oscarxp25 Reviews

A Most Violent Year (2014)

The Best film of 2014!

[10/10 · 10 February 2015]

What is surprising about "A Most Violent Year" is that is absent from the seven nominees for Best Picture at this year's Academy Awards. It is a shocker because whomever wins the award for best film at The National Board of Review usually wins best picture at the Academy Awards or at least scores a nomination. This film failed to do so on both accounts. The question is why? Is it boring? Did the Academy think that the themes of corruption, crime, and business, all set in the dangerous times of New York City in the 80's, wouldn't resonate with today's public? It would be interesting to hear why they didn't grant it an nomination because it is truly a magnificent picture.

Oscar Issac stars as Abel Morales, a business man who owns a oil company, who has finally reaches the big time. His wife, Anna Morales, played by the ever so beautiful and reliable Jessica Chastain, is right by his side to celebrate everything that he has earned. Since the film takes place in New York City, during the 1980's, which was far from the safe and beautiful place it is today, crime is rampant. One of his trucks, which is carrying 6,000 gallons of fuel is stolen. At first, it seems like a one time thing but as the movie progresses, more and more bad circumstances start to happen to Abel's company and personal life. All the awhile Lawrence, who works for the police department, is investigating all his numbers since half the businesses around the city have ripped people off. Abel tries to deal with this like a gentleman, but Anna will do anything to stay afloat and constantly criticizes his manhood for not taking charge and going full force on those who are threatening both his business and family. Can good old fashioned decency even exist in business, especially during this time?

Oscar Issac carries this film effortlessly. Abel struggles with doing what is right and what has to be done throughout the entire film. Issac shows this struggle through every grimace, frown, and wrinkled eyebrow. It is a quiet performance but shouldn't be overlooked like it unfairly has been. J.C. Candor, who wrote and directed the film, gives so many poignant and suave lines to Abel. This is a man who you can tell has truly worked for what he has earned, he wasn't given it. Many of the scenes are him conversing and cutting deals with the people around him. Many movie goers love the gun shots and violence of crime dramas, which this film does have, but that life isn't all about those choices. Characters like Abel are smarter and above those choices. His motto is that the best way to stay unnoticed is not to make noise. That motto is not shared by his wife who is played by Chastain. This is an actress who is becoming more and more better with each role she plays. I like to keep the word "I" out of my reviews but I think she really is the next Meryl Streep. Every role she takes on she knocks out of the park. Here, she is cunning, sly, and fierce. Yes, she did have the fierceness in 2012's "Zero Dark Thirty", but here she seems more frightening. Chastain plays Anna like a lioness protecting her cubs. She is incredibly believable as a east coast mafia girl. The accent, the temper, the guilt, the sex appeal..she has it all here. It is an amazing performance that adds even more to the level that Issac reaches. Both of these actors attended the famous acting school Julliard together and, it has been said, that they dreamed of working together one day. Well, they got their wish and the results are out of this world. Let's hope they do this again with the level of skill they achieve here. The performances are worth the price of admission.

J.C. Chandor's last feature, "All is Lost", was about a man, played by Robert Redford stranded at sea. The film was Redford all by himself for the entire length of the film fighting to survive. The film divided the people. Some thought it was boring, while others thought it was brilliant. Chandor likes to to tell his time with his storytelling so those of you who are allergic to a slow building story should stay clear of this film. For those who don't mind these kind of films know that films like these usually reward patience. A car chase in the film is thrilling and well shot. Another scene shows a truck driver running for his life from the police and those who are trying to harm him. The foot chase is beautiful staged and perfectly photographed. The cinematography is simple, but adds so much to the straightforwardness of the story. The colors are very basic which adds to the the vintage style it achieves in capturing. In moments where the thrills come through the dialogue driven scenes, Alex Ebert's haunting score heightens the intensity of those scenes even more. It is an all around masterpiece in film making that is captained by Chandor. There is so much morality in this film that Chandor brings out through his direction and masterfully written script.

"A Most Violent Year" has been unfairly forgotten by the most award circuit. Many people who go to the movies always defend their unnoticed films by saying, "who cares about critics, what do they know"? Well, people who love film also feel like that sometimes. This is a beautiful film that is wise, cool, and intense in its own subtle way. It is a damn shame it has been unappreciated. It is one of the best films of the year.

A Million Ways to Die in the West (2014)

An okay follow up to Ted

[6/10 · 1 June 2014]

Seth MacFarlene is unapologetic about his brand of humor. Where Judd Apatow tries to hide his filth through witty dialogue, MacFarlene is in your face with his childish but often very funny humor. He knows deep down inside all of us, behind the maturity of being an adult, lies the ten year old snickering at fart, dick, and sex jokes. In his first feature film,"Ted", he had that humor channeled through a talking teddy bear. Here, he takes a the live action approach with parodying old school Western films.

MacFarlene, in the lead role, plays Albert, who is a wimp that is terrible at his job at being a farmer. His stock is sheep. The humor derived from his occupation of choice is smirk worthy at first, but quickly wears thin as the film moves along. The love of his life, who doesn't share the same feelings back, Louise, played by Amanda Seyfried, dumps him with in minutes of the film opening. The only friend MacFarlene has is a lovable loser like him. Edward, played by Giovanni Ribisi, is in love and about to get married to Ruth. Ruth, who is played by perfectly played by Sarah Silverman, is a prostitute that, on average, sleeps with fifteen guys a day. Edward doesn't mind it because he finds her job and life exciting, compared to his mundane one. The relationship is sweet and laughable. Silverman gives Ruth that dirty side that so many actresses would fail to put forward in a role like this. Ribisi, who played a creep in 2012's "Ted", once again embraces his creep side to play Edward. This time though he is a less scary creep and more of a lovable one. Albert's life is then given a kick when a beautiful outlaw named Anna comes to town. Charlize Theron, who seems to be having a great time, is a nice fit into the universe that MacFarlene has created. Her and MacFarlene have great on screen chemistry.

On top of his immature comedy style, MacFarlene has an obvious fondness for musicals. Anyone who has watched "Family Guy" sees knows that he can put together a good tune. He is a showman. The film, which is a very good parody of the west, is very light on its feet even when things do get dark or serious. Liam Neeson, who plays Anna's criminal out-law husband, Clinch, never really cracks a joke, but is the butt of many. While the film is a parody, it is very convincing recreation of the west. MacFarlene has created a living and breathing representation of what many would feel what it would be like to live in. While other films, especially comedies, romanticize the view of the wild west, his interpretation, while played for comedy, seems dangerous and wild. In one great bit, Albert rattles off everything that could kill you. One of the things we are informed about is doctors don't know what the hell they are doing and have silly and twisted methods on how to cure a simple cut or sickness. MacFarlene shows that when he isn't catering to the idiotic masses, he actually has a sharp eye for observational humor.

While those things do work, there are things that bog down the film. MacFarlene's immature side does get the best of him for the greater part of the film. His trademark fart and dick jokes contribute to many of the misfires in the comedy department. He also has a habit over going on too long with a gag or practically spoon feeding the audience punchlines. There are so many things to parody in this genre and he tries to fit everything into this picture. The film drags out too long and could have cut about twenty minutes out of useless material. A drug trip comes off as forced and too weird. Even though there is a great joke at Seyfried's expense in there. His need to cover every aspect of the genre does become a bit over abundant at times.

The one thing he did get right was the cast. While Neeson does cover the enemy role quite well, everyone else is ace with the comedy. Theron never stumbles with the comedy at all. Theron really does these kind of films but she definitely has a knack for them. Ribisi and Silverman are a great duo together. She uses his vulgar card full out in this film. It fits nicely with the character. Neil Patrick Harris is basically playing Barney here with a mustache. MacFarlene is okay as an actor; though he is no where near as strong as the costars he has surrounded himself.

"A Million Ways to Die in the West" is a cartoon come to life. Seth could have easily animated this film instead of doing live action. It embraces how ridiculous it is and does not pretend to be something smart or witty. You have to admire the truth in that decision. He is just there is have fun. The cartoon feel though does backfire at points because what works in one medium may not work in another.

Godzilla (2014)

A return to Scaly Form

[8/10 · 25 May 2014]

One of the positive things about the new "Godzilla" is that it respects the lore of the great big guy. It shows you how off the 1998 version was, even if you liked it. Though this new version is fun to watch and gets a lot right, there still are some bumpy times to be had.

Behind the camera calling the shots this time is Gareth Edwards. Four years ago he was responsible for the the small, but very effecting monster film, "Monsters". His skills made that film impressive in the sense that he did it with a very small budget. It was a no brainer to have him make the reboot of Godzilla. Here, his monster is more of a supporting character that gets stuck behind some of the most interesting actors in film today. While some of the story works, other parts fall flat to mediocre story telling and overly dramatic parts. In 1999, an event rocked Tokyo causing a fall out at the Nuclear power plant. One of the victims was the wife of Joe Brody, played by Bryan Cranston. Any qualms about the other actors are put to rest when Cranston is on screen. Even though he has limited screen time he makes the most of it. His character's motivations are crazy but Cranston makes them sincere and real. While the public was convinced by the government that an earthquake was responsible for the fall out, Joe knows something bigger was at play. One of his escapades lands him in jail. In America, specifically San Francisco, Joe's younger and estranged military son, Ford, played by Aaron Taylor Johnson, is home with his own son and beautiful wife, Elle, played by Elizabeth Olsen. He is called to get his father out of jail. After he gets him out he is then whisked away on another one of his father's crazy missions to uncover the conspiracy that began in 1999. We find out that all the radiation from the nuclear tests have created a pair of monster like creatures named, "MUTO" (Massive Unidentified Terrestrial Organism). The more radiation that is present, the more they will grow.

While these MUTOS have been given a scientific reason for existing, Godzilla is given a more mythological one, even though he has been created the same way. According to two scientists, played by Ken Watanbe and Sally Hawkins, Godzilla is nature's way of fighting back against the forces of mankind. "The ignorance of man is thinking that we are in control of nature and not the other way around", remarks Watanbe's character. It is a nice set up for why Godzilla exists in this world. It gives the character a bit of mystery. Edwards decisions on the big green guy are ace. The size and weight of him are perfectly captured. You will believe that Godzilla exists and is walking amongst the frightened citizens. The animation of the beast is absolutely breathtaking. Whenever he is on screen he demands your attention and you will give it to him. Edwards teases battles by cutting away from every one outside the final one at the end of the movie. It is a decision that may irritate some but fascinate others. When the final battle does come, it is worth the price of admission.

Of course, the movie can't rely on the title character to do everything. There has to be some human element to the story. While the story, outside of Godzilla isn't as bad as some might say, it is where the movie does feel a bit wobbly. When Cranston leaves, he actually takes some of the energy with him. All the actors are good, but they are given very little to work with. Scientific evidence comes off as mumble jumble at points. Olsen's character is given nothing more than being the concerned wife who cries a lot. This isn't going to be Shakespearean and she does give it her all. This isn't a knock against Olsen because a lesser actress probably would've destroyed the role and brought the movie down. The ending to the film is very overly dramatic and reminded me of something that should have been stuck in the 90's version of the story. What is a nice touch with the film is that before that ending the movie establishes the fact that Godzilla is just doing his own thing. The movie nicely separated the events of the humans and Godzilla. They were just in his way and he was in theirs. You can't fault the film for this extra cheese final minutes though because outside of that it does do pretty okay. Some of the shots Edwards conceives are a joy to watch, especially in a big theater, because of the epic scope of it all. He films some of the action using the first person technique that adds so much to scene that contributes the danger the characters are in during the monster scenes. One breath taking shot, from the trailer, has one of the paratroopers passing Godzilla on the way down to the ground. The dark clouds quickly fade away and we immediately see Godzilla and a MUTO battling, all in the first person perspective. It really brings home the point of how big and powerful both the MUTOS and Godzilla are and how minuscule the humans are against these things. Edwards establishes the atmosphere quite well through the film. These things are scary and powerful, unlike the walking lizard in the '98 version.

The action movie has evolved with films like "The Dark Knight" where the story and acting are as good as the effects. Though sometimes it is nice just to sit back and watch a well made movie that wants to have fun doing its thing. This is what "Godzilla" does. It never reaches the lows of some of the brainless movies that crowd our theaters. Edwards stages action with such an amazing eye that makes it both epic and suspenseful.

X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014)

It's a beautiful Day!

[9/10 · 25 May 2014]

What makes the majority of the "X-men" franchise work, except for the terrible "Origins", and not so much with the mediocre "The Last Stand", is that it clings to the theme about those who are different, how they react to the world, and how the world reacts to them. In "X-men: Days of Future Past" is takes the theme again for the seventh time and makes it seem fresh. This is a film that is not only a hell of a good time to watch but also contains some great commentary.

We open up with a war going on. Both new and old X-men are battling it out with machines called, The Sentinels, who are overpowering our beloved and misunderstood heroes. It is quite frightening to see these God like mutants, that we come to love, being easily taken down. These machines adapt to each individual power that a mutant throws at them. They are truly frightening and unforgiving with the punishment they put down on the X-men. In a desperate attempt to change the current events, Charles Xavier suggests that he uses time travel to go back in time and prevent the assassination of Bolivar Trask ("Game of Thrones" Peter Dinklage, having a great time). Trask is responsible for the creation of the machines that are wiping out and imprisioning all the mutants around the world. On the other side of the trigger of the gun that will kill him is Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence). Since Charles is too weak, Wolverine (the ever reliable Hugh Jackman) volunteers to go back.

Wolverine's challenge is not just stopping the assassination but also convincing the old Charles of the tragic future. Charles is not the calm and wise man that he is in the future. As played by James McAvoy, he is full of regret and anger. Though he is able to walk, through the use of a serum that calms his telepathic abilities, he has given up on life and the cause he started in "First Class". McAvoy gets so much to play with, thanks to a wonderful script by Simon Kinberg, and he once again makes Charles a great, but flawed, character. Ian McKellan's Magneto also gets a worthy performance out of his younger self. Michael Fassbender provides Erik, Magento's real name, with the same conflicting sense of self we have come to know of the character. He is so "magnetic" that you can't help to actually understand him and feel for his side of the cause. While this is being sold as the ultimate X-men movie, those two characters along with Beast, Wolverine, and Mystique are the main focus of the story. Nicholas Hoult is a great beast. His nerdy and nervous side is as convincing as when he rages then turns furry and blue Academy Awards winner Lawrence is still as vicious and sexy as ever as the shape shifter. Jackman, getting up there in age seems to get more ripped and angry as ever. Unlike "Origins" where he was just a ball of rage, he sells the urgency of saving his kind quite well. The newcomer here is a rebellious mutant teenager named Quicksilver. "American Horror Story" star Evan Peters speaks as quickly as his mutant character runs. The character's power has a whole scene dedicated to it. It is one of the highlights of the film. Peters not only captures the coolness of the character in that scene, but the playful rebellious nature any teenager would have if they had that power.

Though the time travel aspect of the story is the main gem of the story, it is the philosophy of the results of both scenarios where the movie finds its dramatic footing. The film takes a nice turn when the younger Magneto starts to question the mission. Mystique also has hesitations about what she has set out to do. Lawrence perfectly plays the ever going battle of both Charles's and Erik's philosophies doing battle in her mind. Every facial expression or expression of dialogue is captured with ease. What do you expect from an actress of her caliber being able to play in a comic book world? She is going to add so much to it, and she does.

When Bryan Singer came back, the director of the first two, there was worry that he may mess up the tone that Vaughn captured in "First Class". It was a film that respected what Singer had set up in the originals but established its own feel and attitude. Singer pays back Vaughn by remaining true to the playful nature that this thing can be sometimes. The film is just so cool sometimes that you expect it to be wearing a leather coat and sunglasses. Singer also creates some of the most exciting action scenes in the franchise. The ending battle has Magneto stealing an entire baseball field. Yeah, you read that right. That is not to say the other action sequences aren't worthy. The action is as big as it is fun.

Singer has taken the attitude of "First Class" and combined it with his grand scale ambitions to create a summer blockbuster that is something more. It is smart, funny, cool, and one hell of a ride.

Neighbors (I) (2014)

Efron shines but the movie is forgettable

[6/10 · 12 May 2014]

Seth Rogen has been the king of comedy for the last ten years. From "The 40 year old Virgin" to last year's "This is the End", he has given us comedy that glorifies the slackers. In the new comedy "Neighbors" Seth's character, Mac, is the most stable of his friends. He has a beautiful wife, who is played by Rose Bryne, a house, and a precious young baby. He appears to be the responsible one, but he still yearns for the days where he had no responsibility. It is an attitude that the film shares. It has something to say but is afraid of fully saying it.

Kelly (Bryne) and Mac are doing everything to keep away from becoming what every young person fears..boring. They try to act youthful, fun, and irresponsible, but with a child in the house that goal is impossible to achieve. They crave the excitement they shared in their youth. Their stable world is shaken up when a fraternity buys and moves into a house next door. The leader of the young frat is Teddy Sanders. Sanders is played by Zac Efron, who does quite well in this film with both the comedy and limited dramatic scenes he is given. At first, both parties try to appease one another but it is obvious that ship is going to go down quite quickly. Even after Mac and Kelly attend one of the parties and bond with the frat, promising not to call the cops, they fold on that promise and this is where the games begin.

The back and forth antics of both sides are humorous but really add nothing new to the genre. The best gag involving three stolen airbags has been played to death in all the advertisements for the film. Even so, each scene just feels like a bunch of skits tied together instead of having that natural flow a comedy film should contain. Though I must say that one of Bryne's ideas on how to break up the frat is very smart and played off perfectly. It is one of the few moments where the film really comes alive and feels something of its own. Bryne is fun and doesn't play it safe in this film. She really does well with the comedy. Rogen though comes off as tired. His act is starting to seem old. Sure, some of his one liners are funny but the character is the same exact one we have seen him play in so many of his films. The screenplay really doesn't give him more to do besides to hold on to what he knows.

Behind the filth and outrageousness of the story is a lesson about growing up and becoming an adult. It is a subject the film promises to make something out of but shys away from constantly. Efron's character is given scenes that seem to be the start of something. One particular scene shows him at a job fair, with all the other senior frat members, looking lost and scared all at once. It is a really deep moment that lasts, seriously, for a moment. In that one second you see so much of who Teddy is and how he has no idea what to do after he graduates. While Efron does let loose in this film quite some bit, it is this scene that really sells his ability to be a versatile actor. There are other scenes that try to come about but they are are thrown away too quickly in trade for typical frat scenes we have come to know all too well. One scene in particular with Teddy, after an existential moment, shows him threatening the couple, comes off as forced and out of touch. Who also really shines here is Dave Franco, brother of James, as a frat boy who is, unlike his president, can party with the best of them but also has a future after college ends. Franco may have more charisma than his older brother.

This is, first and foremost, a frat movie and what makes this frustrating is that director Nicholas Stoller, should have been able to balance out the seriousness and over the top antics perfectly. He did it perfectly with 2008's "Forgetting Sarah Marshall", but seems to have lost his touch here. "Neighbors" just seems to be the run of the mill college frat party film, which many people want, but it could have embraced the themes a bit more and been something really special. A film with a great message on top of the laughs.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014)

The "Almost there" Spiderman

[7/10 · 7 May 2014]

While watching "The Amazing Spiderman 2" it is very clear why Marc Webb was given the reigns as director. When it comes to the emotional core of the story and getting performances to match those many emotions in the film he does a hell of a job. The romance between Gwen and Peter is much more believable and real than Peter and Mary Jane's in Sam Raimi's trilogy. If only the rest of the film had the precision that the love story does this film would have been a home run.

The film falls somewhere in the middle of something amazing and a missed opportunity. It never does get to the lows of some of the most terrible comic book movies like "Batman and Robin". What is most frustrating about it is that there is greatness hidden in such a bloated film where the misses outshine the hits. The first part of the movie where we are shown how comfortable Peter has fit into his role as the hero of the city while trying juggle his feelings and guilt about Gwen and the broken promise he failed to keep with her dad is where the film shines. This goes beyond Garfield and Stone being a real couple. There have been plenty of films where the two leads were a real life item but the chemistry failed to translate to the screen. Garfield and Stone are perfect for each other in this movie. They bounce off each other perfectly with all the romance and flirtatious dialogue they are given. While the romance is the strongest aspect of the film it does crutch on a bit too much at times, which in results in it being a bit too cutsey. That said, all the rest of the relationships are quite well done. Aunt May, played by Sally Field, is still a great emotional center for Peter. She provides Peter with what Uncle Ben did before he was killed. The characters growth is sold through Field's acting ability and some interesting plot points. In this film we meet the famed comic book villain Harry Osborn, who eventually becomes The Green Goblin. Even though Harry and Peter's relationship origin has been changed and is a bit underwritten; Dane DeHaan and Garfield do give off the vibe they were friends separated by life's obstacles. DeHann is sinister, cold, and a bit frightening with the limited screen time he has. It is going to be interesting what he brings us next time with more screen time.

That screen time is given to Max Dillion and is one of the mistakes the movie commits. Where Harry's story is full intrigue, important to Peter's life, and had the potential to be something really great, we are given an extremely clichéd and underwritten backstory to why Dillion turns evil when he becomes Electro. Where Harry feels like he could have been a great fleshed out character, Electro feels like a secondary villain. Foxx does his best, and he is good, but the character is very underwritten and seems to have no other purpose than to showcase the effects in the movie.

Andrew Garfield's confidence in this film has grown. He captures both the awkwardness and heroism that Spiderman/Peter Parker possesses. When he has that mask on he is a man that so many place their hope in for a better city. This point is nicely done at first but kind of gets overly dramatic towards the end. One thing that Garfield is great at is the legendary Spiderman wise cracks. His sarcasm and wit are so sharp when it needs to be. This is mainly because you can see Garfield loves playing the role. The bar has been set by Andrew for future actors of the role.

One thing I will give Webb is that it seems he embraces the fun of Spiderman this time around. Where the 2012 film was a tad serious, this one embraces the spirit of Spiderman and the fun it is to be him. Even the suit has lost the out of place dark eyes and replaced them with the iconic large white eyes. The colors of the film are more vibrant, especially when it comes to Electro's screen time. When combined with Garfield's spirit it creates a light hearted superhero film that has seemed to be lost and looked down upon ever since Christopher Nolan's "The Dark Knight" franchise. Several points in this film will bring a slight smile to the most jaded comic book movie fans. There are times though the choice of making it lighter does backfire. Some scenes or lines come off way too corny or feel like they belong in a bad 90's comic book film.

For the most part though, Webb understands the balance between fun and serious. His ambitious nature does hurt the film a bit. Where some parts of the are extremely well done and you want to see them expanded, the amount of material stuffed into this film prevents that from happening. The first time Webb had to search for his own identity and found it in this film. Maybe next time he will learn to trim the fat because underneath this good film is something truly amazing. Hopefully next time we will get to see that.

Transcendence (I) (2014)

"Transcendence" Review

[6/10 · 18 April 2014]

Wally Pfister has created some of the most beautiful imagery over the last 14 years for Christopher Nolan. His camera work definitely added the mood, that was perfect, to Nolan's dreary atmospheres. Now, he is getting his turn to sit in the director's chair. Has his mentor rubbed off on him?

While "Transcendence" is a film with very interesting ideas, those exact ideas aren't fully fleshed out to their utmost potential. What results is a film that could have been something really special but just becomes something run of the mill. In the film, Johnny Depp plays Will Caster. Along with his wife, Eveyln Caster, played by Rebecca Hall, the two set out to create a world where computers can create a perfect society. While Will does have many admirers, his wife being the biggest, there are those who aren't into his ambitions or his idea of the future. R.I.F.T. is an anti-technology group that is against everything that Will has worked for and envisions for the future. After a conference, Caster is shot by one of the members who quickly takes his own life after he fires the bullet that slowly starts to kill Caster. While Will does survive the initial shooting, the bullet was laced with radiation that entered Will's blood stream and gives him only weeks to live. In his remaining time, Evelyn conjures a plan to download Will's mind into the program PINN, which was Will's creation, think of it like SURI, so he will live on through the miracle of technology. Will tested it on a monkey with minor success. Evelyn wants to take a chance so her man can live on so she downloads him into the program.

The film does involve many interesting ideas off that plot. Though these ideas have been done before that doesn't stop them from being somewhat well executed here. There is a substantial amount of time where this thing finds its footing and it is really interesting to see the writing and directing perfectly in sync. Unlike many of the science fiction films of today, the film takes its time to unravel to the good stuff. It is a film that is very cerebral. There is limited action here. Pfister films this world with the same color palate as the films he shot like "Inception" and "The Dark Knight". It is a beautiful film to look at. While some of it does work, a large amount of it doesn't work as well or just doesn't work at all.

When Evelyn and Will, well Will in computer form, build a fortress in a desolate town, it seems strange that no one caught on to this huge operation going down. It is one of the few implausibilities this film throws at you. Outside of the too good to be true coincidences, the film does falter with some of the characters and the third act. When Pfister switches on the action that is contained in the third act he totally throws aside the interesting story that was developing in the first two thirds of the movie. We hardly get to know some characters before they are thrown into the action. We get a very brief and shallow look into Kate Mara's character, who is the leader of R.I.F.T., and Cole Hauser is reduced to playing a military man who basically gets to fire guns and look cool. The movie would have benefited on expanding on these two greatly. There is a sense that there is a greater story to Mara's character that was unfortunately cut to make time for Will and Evelyn time.

Depp, who plays the role straight, is fine as Will. He is good at projecting the distant and emotionally cold personality that one expects from a computer in a science fiction movie. It was just nice to see Depp actually try without resorting to different accents or jumping around like a buffoon. Hall's performance is another notch in the film's unfortunate failures. Instead of coming off like a caring wife whose purpose of the film is to learn to let go, she plays it overly dramatic which results in the character being unpleasant to watch.

"Transcendence" is not the total failure you have been hearing. There are extremely good ideas and notions in there but they are roughed out by terrible directing decisions by Pfister. It runs about two hours but an extra twenty to thirty minutes would have strengthened the message the film was trying to get across. Instead, it just becomes another forgettable piece of science fiction entertainment.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014)

All hail, Captain America!

[9/10 · 5 April 2014]

"Captain America: The Winter Soldier" is not only the best Phase Two Marvel Movie but it is also in the ranks with "The Dark Knight" in terms of storytelling, directing, and acting. Oh, it is also one hell of a ride that is loads of fun. This movie has everything and nails every promise it made to give the title character the movie he deserved.

"Winter Solider' takes the approach of a conspiracy thriller and boy does it work. If you took the superheroes out of the picture, it still would have held up as an superbly written thriller. Joe Johnston has stepped down from the director's chair and the reigns have been given to Anthony and Joe Russo. The directors, who mostly did comedies, including directing a few episodes of "Community", seemed like an odd choice to take over an action film. While the film does have its moments of humor, it is quite serious. The Russos are more concerned about making the conspiracy plot work than gathering up a belly of laughs. It is not to say the picture isn't funny though. Their comedy background does help in giving light to the dark places this film goes.

Steve, who is Captain America when he is not kicking ass with that incredibly cool shield, lives the present day and is still learning about the years he has missed. He even has a checklist of things he must find out about when he has time for himself. When Nick Fury gets into a pickle, Steve is called to home base to talk to S.H.I.E.L.D. senior officer Alexander Pierce. Steve won't divulge what Fury told him at their last meeting and Pierce warns him that he will get the information no matter what. After this meeting Steve is labeled a fugitive and a person of interest. Along with Natasha Romanoff/Black Widow and newcomer Sam Wilson, who later becomes Falcon, they try to go deeper with the information they have obtained.

That is a very brief rundown of the plot that contains many twists and turns. It does go a lot deeper and is a lot more interesting than that but half the fun of this film is experiencing it. The film is expertly paced and is quite interesting. As in 2005's "Batman Begins" the film is as interesting between action set pieces as it is when Falcon soars in the sky, with his mechanical wings, out running a number of heat seeking missiles. The plot in this thing is the best of any Marvel film to date. It is an intriguing puzzle that never acts like it is above the audience and forgets it is a comic book film.

A strong element in this film is the acting. Chris Evans, who was good in the original and "The Avengers" goes leagues beyond anything he did in those two movies here. Hell, this maybe his greatest role yet. Steve is a man who is starting to question his role, not only in S.H.I.E.L.D., but the world. His wide eyed innocence about the rules and how people like him are supposed to protect the world starts to crumble when he learns the shady dealings of the people he works underneath. He has grown into this role and made it his own as much as Bale did with Batman or Downey Jr. has with Iron Man. Steve is a fully fleshed out character that breaths and feels alive outside of the kick ass action scenes. Scarlett Johansson and Anthony Mackie, who is plays Wilson/Falcon as a great admirer of Steve and is willing to risk everything to fight by his side, are great here too. Though they aren't as fleshed out as the title character, they do add to their characters quite a bit. Mackie as you can say "earns his wings" to be part of this epic universe. The real treat here is seeing the legendary Robert Redford play in a comic book movie. His performance is as serious and well played as any of the conspiracy thrillers he has been in during his career. It works extremely well and it looks like he has a blast doing it.

What about "The Winter Solider"? Who is he and how does the Russos handle the character? The character doesn't say much at first but still comes off as deadly and dangerous. The Russos handle his scenes with brilliant care. The music and suspense are built up perfectly whenever he is on screen. You can feel the fear this man projects from being an unstoppable force. He is as dangerous as Steve because he has been enhanced to fight. Sebastian Stan plays this role as if Javier Bardem's, Anton Chigurh, from 2007's "No Country for Old Men", was dropped in a comic book universe. He is just an unstoppable killing machine with zero empathy. While Stan's Winter Solider is that way through brain washing, unlike naturally twisted Chigurh, he is still a frightening.

The action set pieces in the film are a marvel to experience. While the big set pieces, especially the ending battle, do flow nicely, it is the smaller battles that are just as impressive. Evans not only sells the emotional part of the character but the physical part as well. Captain America is fast, brutal, and expertly skilled at every type of skill a soldier, like him, would need in battle. One thing that many don't have is that shield. The shield really does shine in this film. The way it is incorporated into the battle scenes would make the coldest of men smile. You feel like a kid grinning ear to ear whenever Steve uses the shield as a weapon.

Steve's own personal story will continue from this film, even after the next "Avengers" installment, and if it is half of what this one was we are in for the treat.

Divergent (2014)

The Cerebral Games

[8/10 · 30 March 2014]

Since the release of the juggernaut "Twilight" back in 2008, Hollywood has been searching for any film, based on a young adult novel, that would spark the same craze those movies did. While some are successes, such as "The Hunger Games", there are countless others that just fall to the waste side. Does the new film "Divergent" rise to occasion or just fall into the same league as the other failures? The plots of "The Hunger Games" and "Divergent" are very similar but different in their own ways. Both take place in a futuristic society that has become a wasteland. The people in these societies have been split into different factions that serve their own purpose to the high power of the government. These governments try to play it off as if they are one of the people but, of course, stand for everything these societies are built on, which is freedom.

In "Divergent", which takes place in a post-war Chicago, people are split into five factions: the selfless Abgenations, the peaceful Amitys, the honest Candors, the brave Dauntless, and the intelligent Edrudites. When children are sixteen they are given a test to see where they would fit in. After the results are given, they are must choose to go with what their results were or choose their own path. Our young heroine, Beatrice or Tris as she later refers to herself as, is urged by her family and faction in Abnegation to stay, but becomes part of the Dauntless. She wants to be part of the group who protects the city and lives a more wild lifestyle than the other four.

The first half of the film is a bit slow paced. It is a very stereotypical journey of a fragile young woman slowly being transforming into a strong woman. As Tris, the film's star Shailene Woodley does just fine. Tris isn't as powerful of a character as Katniss from "The Hunger Games" but also isn't a complete bore like Bella Swan. She falls nicely in the middle. Though Woodley, at times, does play it bland at times she does own the role and makes you care about this young girl and her journey.

Director Neil Burger does the future well. It is a very sterile future that seems too clean and pure for its own good. As far as the look of everything it echoes science fiction films like "Logan's Run". Burger does have some pacing issues with a run time that went a bit too long. It is close to 150 minutes. Some of it, especially the beginning, could have been trimmed a bit. The only other fault I would give the director would be the waste of the role that Winslet has. What is with Hollywood casting great actresses to fill roles that aren't good enough for their talents? It happened in "Elysium" with Jodie Foster and it does in this film with Winslet. It isn't a terrible performance but one that just requires them to go through the motions of being a typical female baddie, right down to the wardrobe.

Those things that don't work are overshadowed by what does work. The film is quite smart in the way it handles what it has to say. The title of the film comes from those select people in society who have all the qualities of the five factions. They have the ability to have empathy and see situations as whole instead of just through their own factions beliefs. Of course, the higher ups, who are the Edrudities, don't want this because this would inspire hope in people through ideas. They are creating soldiers through brain washing their citizens into doing their dirty work. It is a an interesting way to communicate to younger people, who read these novels, the power of influence and the even greater power of fear of non-acceptance. Even though she can kick ass, which she does to her costar Milles Teller, who plays a sleaze bag here, who also starred with in the the terrific "The Spectacular Now", Tris' true power is her ability to influence others and show that they don't have to succumb to others beliefs. Woodley does have the pureness to sell this ideal. One of her initiation processes is facing her fears head on in a dream like sequence. Burger captures the insanity that goes through a young teenage girl's mind perfectly. Especially one in the wasted world where Beatrice grew up in. There are other surprisingly wise decisions made in this film to communicate the down falls of a controlled society which you should see for yourself.

While "The Hunger Games" shows its points through a grand and epic scale, "Divergent" is more cerebral in the way it lays out its evidence. "Divergent" maybe the answer to people who like a less flashy way of telling them the downfalls of the "perfect society

Need for Speed (2014)

The Need for a Brain

[5/10 · 30 March 2014]

Some of us waited for this film to see if Hollywood would botch another beloved video game franchise, while others awaited to see the first leading man role for Mr. Jesse Pinkman himself, aka Aaron Paul. While Paul does seem like he will be around for a while, he better have a better gift of picking his projects in the future. "Need for Speed" isn't something you would expect a two time Emmy winner to star in his post-glory days.

Long story short, the film is incredibly dumb. The film's witlessness is quite distracting at times through the story, character actions, and the atrocious script. The fact that this is based on a video game is no excuse; they weren't even trying here. Tobey Marshall, played by Paul, and his four idiotic friends, Maverick, Joe Peck, Finn, and Little Pete, own a car shop that means everything to them. Toby is a great racer that never took off like his bitter rival Dino Brewster. Brewster has it all. He has the racing career but what stings the most to Tobey is that Brewster took his old girlfriend, Anita. Dakota Johnson, sporting the brunette hair color that she will have for next year's "Fifty Shades of Grey" is utterly forgettable here. When Tobey and Brewster challenge each other to a race the results are tragic. Tobey gets framed for the tragedy as Brewster speeds away. A few years later, Tobey is let out of jail and his plan for revenge is put into motion. He has forty-eight hours to get from New York to the west coast to participate in a racing event that Brewster will be in. Since this is a big car commercial for Ford, he jumps into the Shelby Mustang, that him and his friends worked on before things went south, and heads out west.

Imogen Poots, who plays Julia Maddon, who was is interested in buying the vehicle joins our hero. Her reasoning is strictly business, making sure the car remains intact, but she falls for the mysterious bad boy. Julia is not a typical race movie vixen. She is quite grounded in look and attitude but those two factors make her not only attractive, but more interesting than any girl who has been in the majority of these films. Paul and Poots possess a great and playful chemistry that I look forward to seeing in their upcoming project "Along Way Down".

There other costars I can't be so kind too. I haven't seen such dully written characters in a very long time. Each of them are walking stereotypes to caricatures of annoyance, brashness, and loudness. This doesn't help Paul or Poots when they are interact with them in the film. Tobey and Julia are pretty normal characters and having them mix with the three other over the top characters throws off the balance of any of the select scenes. The main problem why these three guys suck is the script is absolutely terrible. There was one scene where one of Finn strips down naked and walks out of his job. It could have worked in a better film, but here is just seems really out of place and trying too hard to be funny. There are many scenarios like that that make you roll your eyes in the 120 minutes this thing runs. Many of the lines also are so laughably bad that you can't fathom that someone actually thought them up and confidently put them to paper The film also pushes the aspect of believability, even for a dumbed down action picture like this. Maverick constantly gains excess to airborne transportation as if he is taking his bicycle out for a spin. All the while constantly reminding us how cool he is in a very annoying fashion. One scene quickly shows him sneaking around a base as he steals a helicopter. Really, is that all it takes to get past security? Scott Mescudi, who plays Maverick, is written down to a loud supporting black guy character. None of what he was saying was funny or wise. It just came off as incredibly childish. One of my favorite absurd moments, in the bunch, is when the prisoners are watching the final race on a I-Pad that the officer in charge is holding. It is just too much of a stretch of the truth to buy into.

The scenes of destruction are quite nicely done. Scott Waugh, the director, gives the film realism that many present projects have lost. Many shots are done in the back seat of the car looking over the shoulder of the driver. It gives a nice weight to the speed these cars are supposed to be traveling. The car crashes seemed very real. The technical aspects of the film are very well done. Once the film picks up speed, during the races, you see the choices of Waugh come alive. Waugh, who directed the 2012 Navy Seal film "Act of Valor", used realism in the combat quite well. He has a gift in grounding action sequences that fellow directors drench in CGI. Though just like "Act of Valor", he is tone deaf when it comes to everything between his shining moments: the script and acting stand out the most in both films.

Finally, Aaron Paul. As I just stated, through this review, he has very little to work with but does make it work. He brings the same flawed man quality he brought to Pinkman. If he steers himself in the right direction I can see him becoming a decent film actor whose roles would require him to utilize what he does best, which is being a flawed antihero with a strong moral core. Someone who may not be the fastest, tallest, or smartest but has the will to come out on top. The only thing that will stop him is bland, dumb, and forgettable films like these.

300: Rise of an Empire (2014)

Fall of an Empire

[4/10 · 30 March 2014]

Seven years ago, Zack Synder introduced us to a blood soaked, visually original, and violent world that was "300". Partnered with lead actor Gerard Butler it worked in a way that it proudly wore its manliness on its sleeve. Does the new film succeed in what the first film beautifully established? One of the problems, and there are many, is that the new director Noam Murro plays it both too safe and overkills the foundation of the series. A montage of slow motion shots with blood flying at the camera, which even gets tiresome in 3D, loses its novelty quite quickly. Even in the original film Synder was close to achieving this unfortunate feat with the technique but kept it a bay. Maybe because it was new and fresh that it didn't become too much. Murro just uses the technique over which results in the coolness of the effect being quickly lost.

Zack Synder, the director of the first one, only has a writing credit this time. As stated he did get a bit trigger happy with the slow motion but the original film had many things going for it that made up for the constant slow downs. While "Empire" does start out strong with the story of the evil Xerxes and how he became the powerful leader that the 300 were out to destroy, it quickly falters to the effects. In this film, Themistocles, the hero of the story, and his men are out to fight the Persians like their Spartan brothers. Unlike their Spartan brothers, they aren't trained warriors, but regular men with a limited military knowledge and strength. This time, they are up against an evil, powerful, and combat advanced Artemisa. Artemisa's story is also quite interesting on how she becomes Xerxes right hand woman. I will save that for your own viewing since it is one of the few things that the film feels alive. It is also a saving grace that Artemisa is played by the fabulous Eva Green. She seems to be having a great time playing bad and it translates into the performance.

The main problem is that Sullivan Stapleton, who portrays Themistocles, and his band of men are no where as interesting as Gerard Butler's Leonidas and his men in the original film. The writers try to make them interesting through brave acts of courage and monologues but nothing sticks. Remembering anything of these men is as hard as fighting for your life in a wave full of swords and arrows. The men pride themselves on being normal men. (They still have those wash board Abs though). For normal men, they sure do fight as well, if not better, than their Spartan brothers. There is no time in the film where you are worried about if these men can take care of themselves.

"300: Rise of an Empire" is nice to look at. The visuals have been improved in the seven years. Outside of the two villains the film's story and characters are incredibly flat. The only main hope for this franchise is that it looks like there will be another one that will conclude in a trilogy. Let's just hope it is more exciting and well made because this series deserves a kick ass finale instead of the half assed effort the middle one got.

The Grand Budapest Hotel (2014)

Hotel Anderson

[6/10 · 30 March 2014]

Wes Anderson films have become events. This maybe because he has his own individual style that doesn't bow down to Hollywood or follow the pack. Even if his films aren't always home runs you can't hate on them too hard because they are completely his own. "The Grand Budapest Hotel" may not be the strongest film in the Anderson library but it is a beautiful film that has its moments.

Anderson's films all have the storybook look to them and what better way to drive this point home than to start the film with a young girl opening up a book that contains the narrative to this story? A young writer, who is briefly played by Tom Wilkinson then handed over to Jude Law, is staying in the famous Grand Budapest Hotel. Though it seems very docile at the moment we find out the hotel has a rich history. The young writer runs into Mr. Moustafa who knows a lot of the history about the place. When he was a young man and looking for his place in the world he worked at the hotel. Zero, as he was referred to as a young man, works under the great Gustave. Gustave runs things by making sure his customers are taken care of in every way possible and I mean every way possible. Let's just say Gustave has a taste for older women. One of these women are Madame D.. When she turns up dead, in an apparent murder, Gustave becomes a suspect even though she left him her most prized possession, a work of art "Boy with Apple". Gustave, with the help of Zero, must secure the painting from Madame D's evil son, Dmitri, and find out who killed her.

Ralph Fiennes is someone who doesn't venture into comedy that often. Here, he gives Gustave a a playful nature that should provide the actor enough evidence to try comedy some more. He sells the physical comedy as well as the witty script by Anderson. Much of his screen time is shared with Zero who is played by Tony Revolori. Revolori who, even though he has had small parts in other films, gets an introduction credit in this film. Fiennes and him have great chemistry together. Zero looks up to Gustave and Revolori sells it with his naive wide eyed optimism even when Gustave passively insults him at times. Overall, Gustave is hard on Zero because he sees the determination in the young man's eyes. The film wouldn't have worked without the chemistry of these two succeeding.

The film's quirkiness does muddle the central story of the murder mystery. In Anderson's early works he seemed somewhat restrained in the way he revealed the oddness of his films. It seems, at times, that he purposely tries to inject each scene with some Wes Anderson-ness. Even though the supporting characters are perfectly played by some of Hollywood's interesting actors they seem more like caricatures than fleshed out people. Still, it is still great to see actors like Saoirse Ronan, who like Fiennes rarely venture into comedy, cut loose. She also like Fiennes does a great job and should do more comedy.

Every shot is beautifully shot with Anderson's precision to detail present. Even a shot of a dessert treat is expertly filmed. Anderson shoots the film in different aspect ratios in each time period. The main part of the story is shot in 4:3 with black blocks on both sides of the screen. This may annoy some viewers but I found it a bold choice that I quickly got used to. The film also mixes sets, miniatures, background paintings, and real life locations quite well. When the movie does sag a bit in its narrative your attention will be picked up again by the gorgeousness shot by cinematographer Robert D. Yeoman.

"The Grand Budapest Hotel" isn't a terrible picture by any means. There are moments of greatness in it. It just lacks the natural comedic power that similar odd ball pictures like Anderson's "Rushmore" or "The Fantastic Mr. Fox" contained. Anderson shouldn't have to prove to anyone that he is different from the pack. We have seen this in his growth over the last few years as a film maker but it doesn't seem like he does.

RoboCop (2014)

Fails not only as a remake but as its own film

[2/10 · 12 February 2014]

Have you ever wondered what Alex Murphy and his machine counter-part Robocop would be like if a film about the him/them became more about his struggle than the fun of actually being a robot? In the 2014 remake of the 1987 science-fiction masterpiece, of the same name, you will get your answer. Unfortunately, the journey to the answer malfunctions like bad wiring.

Director Jose Padilha does the impossible. He makes a movie about a walking war machine into one boring mess. How does he accomplish this? In this film Alex, as the original, is a cop, family man, and all around good guy. Michael K. Williams, who people may know from the two HBO series, "Boardwalk Empire" and "The Wire", plays his partner who is shot during a drug bust that is run by the kingpin Antoine Vallon. Meanwhile Omnicrop, a technological corporation, who are building war machines to prevent from more American soldiers dying, run into a slight snag in their plans. The government wants the operation shut down since machines don't have the most important components in war..human instinct and emotions. Once these war machines are engaged they have no second thought or care who is in their way. The CEO of the company Raymond Sellas, who is played by Michael Keaton, is trying to work with the lead scientist Dr. Dennett Norton on a solution. Dennett, has been experimenting on disabled war veterans with technology that can act as limbs. Sellas wants to test the human war machine hybrid out and has several candidates for the job. Dennett's concern is maintaining the human element of the experiment and not choosing someone who isn't mentally capable of being a machine. Gary Oldman gives Dennett the emotional weight this film needs. It isn't surprising that an actor of his caliber accomplishes this feat,even though the script is emotionally stunted and all over the place. His performance is one of the only things redeemable about this pointless film.

Joel Kinnaman's Alex Murphy is nearly killed by Vallon's men when a bomb placed under his car ignites one night when he goes to shut the alarm off. It is then where he becomes Robocop. We do get to see what remaining parts were left after the explosion, disconnected from the robot body, in a scene that is quite terrifying. Kinnaman goes through the motions of playing the title character. He provides a bit of depth to a very underwritten character. Outside of recreating emotions from scenes of the older film he doesn't do much more than act like a robot and attempt to draw drama from an empty script. When the corporation gives him a test run against war machines and Rick Mattox, played by Jackie Earl Haley, who is fairly okay as a military type, Dennett and Sellas watch as our hero proves himself. Even though this would have been a chance for the film to come alive it is bogged down by action that doesn't have any jolt and scientific babble from Dennett, who keeps telling us that Alex is still in there. It is as if Pahdila was afraid of turning this into a generic action film. There is a middle between thoughtful and dumb. Pahdila seems to be in a different area, which is the area of boring. None of the modern effects or action feel like they have life in them. Sure, they look good but are hallow.

Oldman's job seems to injecting his warm intellect, which worked so well in the "Dark Knight" franchise. He is practically playing Gordon as a scientist. I have a feeling that Oldman may have the role of being a white Morgan Freeman for now on; in the way he will be the older and wiser voice in all the chaos of any action film he is dropped in.

Remember the guy who did this to poor Alex? Of course you don't because that was three paragraphs ago. That is basically the same treatment he gets in the film. See, he really isn't the villain. He pops up near the end when Alex gets his chance at redemption. By this point though so many plots have been thrown at us and none have have stuck, which results in his downfall meaning nothing. Wouldn't you want the guy who was responsible for turning Alex into a machine to have an epic send off? Nope, not this film. I understand they were trying something new with the story but placing an non-threatening, and I mean ridiculously bland, Michael Keaton as the villain was a bad mistake. He was supposed to be this powerful and terrifying villain but he is neither played or written like it. The character is possibly the worst CEO type villain I have ever seen. Keaton doesn't add anything to it. He seems to be playing it like a nice guy trying to be bad.

As I said, many plots and feelings are thrown at us but none of it sticks. It is a film that tries to do so much but fails miserably. They even throw in Samuel L. Jackson who just seems out of place and there for the sake of giving the film some type of excitement. I will use this one sentence to compare this one to the original: this film wishes it had even a hair of the originality, intellect, satire, violence, and thrills that the original possessed. Instead, it lies there like a beautifully CGI'ed dead fish

Underworld: Awakening (2012)

Why did Kate come back for this?

[1/10 · 28 February 2012]

There is an old saying that "money is the root of all evil". This statement is usually reserved for people involved with bribery, corruption, banking, and politics. Well, I am taking that statement and applying it to everyone involved in the making of this film. This movie was made to suck money from our pockets by people who don't care about a once worthy movie property. They destroy it.

The original "Underworld" was a fresh take on the centuries old rivalry between vampires and werewolves (called "lycans" here). It wasn't game changing cinema, but a movie with interesting characters, worthy performances, and slick action sequences. This movie, clocking in at a incredibly short 73 minutes, not only destroys, but turns its back on what once was a promising series. The second film was as good as the first. I did not see the third, but heard it was good. When people rip on "Twilight" for the terrible acting, the teenage girls now have a film to use as evidence to show it ain't that bad in Stephanie Meyer's universe. Everyone in this film is terrible; even Kate Beckinsale. Beckinsale, who was so good in the first two, is sleep walks though this film. I must give her some credit, at least she is better than the films terrible villains. The characters are lame, as are the actors playing them. They come off as laughable, not frightening or horrifying in anyway. The once cool designs of the Lycans have been replaced by rubber looking coyotes. Worst of all, there is not a single memorable action scene in the movie. It is just extremely boring to watch, considering all the gunfire going on.

Former director, now writer, Len Wiseman, tries to inject some emotion into the movie by creating a relationship between Beckinsale's character and a hybrid child created from her DNA. There is only so much you can do in the movie's short time span and given the amount the screen time these two have together, it doesn't work. It doesn't feel natural, only a cheap ploy to create some type of humanity in this action snooze fest.

Michael Sheen, who played a Lycon in the first three movies, wisely bowed out of this one. Beckinsale, I have no idea why she came back after walking away from the third one. My only guess is she got a pretty good amount of cash to reprise her role. The film does establish something; it is like its main character: empty, soul less and dead on arrival.

Win Win (2011)

Win Win Review

[8/10 · 22 April 2011]

"They don't know who you are". Lawyer and part time wrestling coach Mike (Paul Giamatti) says this to his star young player, Kyle (Alex Shaffer). The same can be applied to the young new actor who plays the troubled, but gifted Alex.

Director and co-writer Thomas McCarthy, chose the real life all state champion, Shaffer, to portray a young man whose only escape from his hectic life is his love and talent for high school wrestling. How does the kid do? This reviewer thinks the kid has found a brand new career in Hollywood. More on that later.

Outside of the newcomer, how is the movie? It is one of the best films of the year. It is a movie full of tough choices, laughs, and amazing performances. McCarthy, who gave us 2008's 'The Visitor", which I haven't seen, but was a critical and public success, has hit a home run. Giamatti's Mike, is a good guy, who has just had one negative thing thrown at him time and time again. He sees an opportunity to make some extra cash for his struggling law firm by illegally beating the system. He uses one of his clients, who is suffering from early signs of dementia. Even though he is stealing the money from the client, he in turn takes of the client. On top of supporting a family, he also coaches a wrestling team that is the laughing stock of all the local schools. It isn't until the client's grandson, Kyle, comes in that things start to turn around not only for Mike, but Kyle. Kyle, comes from a broken home where the mother is in and out of drug rehab centers. He wants some type of stable relationship and he finds it in Mike's family. Mike's wife, Jackie (Amy Ryan), and their two daughters take a liking to him. Just when things are looking up for Mike and his team, who Kyle helps turn into a winning team, the mother comes back and chaos ensues.

Even though at first glance the movie may seem about wrestling, that is only a plot device for a movie about human relationships. Shaffer, who is much better than half of the actors his age, shows as much confidence as an actor as he does on the mat. Jackie and Kyle's relationship is very touching at times. Jackie is the mother bird mending the broken wing that is Kyle's life. It is nothing too cheesy or overly dramatic, it is perfectly balanced.

Giamatti, how is he? What do you think? He has a much more restrained role in this film. Even though he doesn't have the looks of the a leading man, he has something better, something that won't fade...TALENT! McCarthy perfectly balances the comedy and drama here. It never gets too silly, but also never gets so mundane with the drama. The performances are the strong point here and they are working off a fantastic script.

Scream 4 (2011)

Scream 4 Review

[4/10 · 19 April 2011]

We have all been waiting for this movie to come back. You can count on both hands how many horror movies have borrowed or down right stolen the formula that the "Scream" franchise has created. There have been some successful copycats, but most of them fall short because they couldn't capture the fine line that "Scream" perfectly walked. So how is "Scream 4"? Sadly, it has become a victim to it's own success.

Usually, when things in a franchise go south, you can blame it on the departure of the original director and screenwriter, right? Nope, not here. Both director Wes Craven and screen writer Kevin Williamson have returned. You can't blame it on the disappearance of any of the old cast members either. Survivors David Arquette, Neve Campbell, and Courtney Cox have all returned to be in the movie that made them stars. The problem is that the five people I just mentioned all return, but seem like they are all phoning it in.

Heroine Sydney Prescott (Campbell) has returned to the town where it all began. She is now a published author, who returns to do a book signing. Dewey and Gale (Arquette and Cox) are now married, and he is the sheriff of the town. Prescott, is staying with her Aunt and little cousin, Jill (Emma Roberts). The rest of the characters, outside of Kirby (a surprisingly good Hayden Panettiere), are are expendable and don't have the charm of any of the characters of past "Scream" films. Usually, the victims have little to no character development, which is understandable since they are just meat for Ghostface to stab into, but to call these characters one dimensional would be a compliment. The original "Scream" characters had a certain character trait that connected them to us: Randy's humor or Cotton's bravery. We feel nothing for these characters when they get knocked off.

Williamson's screenplay doesn't do anything different. He sticks too close to the formula he created. The digital age part of the movie was a nice touch. He gives us a good insight into how a killer from this generation would do everything more elaborately than a killer from the 90's. Once again, the answers to the questions of how the killer operates is in the hands of the cinema geek at the local high school. And once again that person is a main suspect along with the creepy ex boyfriend of Jill. Williamson tackles the theme of remakes in this, but while he tries to do a commentary on it, he sucks the fun out of it. Many of the elements in this film, outside of the recycled characters have been seen in the other three movies. Nothing feels fresh or new outside of the insertion of the media devices (twitter, facebook, etc). The great Wes Craven seems just as lazy as Williamson. Yes, there are a few brilliant moments in the film, but nothing really stands out. All the kills are pretty standard. Even though it does carry an R rating, the violence isn't as bad as the older films. Finally, the ending...the motive, killer, and end scene are just too much of a parody. The performance by the performer (keeping it gender neutral) is just so hammy as is the reasoning for the murders.

FINAL MARK UPS (out of 10) Acting (6): It is a slasher film, so you aren't expecting anything resembling Shakespeare. Panettiere, gives a performance that surprised me. She is the most fleshed out of the new characters. The killer will be nominated for a Razzie (the awards for worst acting) Directing (5): Nothing new here. Craven sticks to the same routine and it never feels dangerous.

Writing (4): Some funny one liners, but very weak material. The ending...Oh, God.. How did anyone think this was a good idea? Wild Card= Horror/Scares (6): There are some good boo moments in the film, but for the most part it feels very tamed for an R movie.

Final Word: Has the golden age of horror really passed us? "Scream" was the king of horror, but this film just falls flat on almost every level. Is the standard of horror going down thanks to the cheap scares we have endured over the last ten Pg-13 years? Will it ever come back? I hope so, because Wes, you can do MUCH better than this.

Star rating (out of 4): 1.5 Stars

Due Date (2010)

Due Date Review

[5/10 · 25 November 2010]

Can lightening strike twice with director Todd Phillips, director of the highest grossing comedy of all time, "The Hangover"? Phillip's has taken one of the ingredients from that film and thrown it in here. The specific ingredient is Mr. Zach Galafinakis, who absolutely stole "The Hangover" in every scene he was in, which was basically the whole film. What made "The Hangover" work so well was the chemistry between the leads. This is what makes "Due Date" stall a little bit. Sure, the parts where Downey and Galafinakis are conflicting with each other are believable, but the parts where they are supposed to be friends isn't. Galafinakis is basically playing the same role of the weird fat man as he did in "The Hangover", but the character of Downey Jr. is just plain mean spirited and very one dimensional.

The film is about Peter Highman (Downey Jr.) who must get back from Los Angles before his wife gives birth to their first child. Everything goes to plan until he meets Ethan Trembly (Galafinakis), who is an aspiring actor who wants to try to make it big in the city of dreams. These two are then kicked off the plane and put on the no fly list during the first of their many conflicts in the film. Both decide to share a rented car and drive to L.A.. From here, everything that could go wrong does.

The film definitely has laughs, but it seems there is no passion in the jokes or anything else in the film. The film gets the job done, but with a very passive feeling to it. Another problem is that everything, well outside of Ethan's dog favorite past time, has been done before and way better. "Due Date" offers nothing really new to the table. It takes existing plots points and tries to make them more disgusting.

It isn't that I hated the film, it just is very lazy and has absolutely no spark what so ever. Hopefully Phillips phoned this one in and is saving his passion for "The Hangover 2".

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (2010)

Harry Potter Review

[7/10 · 22 November 2010]

"Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" follows our heroes Harry, Ron, and Hermione, as they set out to find the seven objects, known as Horcruxes in the film, that will evidently destroy the evil Voldermort. It is a extremely difficult task since not only are they hidden in unknown places, but also the knowledge on how to destroy them is unknown too. There is also one more person who faces an extremely difficult task too, director David Yates. Can he possibly make a Potter movie that not only takes place out of the familiar Hogwarts and is much more dramatic still lovable to J.K. Rowling's fans? David Yates has surpassed Christopher Columbus in terms of handling the reigns with the popular series. Columbus up until now was the only one who directed more than one Potter film. The third film (Azakaban) was directed by Alfanso Cauron and the fourth (Goblet) was directed by Mike Newell. Yates, then came in and handled the fifth (Order), sixth (Half-Blood Prince), and finally this film, that has been split into two parts. The reasoning being because nothing is being cut out of the this time around. Fans rejoiced when they found out they would be getting a five hour conclusion to their beloved series. Yates has said to have brought out the maturity in the series that it needed. Under his eye, the films definitely have more of an adult feel to them. Signs of the change were present the second "Order of Phoenix" started with Potter's evil cousin, Dudley, finally got what was coming to him. Even before Dudley came face to face with one of the most feared inhabitants of the wizarding world, you could sense something terrible was bound to happen. Yates perfectly nailed the sense of dreariness through the flushed out colors and perfectly placed camera angles. Then in "The Half Blood Prince" he created a very sympathetic character out of Horace Slughorn, with the help of Jim Broadbeant. Here, he keeps the same gift for creating dread and despair. One of the first scenes in the film, a poor ex-teacher at Hogwarts, hangs in the air while Voldermort's crew discusses their next move. We know, as does she, it is just a matter of time before she bites the dust. It is detail like this that make these films establish the dark tone that Yates is going for.

Before I make the poor guy seem like a one-dimensional director, I will point out some of the other strong points that he possesses as a director. There are some scenes of thrilling action and creativity that are just a sight to see. When Harry, Ron, and Hermione, must infiltrate the Ministry of Magic, they drink the physical form changing Poly Juice Potion, to turn into awkward adults. This scene is a joy to watch because it is adventurous and quite comical. Another scene is when Hermione tells a wizard fairy tale. I won't go into detail about it, but it shows how much these films have taken an identity of their own. An identity that we will only get to enjoy for only 150 minutes more.

Grade= B

A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)

Not the "Nightmare" critics have been saying

[6/10 · 4 May 2010]

A horror remake that doesn't suck. Director Samuel Bayer definitely has a theatrical sense of direction that is weighed down by recreating scenes that didn't need to be remade. I actually liked the version of Freddy that Jackie Earl Haley gave us. It is what Freddy is supposed to be: dark and scary. (unlike the jokster he became later in the original series). One big compliant is the lazy and uninspiring performance by the lead actress, Rooney Mara. God, was she just a bore to watch. All in all, if you are a fan of Freddy, check this out. A sequel has been announced that hopefully will be more of the director's vision than rehashing old material from the old films.

Final Fantasy XIII (2009 Video Game)

Final Fantasy XIII makes its grand entrance on the next-gen platforms

[9/10 · 8 April 2010]

This has been an event four years in the making. With the power of PS3 and Xbox360 behind it, Final Fantasy XIII is something special to behold.

From the first cut scene, to the unforgettable race track scene near the end of the game, the graphics are something that we have not seen before. There were moments in this game that took my breath away and made me think how far we have come since Final Fantasy VII.

The major criticism of this game is how linear it is. I do agree that the game is very straightforward, but that is the only real major problem I had with it. Even that, it didn't really bother me as much as my fellow gamers.

I think the best feature of the game is the battle system. It kind of reminded me of FF X-2, where you can change battle styles in the middle of battle. This makes for not only exciting battles, but battles that must be thought through with careful detail. It also prevents from you using the same characters the whole game, at least for me. I had the same team throughout most of the game, until the end.

The story is pretty interesting and the characters are well rounded. If you love video games or Final Fantasy...pick up this game...It is damn fun.

The Ghost Writer (2010)

Polanski's "Ghost" is anything but transparent

[9/10 · 31 March 2010]

Roman Polanski's "The Ghost Writer" is what Hollywood and the movie going audience needs. In a time when IMAX is dominating the box office, audiences are going to be seeing more movies far more concerned with impressing audiences with visual gimmicks than good old fashion story telling. What Hollywood doesn't understand is that no matter how polished the effect, nothing beats a well told story.

Polanski has grabbed some of the finest actors that American audiences will recognize (McGregor and Brosnan)and others from across the ocean that they have probably never heard of (Williams and Wilkenson). In the film, former Prime Minister Adam Lang, has completed his new memoir and needs a ghost writer to revise his copy, after the former one is found dead. Enter "The Ghost" (McGregor) who's character isn't even given a name. As The Ghost researches further into his subject's life, he finds evidence that one can't dismiss as some what parallel to a real life ex-prime minister's decisions during the course of the Iraq war.

This isn't a political movie though, it is a suspenseful masterpiece that we don't see properly done these days. The grim mood of the film is elevated by the cinematography and score; which are pitch perfect. Polanski's supreme direction also gets amazing performances out of every single actor in the film. McGregor, as the Ghost, is a man who goes from not caring about anything having to do with politics to being a man on a mission. Olivia Williams, who plays Lang's wife, Ruth, plays the role of a damaged, but mysterious woman quite well. The real stand out here is Pierce Brosnan as Adam Lang. Brosnan has a very intense face and Polanski utilizes it to further an already great performance. Even though the movie portrays him as a slime ball, you can't help but to feel sorry for him. That my friends is the work of a great actor. I will not give away what happens in the end, but Brosnan gives a speech about keeping the world safe near the end of the film. The speech is full of emotion and Brosnan sells it with all his heart.

It is a real shame this movie came out now because by the time award season rolls around, it will be sadly forgotten. I feel though that Brosnan's performance will have the longevity to survive in the minds until next fall.

In conclusion I will say this... This will probably be one of the best films of the year.

Up in the Air (I) (2009)

A movie with so many layers

[9/10 · 21 December 2009]

Just like a memorable song or book, a film could be a representation of a certain time period. "Up in the Air" is not only a masterfully written, wonderfully acted, and superbly directed picture, but it is one that is extremely layered. Look past the basic premise of the film and you will see that it shows how the world is changing through relationships, business, and technology. There is a film society called "National Film Registry", which films that belong to it are significant to a time period. I could not think of one better than this film to show future generations what was going on in the start of the new century. This is a film that you can seriously have a great conversation about with a friend. Isn't that what great art does?

The Greatest Show on Earth (1952)

Not the Greatest, but not the worst.

[8/10 · 18 June 2009]

I stumbled upon this page one day after seeing this movie as one of the best picture winners. As I snooped around, I saw how hated this film is around here, you people are really brutal. I just finished watching it and I liked it. It was a bit long in the tooth, but the performances were very good and the film had an epic scope to it. Back in the day, this film was probably a blast to watch, it is huge. I haven't seen the other four nominees, but I enjoyed this movie. There are some lines I liked in the movie and thought the behind the scenes stuff was cool. I have been more upset with other best picture winners than with this one. Definitely check this one out!

The Soloist (2009)

Shows how great Wright is as a director

[6/10 · 27 May 2009]

The Soloist- *** This movie is a test in my eyes, showing how great of a director Joe Wright is, for those of you who were unsure. This is the man who brought us the fantastic 2005 version of "Pride and Prejudice" and 2007's wonderful "Atonement". With those movies, he was working with great stories based on best selling novels. Here, he is working from the source material of an author, but it is a story that is very cliché.

The author is Steve Lopez, who is played by Robert Downey Jr., who's life was changed after he meets a homeless man, Nathaniel Ayers, who sits in a traffic tunnel, with his cello, beautifully playing classical music. Lopez, in the film, is divorced, broken and lost. Even though the real Lopez is happily married and one of the L.A. Times most valuable resources, I understand why they made slight changes to the character. This is a typical Hollywood feel good story, right down to the forced moments of emotion with the instrumental music kicking in even more than usual.

This movie was supposed to come out in the Fall of 2008, upgrading its chance to garner some Oscar nominations for Best Picture, Best Actor and etc. Shortly before it was supposed to be released, the movie was puled from its date and placed in a spring time slot. When this happened, many questioned how good it actually was.

As stated before, the movie is not bad, it is actually well made for what it was, but it is all too familiar. The performances are even very well done, Downey Jr. and Foxx have great chemistry. Separately, they are even great. Downey, gives his character a vulnerable charm that comes across quite well. Foxx, who could of just made Nathaniel a one dimensional character, makes the role something worth the price of admission.

As I write this review, I have really no desire to go into it. I know I gave it three stars, but it is given because the movie would have been a disaster if it did not have talent behind it.

Adventureland (2009)

Roller-coaster of Love

[8/10 · 7 April 2009]

"Adventureland"- ***1/2 BY: Kevin Muller The marketing for this film is terrible, just absolutely awful. The studio is pushing this film as the next "Superbad", just because the director of that film directed this gem. The truth is, this is far different than "Superbad", besides a few gross out gags. Where that film prided itself on its crudeness and vulgarity, this film prides itself on heart and pure emotion.

"Adventureland" has the feel of teen movies both from the 80's and 90's (more the 80's though). You have a sensitive character who is still trying to figure out who he is, and by a sequence of events, falls in love and more importantly, finds his true self. What makes the movie even more appealing is that it not only doesn't treat its characters as generic stereotypes, but as humans, which makes them more appealing to the audience.

Our main character here is James (played perfectly by Jessie Eisenberg) who has just graduated college and is looking forward to his trip to Europe with his fellow pal. The trip is not only supposed to be his graduation present, but also a way to escape his recent heartbreak, due to an emotional breakup. Things unfortunately go south with his finances, which forces him to get a job at the local amusement park. There he meets some interesting people: the two owners (Bill Hader and Kristen Wiig), nerdy Joel (the likable Martin Starr) and the beautiful "Em" (Kristen Stewert).

James and Em quickly fall for each other, but there is one small problem, she is in a very dysfunctional relationship with Connell (Ryan Reynolds), who plays the married park maintenance guy. Reynolds, who usually adds the goofy humor to every film he is in, holds back to really give the character a deepness that I was surprised he pulled off. I thought his performance was going to be similar to his Monty character from "Waiting". I applaud the restraint that he held throughout the film, because the character could have gone down that route very easily.

What makes this film work though is that director Greg Mottola doesn't overdo any aspect of the movie. The comedy, drama, and situations are all well balanced, which makes the film feel real. As I stated before, Reynolds is grounded, as is the rest of the cast with their performances. Eisenberg, who is accused of playing Michael Cera, gives a very layered and human performance. I am sorry to you Cera fans, but the awkward and caring guy thing was around way before Cera did it. Stewert, is just perfect in this role, she gives Em vulnerability, but makes her lovable at the same time. These two give perfect performances because neither of them have all the answers and it is about the deep connection they share, not just about the sex.

Go see this film, it deserves to be seen. This is a movie that Hollywood doesn't make anymore; a sweet, smart, moving and humorous experience that hopefully starts a chain of movies like it to follow.