well as its refreshing use of modern music from artists like Jay-Z and Lana Del Rey. All of these qualities really enhance the story and Luhrman's vision of the classic tale is quite admirable. From the sleek custom cars to the sparkling flapper outfits, there is always something gorgeous to grab your attention.

As expected from a Baz Luhrman film, the cinematography is flawless as well. The use of fabric to symbolize happiness and the wide shots of people eating, partying and enjoying themselves added a lot to the film and honestly, it all looked incredible.

On the other hand, I did have a problem with this high emphasis on visuals. The party scenes and set pieces do their job, but sometimes they keep going on longer than they should, leaving less time for character development. For example, the character Myrtle (played by Isla Fisher) is show to be very important by the film's end, but we hardly see her on screen or get a real sense of who she is.

I didn't really care for the dialogue half the time either. For the most part it was tolerable, but at some points it seemed rambling and a bit unrealistic. I'm not really sure if this is just my problem though; I'm personally a fan of crisp, realistic dialogue and don't really like scenes of lengthy explanation. It may not bother you but it was a bit of an issue for me.

As for the performances, Leonardo DiCaprio and Carrey Mulligan steal the show. Both actors give a real, almost method portrayal of their characters and never hesitate. DiCaprio has been trying for years to win an Oscar and while such an award is not necessary to leave a legacy, he has a bright future if he continues his career with performances like this.

So would I recommend this film? Well in my opinion it was pretty decent, but as with Luhrman's Moulin Rouge, I feel like this movie is a love-it-or-hate-it experience. One thing that is for certain is that people who don't like surreal "artsy" visuals or modern music will be annoyed by the movie. It's been a while since I've read the book, so I'm not sure how faithful it is, but I still recommend fans of the novel to check it out and make their own judgement.

Jack the Giant Slayer (2013)

Family Faire

[7/10 · 2 March 2013]

It's pretty much a guarantee that if you grew up with fairy tales, you would certainly know the story of Jack and The Beanstalk. I know I have; when I was a kid, this story was everywhere. I saw it played out by Mickey Mouse in the "Fun and Fancy Free," by Snoopy in "The Charlie Brown and Snoopy Show," and by Bugs Bunny in "Jack Wabbit and The Beanstalk." The tale is a timeless child's fantasy story, and for that alone, this movie mostly succeeds.

After the opening credits, the film opens with an introduction of our two main characters: Jack (played by Nicholas Hoult, fresh off his role in last month's "Warm Bodies") and princess Isabelle (played by Elanor Tomlinson). Just like in the original fairy tale, Jack is a poor farm hand who is tricked into trading valuable livestock (in this movie it's a horse rather than a cow) for supposed "magic beans." Princess Isabelle, however is pretty much the textbook definition of a Disney princess. Her mother is dead, her father is an over-protective king who wants her to marry someone she doesn't like, she's tired of her boring life in the palace and dreams of adventure. When I first came across this character, I immediately planned on chastising her as extremely clichéd in this review. However, once I began watching this in the context of a kids movie, I found this to be much more tolerable. Though in a 2013-released film, it still feels kind of dated.

Those expecting another "Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters" will be disappointed. This movie is pretty family-friendly overall and has a light hearted attitude throughout. Despite this film's hefty body count, the characters consistently joke around and get themselves into shenanigans. It could very well be irritating to those expecting a more mature fantasy based on the rating and advertising, as it does admittedly feel too silly at times. However, as a family film, the combination of violence and silliness makes it somewhat a fusion of the family films of the 80's and 90's respectively.

The rest of the characters are decently developed, including the sinister Lord Roderick (played by Stanley Tucci) and the noble knight Elmont (played by Ewan McGreggor). No character was given that much development, which I actually didn't really mind. I knew enough about each character, and in a fast-paced fairy tale like this, keeping the plot moving and interesting were the most important aspects.

The giants were pretty interesting too. In a way, they reminded me of the trolls in last year's "The Hobbit: an Unexpected Journey," as they are excessively gross, uncivilized and high-tempered. I'm certain that kids will get a laugh out of their flatulent, booger-eating ways. I was initially concerned that this film would just portray them as unstoppable villains with no personality. Instead, the film fleshes them out a bit and gives them a motive for their actions. I certainly wouldn't mind a prequel film giving more meat to their hatred for mankind.

The cast gives their all, especially Nicholas Hoult. Here he brings to Jack the same charm and timidity he gave to R in "Warm Bodies." I feel that he he has the capability and likability to carry a movie as the lead role, and I look forward to his future endeavors next year.

"Jack The Giant Slayer" will reasonably divide critics and audiences, but if I had kids, I would have no problem taking them to see this. It's a fun little adventure that kids and open-minded adults will get a kick out of.

Warm Bodies (2013)

Beauty & The Beast...& Zombies

[8/10 · 31 January 2013]

Having seen it, I am happy to say that "Warm Bodies" exceeded my initial expectations, and the result is a sweet, often funny romantic comedy.

Based on the book of the same name (written by Isaac Marion), "Warm Bodies" tells the story of a young zombie, later named "R" (played very enthusiastically by Nicholas Hoult) stuck in a mental purgatory. R spends his life wandering around a post-apocalyptic world with only his thoughts and other zombies who can barely speak to keep him company. In a witty and well-delivered opening narration, he explains that he can barely remember what life used to be like before the apocalypse. He can't remember what caused it, what his life was like, who his parents were, or even his own name (though he does believe it starts with an R).

It is in this opening scene when we get a true sense of what R's life is like. His often humorous narration of this scenario keeps the tone of the film somewhat upbeat, even though his situation of being alone with only his thoughts is truly tragic. I could instantly relate to his feeling of loneliness, as who doesn't feel lonely sometimes. Loneliness truly does feel like you're dead and alone with your own thoughts, so perhaps the whole zombie element of the plot was one big metaphor for unwanted solitude.

When the zombies develop enough symptoms, they become gruesome skeleton- like creatures called "bonies." These creatures, unlike zombies, will kill anything with a heartbeat without feeling any sort of remorse about it. The bonies most likely represent people who have given up on love and live the rest of their lives in despair.

Everything changes when R and a few other zombies search for human flesh to eat. They come across a hideout with survivors and attack. With little memory of the old world, R instantly falls in love with a survivor named Julie (Played by Theresa Palmer). Immediately afterwards, R inadvertently eats the brain of her boyfriend, Perry (played by Dave Franco). The only way that R can relive memories of the old world is by eating peoples' brains and thereby consuming their memories. By eating Perry's brain, he learns Julie's name and uses that to start developing a trust with her.

This is the only aspect I felt was a bit weak. The fact that the zombies in this film can consume memories is a rather interesting story element, though it doesn't really come into play through most of the film. It mainly exists to develop R's sense of guilt for killing Julie's boyfriend, which is important to the story, but I personally felt it could have been used to a greater effect. Perhaps R could find out who he used to be by consuming the brains of people who knew him. Oh well, it's not really that big of a problem here, and it's not something that bothered me while watching it.

After helping her escape the attack, R and Julie bond together. R tries his hardest to act human and gradually forms a friendship with Julie.The scenes of R and Julie are honestly sweet without being to saccharine. R comes across as a likable hero victimized by his zombie-condition and Julie, while occasionally bratty, learns to accept him.

Throughout the rest of the film, R's relationship with Julie will grow stronger, and this is revealed to help cure his zombie condition. It's a rather sweet statement on how love is the best cure for loneliness. But as the climax approaches, the plot thickens. R's exposure to love makes him a target for the bonies. Will R cure his condition? Will Julie discover that R killed her boyfriend? Will the bonies consume our heroes? For a romantic comedy, this is quite a lot of conflict.

I suggest to anybody who hates romantic comedies to give this movie a shot; as it is proof that the genre can be done well. And if you like romantic-comedies, this one is hands-down a must-see. "Warm Bodies" is a classic tale of beauty and the beast...& zombies. It's a unique film excellently adapted by acclaimed screenwriter Johnathan Levine and led by a stellar performance by Nicholas Hoult. It's absolutely my pick for the best non-Oscar movie in theaters right now.

Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters (2013)

Eh...

[4/10 · 30 January 2013]

I had low expectations going into see "Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters." While I can't say that the film was horrible, my expectations of a mediocre movie were still met.

During the admittedly creative and artistic opening credits, one will notice something strange. This movie was co-produced by Will Ferrel and Adam McKay, founders of the famous website:" Funny or Die" and writers as such films as Step Brothers and Ricky Bobby. Other producers involve Kevin Messik, Beau Flynn, Christoph Fisser, and co-writer of "The Other Guys," Chris Henchy. Now I know many people think that producers have very little impact on the final product, but as someone who worked as an extra on an indie film, I can say that producers can definitely affect how the film is made.

"Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters" is an action/horror fantasy, but it also has an overall silly tone. This is evidenced by the over-the-top gross-out scares, the anachronisms, and the curse-laden dialogue. It definitely feels like the producers had a hand in adding silliness to the overall action/horror aspect of the film. Sometimes I even noticed characters speaking silly dialogue in a loud way similar to how WIll Ferrel delivers his lines. I wouldn't have been surprised if Will Ferrel made a cameo.

As for the main crew members, this film is directed and mainly written by Tommy Wirkola, the writer/director of the 2009 cult nazi-zombie film: "Dead Snow." At many times in this film, the aforementioned silliness was clumsily mixed in with bloody violence. Limbs are torn off, heads are crushed, and people are cut in half. The movie is about witches, but it definitely feels more like a zombie movie with its bursts of bloody action. It just didn't fit in with the fantasy elements and it even contributed to one of the film's main problem.

Since the movie focuses so much on brute-force fight scenes, the mostly likable characters take a back seat and are stuck with flat backstories. (SPOILER ALERT) For example, Hansel and Gretel (played by Jeremy Renner and Gemma Arterton respectively) are told by the antagonist witch Muriel (played by Famke Janssen, see picture below) that the reason their parents left them is because their mother was a good witch and the evil witches wanted Gretel's heart. Her heart was meant to be used in a potion that would give the evil witches immunity to fire, their main weakness. So what all of this contrived mess boils down to is this: Gretel's heart is a MacGuffin that the witches want to use as a potion.

Apparently, her heart is like some kind of witch-treasure. So why then does Muriel throw Gretel out the window in the middle of a fight scene to fight another character and allow her to escape? Some villain, huh?

Speaking of Gretel, Gemma Arterton felt so miscast in this role, and delivered her lines in a monotone, nasally way. It reminded me of Megan Fox, though to be fair it was MUCH more convincing than anything Ms. Fox acted in.

However, Jeremy Renner did the best he could, and if it's any consolation, it's not the worst movie he ever did. The weapons were pretty creative too with the exception of the taser, which didn't even exist in the 19th century (this movie's setting). Also, the fight scenes were decent enough to keep my attention, but they were still choppy and not very memorable aside from the gory moments.

I'm going to end this review by saying the following: less demanding viewers may get a kick out of this film, but I personally thought it was just another bad early-year movie that people will have the most viewers on Netflix's streaming.

Parker (2013)

Jennifer Lopez Steals The Show

[6/10 · 30 January 2013]

Despite my expectations of seeing a standard Jason Statham action movie, I can still safely say that "Parker" honestly entertained me. The main premise of the movie is that after being double-crossed by a gang of thieves that hired him, a man named Parker (played by action superstar Jason Statham) decides to steal the bounty of their next heist as revenge. Meanwhile, a bankrupt real estate agent (played by entertainer Jennifer Lopez) gets herself involved in Parker's plan in exchange for a share of the money.

With a premise as simple as this, I was rather surprised that I ended up enjoying the film. Don't get me wrong, it's still flawed in several ways. A lot of the characters like the gang's leader Melander (played by Michael Chiklis-famous for playing The Thing in "The Fantastic Four" movies) and Parker's girlfriend (played by Emma Booth) are underdeveloped and not given enough screen time. Moreover, Parker's girlfriend's father Hurley (played by Nick Nolte) seems to be an important character in the beginning of the film (giving Parker advice and having a substantial amount of screen time), but he disappears about a half hour into the film and is never seen again. The main character Parker also seemed a bit too strong, recovering from very serious injuries rather quickly. However, these flaws really didn't bother me as I was watching the film. Though I'm sure they would if this was an ordinary Jason Statham action movie, there was one certain element that grabbed my interest and honestly made me smile.

Without a doubt, Jennifer Lopez's character Leslie Rogers (see below) stole the show. She is first introduced as an attractive late-thirties real estate agent who just can't seem to sell a house. She also has the misfortune of being routinely hit on and "groped" by clients. This role could have been you're average Mary Sue, Lopez gives conviction and dedication to the role that honestly made me like her character. I wanted Leslie to succeed at helping Parker steal the bounty.

Her character was also quite humorous. One moment that comes to mind is a scene where she sees Parker badly injured and freaks out despite him constantly saying he's okay. Her reaction felt real and that's what made the character so likable.

In Jason Statham's case, his performance is pretty much on-par with nearly every one of his other roles, but there are a few things that made his role here superior. Since this movie is rated R, the action set pieces are much more brutal and bloody, giving Statham a chance to better showcase his talents as a stuntman and real life martial artist. Plus I just can't help but say that his witty, quick line delivery still hasn't gotten old for me. In a few scenes, his character puts on a fake southern accent while in disguise and it did show some comedic promise for Statham.

So is Parker a wonderful, groundbreaking action movie? No; the story is still pretty standard and there are a few flaws overall. Is it worth the discounted $5 ticket I bought. Of course! In fact, I would happily recommend it to hardcore Jason Statham fans as well as Jennifer Lopez fans. Overall: not half bad.

Movie 43 (2013)

A comedic disaster in every way shape and form

[2/10 · 27 January 2013]

Movie 43 is a comedic disaster in every way shape and form. Even its occasional laughs can best be described as sprinkling powdered sugar on a pile of dead fish. The plot involves… well there barely is a plot. Basically a crazy writer (played by Dennis Quaid) tries to convince a producer (played by Greg Kinnear in his most embarrassing role since The Last Song) to buy his script involving several "comedic" segments. So it comes across as a satire of the movie industry, but it ends up being just as successful as "An Alan Smithee Film: Burn Hollywood Burn."

In order to fully express how painfully stupid this movie is, I will now list the worst moments in the film as they pretty much speak for themselves.

1. Kate Winslet (playing herself) goes on a blind date with a man (played by Academy Award Nominee Hugh Jackman) who just happens to have a set of testicles hanging from his neck. Pubic hair falls into his soup as he eats it, they get put on a baby's head, and they get dipped in butter. It's like some kind of surreal nightmare. Even if that's what they were going for, it still has no purpose of even existing; it's not even funny.

2. A woman (played by Anna Farris) asks her husband (played by Chris Pratt) to defecate on her to show how much he loves her. The movie shows him eating tons of Mexican food and drinking a bottle of laxative ("poop Viagra" as the movie so charmingly calls it.) He then has trouble restraining his bowels as his wife begs for foreplay. He makes his wife mad and she storms out into the street. When he follows her, he is hit by a car and defecates all over the street and the windshield. His wife then marvels at how much he defecated, saying it's "the most beautiful thing I've ever seen."

3. A man (played by Liev Schreiber) wants to give his homeschooled son a full high school experience. This involves tying his son to a flagpole after writing an insult on his chest with feces. This crossed the boundary between funny and cruel and ended up in the latter by a long shot.

4. A woman (played by an attractive Halle Berry) plays a game of truth or dare with a man (played by Stephen Merchant) that involves making guacamole with her bare breast, squirting hot salsa up her vagina, and getting truly awful plastic surgery.

5. Josh Duhamel decimates his credibility in a sketch involving a jealous cartoon cat trying to kill his girlfriend (played by Elizabeth Banks) after she catches him masturbating to photos of her boyfriend. The cat pees all over her and Josh Duhamel's character kisses her a little while later as she's covered in urine. And to top it all off at the end, Josh Duhamel's character makes out with the cat in a fantasy sequence. After seeing this, I was actually looking forward to Duhamel's next film: "Safe Haven." Did I mention that when Elizabeth Bank's character tries to fight back against the cat's attacks on her, kids at a birthday party see her attacking the cat and stab her to death? Wonderful…

To be fair, three moments gave me a brief laugh.

1. Emma Stone's convincing performance in a segment involving dirty- talking at a grocery store.

2. The first half of a segment involving a 7th grade girl (played by Chloe-Grace Mortez) having her period and her imbecilic male friend freaking out.

3. The second-to-last segment involving Terrence Howard parodying inspirational sports movies like Remember the Titans.

That's pretty much it. These on and off moments of humor are far from enough to salvage the film. Not to mention that the main plot of Dennis Quaid's character pitching this movie never really goes anywhere and fizzles out by the end. The whole thing feels so disjointed, and it's attempt to bridge the segments only makes this problem worse.

I can't really blame the actors and actresses who were in this; according to several interviews with the lead director himself (Peter Farrely of "Dumb and Dumber" and "The Three Stooges"), the cast wanted out at sever points during this thing's three year production, but Farrely guilt-tripped them into staying. All in all, this is a crime against comedy and makes me long for the relatively comedic genius of "Vampires Suck" and "A Thousand Words."

Life of Pi (2012)

Wonderful Fantasy of Survival, Despair, and Faith

[10/10 · 18 January 2013]

"Life of Pi" is further evidence that Ang Lee is a filmmaker who favors craft over money. From the wondrous visuals to the meaty storytelling, Life of Pi takes appreciative audiences on a journey of curiosity, despair and faith.

Many called "Life of Pi" an "unfilmable" book due to it's literary complexity. Ang Lee himself was weary while filming this, but much like he did with Brokeback Mountain's controversial plot line in 2005, he took risks and succeeded.

The film opens with Pi Patel as an adult (played by Irrfan Kahn from The Amazing Spiderman) reminiscing about his childhood with an author (played by Rafe Spall from Prometheus). The audience is first treated to several shots of colorful, strange animals living at a zoo during the opening credits. This emphasizes how Pi's childhood was filled with wonder and curiosity in religion and how he saw the world as magical.

Pi spends most of his childhood exploring different religions. He is fascinated by all of them, and yet he cannot chose one. He is wondered by the stories of Krishna and Ganesha in Hinduism, he admires the sacrifices Jesus made in Chatholisism, and he appreciates the themes of togetherness and meditation in the Muslim religion.

However, Pi's father is much more skeptical. He is a polio survivor who feels like he was saved by medicine, not God when he was ill. Therefore, he reminds Pi that he must value logistics and skepticism over religious stories and faiths in order to be more intelligent. Pi's father's lessons in logic become the most clear when he scolds Pi for trying to feed the tiger because as Pi puts it, "All living things have souls." In order to teach his son that animals are savage and soulless, he forces Pi to watch a live goat being murdered by the tiger.

This theme of skepticism vs. faith is perhaps the most important theme in the film, as it is an important tool when it comes to interpreting the story. Throughout the film, Pi encounters many wondrous sights and questions God's motives when he is eventually shipwrecked and separated from his family.

Deciding that they need to sell their zoo and gain more financial support, Pi's family decides to move to Canada with their zoo animals and possibly open a new zoo. However, on the way there, they are shipwrecked and only Pi, a zebra, an orangutan, a hyena, and a Bengal tiger survive the wreck and make it to a lifeboat.

(SMALL SPOILER AHEAD)

The hyena, zebra and orangutan die from various causes, and Pi is left with only the tiger (named Richard Parker) for company. The film then focuses on Pi's attempts to tame Richard Parker.

The rest of the film is a fascinating and wonderfully deep story woven with much craft by David Magee (who previously wrote the 2004 film, Finding Neverland). The dialogue is smart and despite mostly taking place on a lifeboat, the film is never boring and always throws in something to grab the audience's interest.

Newcomer Suraj Sharma plays the role of Pi with conviction and true feeling. It is clear that he and Ang Lee made an excellent team, and his dedication to the role is more than commendable. Here's hoping they collaborate on future projects. It's a shame his performance did not get much attention from the various awards shows, but it is certainly one to remember.

I am certainly grateful that the claims of "Life of Pi" being "unfilmable" did not deter Ang Lee from bringing this masterpiece to the screen. As a fantasy film, it soars, as a story of religion, it succeeds, and as a film, it is beyond praise. It is an absolute must see.

Lockout (2012)

Predictably Mediocre

[4/10 · 20 May 2012]

In this film, a man falsely accused of murder is sent into a prison in space where he has to save the president's daughter from escaped prisoners. Yes, the plot is about as inventive as Super Mario Brothers. Before I get to the negatives though, I just want to talk about the positives. First of all, I really enjoyed the villains, as there were both a nice contrast to each other. One of them is a convincing psychotic maniac named Hydell, and one is non-violent leader named Alex. British television star Joseph Gilgun is exceptional in the role of Hydell, playing an intimidating character with unpredictable action.

The effects are also well made, considering a mere $20 million budget. There was obviously a lot of work done on making the sets and set pieces.

Unfortunately, in addition to the simplistic plot, Lockout faces several other problems. First of all, the dialogue is about 80% one-liners, and they get old fast. Guy Pierce does his best with what he's given, but his character Snow feels forced, and it feels like the writers are trying way too hard to make him witty. He and Maggie Grace have minimal chemistry, and they never really interacted in a good way.

The climax is sort of disappointing as well, and it sort of feels like a cop out. With flat characters, forced dialogue, and mediocre fight choreography, Lockout is a predictably mediocre experience.

Dark Shadows (2012)

Tangled in Subplots (SPOILERS)

[4/10 · 11 May 2012]

I have never been disappointed by a Burton-Depp collaboration before, but because of an inexperienced writer and an uneven script, I found this film to be a definite let-down.

This movie stars Johnny Depp (this is his 8th collaboration with Tim Burton)as Barnabas Collins, a man who was turned into a vampire and locked in a coffin for 196 years by an evil witch named Angelique(Eva Green). Depp and Green are fantastic in their roles, and they definitely do their best with what is given. Unfortunately, their romantic plot line doesn't make much sense; Barnabas knows she killed his fiancée and locked him in a box but he seems far too casual about it. He even has sex with her later on. It is never explained why he is still willing to romantically engage with her, so this plot line seemed a bit convoluted.

In addition to this, there are several subplots that feel rushed. One instance involves Helena Bonham Carter's character having her own love affair with Barnabas. This barely contributes to the main plot but by the end of the film, the screenplay tries to make you think it was important.

Moreover, the character Victoria has a subplot revolving around being able to talk to ghosts. She claims she was driven to the Collins' mansion but her connection to the family is never really explained. Her lack of development is unfortunate because she is the main love interest in the film.

Other subplots involve the son's deadbeat dad issues, his father's unfaithfulness to his wife, and Chloe Mortez's character's werewolf powers (the latter isn't shown until the tail end of the film). Tim Burton can usually handle tonal shifts in comedy and drama, but this film mangles both elements in a knot with several subplots and underdeveloped characters.

I don't however think that Tim Burton is entirely to blame. This film still looks amazing; the sets, the costumes, the effects, and the cinematography are flawless. From the elegance of Barnabas' outfit and cane to the seductive high-contrast nature of Eva Green's clothing, the actors brilliantly shine in a less-than-impressive film.

The visuals are high class as well; the Collins' mansion is brilliantly done with marble fireplaces, wooden statues, and interesting secret passages. In the hands of a more experience writer, the mansion could have easily been elaborated on more. That would have been very impressive.

As it stands though, I was simply disappointing with this film. I place most of the blame on writer Seth-Grahame-Smith, who has very little experience in writing films. Hopefully his next scripted films: "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" and "Beetlejuice 2″ are superior to this let-down.

American Reunion (2012)

A Fine Successor & A Satisfying Last Slice

[9/10 · 8 May 2012]

American Pie is by far one of the most cherished franchises among the young adult crowd. Ever since 1999, Finch, Jim, Chris, Michelle, Vicki, and Stifler have become household names, and so did band camp. With this newest film, fans will be dying to eat it up like the last slice.

American Reunion follows Jim and Michelle (played by Jason Biggs and Alyson Hannigan), who feel like their sex lives have been reduced to zero after having a child. They both hoe that their high school reunion will ignite their love life again and bring old friends back together again.

This fourth installment of the franchise has everything American Pie fans love: raunchiness, smart writing, and abundant laughs. American Reunion also provides plenty of nostalgia for those who grew up with the other American Pie films (The straight to DVD ones don't count though). From references to the infamous pie scene to a parody of the first film's opening, American Reunion never ceases to please fans of the franchise.

But this film does not only rely on nostalgic value; it also comes up with its own memorable scenes, such as a hysterical prank scene involving jet-skis and a surprise cameo that the audience at my screening totally loved.

I've heard a lot of people, especially critics, complain that this film doesn't offer a lot for newcomers to the franchise. While I do agree that those who have never watched the other films in the franchise will be confused at the inside jokes and references, I think that making the film geared towards newcomers would have been a bad idea. The film is called "American Reunion", and I felt that the inside jokes fit well into the "reunion" theme. Therefore, I strongly suggest watching at least the first two American Pie films before seeing American Reunion. American Pie 1, 2, and American Wedding are by far some of the best comedy films I've ever seen, and they are definitely worth your time.

If you have seen the other films and loved them, I suggest you get down to the theater right away to see this excellent conclusion to a great franchise.

The Hunger Games (2012)

Not EXACTLY like the book, but still great!

[9/10 · 8 May 2012]

The Hunger Games centers around a dystopian society named Panem where a wealthy society possesses complete control over the rest of the country's districts. Every year, the Capitol hosts the Hunger Games, a tournament where a young man and woman from each district fight to the death until there is only one survivor. One young woman named Katniss Everdeen is forced to enter the Hunger Games to protect her little sister from entering. From there, the plot keeps thickening into an excellent cream sauce that makes up this film.

Writer-director Gary Ross does an excellent job adapting the key plot of the original book into film. He fully captures the drama and the thrills of the text and translates it into a visually masterful piece of film. From the desolate area of District 12 to the lavish Capitol city to the intimidating forest of the arena, Ross puts the viewer in a world of thrills and chills.

Academy Award Nominee Jennifer Lawrence once again proves her acting excellence by putting on a flawless performance as Katniss. She fully encompasses the honest emotion, strength and fear of the character that readers have come to know. In fact, every member of the cast from long-time acting veteran Donald Sutherland to newcomer Josh Hutcherson help bring the book to life in the best ways. The novel's message about class warfare stays completely intact and is even expanded by the varied narrative. It may not be the EXACT same thing as the book, as there are a lot of differences, but translating a book to a film takes a lot of creative liberties and I still thought that they did the best they could with this film. As of right now, I'm dying to see it again.

Contraband (2012)

Barely Any Action

[4/10 · 16 January 2012]

Mark Whalberg decides to pull off one last crime to help out his brother-in-law. Sounds simple, right? Well, in this film, apparently not. Instead we get several plot threads all tied together in a messy knot that all lead up to a lackluster experience.

The plot involves an ex-criminal named Chris Farraday (Whalberg) attempting to relive his days of running contraband in order to pay off a crook who is threatening to kill his brother-in-law. As I stated earlier, the film takes a cliché but simple plot line and adds in pointless subplots. For example, Chris' wife (Kate Beckinsdale) is attacked at home by the man Chris is trying to pay off, she moves into his best friend's apartment. Chris' friend Sebastian (Ben Foster) eventually decides to betray him when his own life is threatened. This subplot goes nowhere and could have easily been cut out of the film, as well as the subplot of him being an alcoholic.

Something else that bothered me about this film was the acting. Everybody's acting is incredibly dull, and as a result, I really didn't care about the characters. Kate Beckinsdale was especially bad in this movie. Her dialogue consists of badly acted shrieks and dull delivery. At one point in the film, Ben Foster's character calls her a "brat." Honestly, that's what her character was. She is not only a formulaic damsel-in-distress, but she makes several dumb mistakes.

First of all, when her brother-in-law is attacked for a crime HE committed, she immediately looks at Mark Whalberg's character like it's his fault and he has to do something about it. In addition, she even opens the door to a menacing-looking crook even when there was a window on the door. This character is one of the most grating female characters in recent years.

There is only one interesting action-sequence, and Mark Whalberg was hiding in a car for most of the time. Besides that, there is nothing in terms of the balls-to-the-wall action audiences expect from a film like this. There were admittedly some moments of genuine suspense such as the scene where Chris steals a map from a ship and the scene in which Chris is surrounded by guns in Panama. There was also some decent cinematography (mixed in with some poor camera work though).

However, as a whole, this is nothing really worth seeing. It's boring, dull, slow, and an overall letdown.

Young Adult (2011)

Cinematic Coming-of-Age Gold

[10/10 · 24 December 2011]

Growing old can be tough for a lot of people. This film gives an intriguing examination of this fact and incorporates it into a fine story. In one of the best films of 2011, Charlize Theron generates well-deserved Oscar Buzz for her believable performance as Mavis Gary, a tween-novel writer who comes to terms with her adulthood. I also must compliment the performance of Patton Oswalt, an underrated actor who succeeds as a disabled man who befriends Mavis. This film's story could have turned out to be another dreadful romantic comedy, but its execution makes it truly special. Every scene is shot with subtlety and finesse to show off the well-blended comedic and dramatic aspects. As you look at the style of directing, you will notice the true talent of Jason Reitman (along with the script-writing genius of Diablo Cody). After seeing this, I am quite interested in checking out Juno. Hopefully, it will be as good as this selection of cinematic gold.

The Lion King 1½ (2004 Video)

Truly Tasteless

[2/10 · 31 October 2011]

Overall, Lion King 1 1/2 is a sadistic experiment in throwing pop culture and toilet humor into the original classic. However, it could have been good. It does bring a few good ideas to the table. Timon's back story isn't executed too poorly, and the idea of giving Timon and Pumbaa a back story was a great idea. However, the execution of the plot was horrendous, as it can never make up its mind; is it a parody of the first film or a serious back story? There are also numerous continuity errors between this and the original Lion King. For example, in the original Lion King Rafiki tells Timon and Pumbaa that Simba has went to fight Scar, but here, it is Nala. Why did they do this? Simple; in this film Rafiki serves as Timon's guardian angel, a plot element thrown in to make this film a cheezier midquel (Kudos on the honest title by the way, this is not a Lion King 3 and I'm sick of midquels and prequels being paraded as sequels). Classic scenes from the original such as the sunrise, the animals bowing to baby Simba, the "Be Prepared" musical number, the stampede that KILLED MUFASSA, and just about every serious moment are ruined by Timon and Pumbaa's unfunny commentary and fart jokes including cutting to QVC footage, Pumbaa breaking wind numerous times, and literally pausing the movie to parody Mystery Science Theater (disrespecting fans of that show as well). If you respect the original, I suggest not only avoiding this film, but throwing any copied of this film in the nearest blender you can find ASAP. This movie may not be a complete disaster because of its decent execution of the story it is telling by itself, but the way it literally pastes jokes on the original film to pander to the little kiddies is a disgrace. A disgrace to everyone who loved the original, everyone who worked on the original, and a disgrace to people who value film as an art-form in general. From a moral perspective, it is perhaps the most tasteless, disgusting, and sickening heap of trash ever designed by the utterly worthless Disney Toon Studios.

Dylan Dog: Dead of Night (2010)

Worst of The Year

[31 October 2011]

This is not only the worst film of the year, but one of the worst I've EVER seen. It was boring, atrociously acted, and overall unconvincing. I hope the Razzies take Brandon Routh's abysmal performance into consideration, as he was completely terrible in this supposedly "cool" role. The plot's always throwing crap at you and the dialogue is overstuffed with bad puns and sentence structure. It's not even so-bad-it's-good, it is far too boring and badly edited to be that. But the worst part is that this could have been good. It's premise isn't terrible, and with a good director, it could have been decent. It deserves to be a total flop; no sympathy for this film