mrwickedproductions Reviews

Hotel Transylvania 3: Summer Vacation (2018)

The Drac is Back (and for the last time?)

[4/10 · 31 July 2018]

What started out with an interesting premise and a positive message surrounding prejudice and acceptance has now burnt out the end of its wick of creativity and originality. Hotel Transylvania, the over-the-top, goofy family franchise returns with an unusual summer release (as oppose to its previous fall releases) to entertain on merely a surface level, with snappy animation and glittery colors. A message of acceptance is weakly rehashed inbetween irrelevant montages of FUN. It's summer vacation after all, baby! Chillax, the franchise is on its third installment. It tried hard to escape the traps and ease of family entertainment for the most part, and now it just couldn't fight it anymore. At least it's not a Christmas movie, right?

I'm surprised the director, Genndy Tartakovsky, still has enough energy to pump out characters with ADHD and Bipolar disorders (seriously, even the giant puppy dog, Tinkles, suffers from both of these conditions). But if you consider Tartakovsky's previous works, it's not all that surprising. Along with cartoon shows Star Wars: Clone Wars and Samurai Jack, Tartakovsky has also worked on Dexter's Laboratory and The Power Puff Girls. You can see the crazy now, can't you?

But crazy isn't necessarily a bad thing when it comes to animation. In fact, nowadays it's the norm, what with your Adventure Time and Teen Titans Go!. Unfortunately, there's a reason why animation has a bad rap for being just for kids. It's the imagination and the free rein that comes with it. Through animation, filmmakers can "easily" create bright characters against colorful backdrops doing anything they want. Create the same in a live-action movie and well... done properly the movie could look authentic and amazing. Done properly.

So really, can you fault Hotel Transylvania 3: Summer Vacation for all its overdramatic expressions, quick turning heads, and ridiculous backdrops? No, of course not. But you can fault it for the story. This time, Dracula is in pursuit of a romance himself with a human, Ericka, who turns out to be a descendant of the "monster-killing" Van Helsing family. (Unfortunately, no killing actually happens, hence the quotes.) Unlike the first Hotel Transylvania, where Dracula's daughter and a human boy fall in love despite great odds, Dracula and Ericka end up together fairly easily. Sure, the duo overcome a monstrous kraken controlled by sick beats, but the internal struggle just isn't there. Dracula, the protagonist of the series, is already cool with humans and monsters being friendly towards one another. His daughter married a human and had a kid after all. What makes the first two movies bearable, and even appealing to watch (I actually really enjoyed the first one), is the drastic character arc that Drac experiences. In the first movie, Drac as the protagonist hates and fears humans, but over the course of the story, grows fond of them and accepts his daughter relationship with Johnny. In the second movie, Drac as the protagonist cannot accept his grandson not becoming a monster, but over the course of the story, accepts his grandson for who he is. The second movie does have a slightly weaker arc compared to the first, since the grandson, Dennis, does end up becoming a vampire, which makes everyone happy (with relief?). But at least a character arc exist, which influences and changes Drac's perception of society and life. In the third movie, Drac as the protagonist attempts to woo a female human. The only hardwired way of thinking that changes is the villain's, and that happens in a very unfulfilling and cliché way (with Drac saving Van Helsing's life). There is no originality in Summer Vacation amongst the borrowed, unoriginal characters. Even at the climax of the final scene, the movie has all of the animated characters dance to "Macarena," the theme song of many animated family films (including Ferdinand). It's no wonder animated movies are labeled for kids-the stereotype is constantly being reinforced with butt dancing.

But hey (macarena), maybe you like to "Do the Macarena." While the song is usually my cue to leave the theater or a party, you can't deny it is silly, simple, and FUN! Too bad I can only use two of those descriptors to describe Hotel Transylvania 3.

Incredibles 2 (2018)

Are the Incredibles still, well... incredible?

[8/10 · 24 July 2018]

It's a hard question to answer right off the bat. They're super, that's for sure, but incredible? Perhaps if Incredibles 2 was released 10 years ago they'd still be. But in today's popular culture, while the woman power message is relevant, the story has missed it's timing-by a decade or so.

The first movie, The Incredibles, was the movie that solidified my fascination with Pixar. And frankly, it wasn't a difficult thing to do. The 2004 animation has everything needed to captivate a 14-year-old boy in a world of supers while keeping that fascination grounded with everyday family matters. It is a well rounded adventure, truly for the whole family to enjoy and come back to. At that young age, I was inclined to follow Violet's point of view of beginning to experience teenage angst and worries. I'm not at all embarrassed to admit that I had a bit of a crush on the socially awkward character.

Of course, now that admission would be wrong to reaffirm, considering I'm 14 years older now than I was back then, while the Parr family picks up literally right where they left off at the end of the last movie. In my initial viewing of Incredibles 2, it was thrilling to see the super family and Frozone take on the Underminer. That conflict had 14 years of anticipation to satisfy, and it does fairly well with mildly interesting action paired with top-of-the-line animation. I should state right now that none of the action in Incredibles 2 comes close to the release of pure excitement that the first movie brings, particularly with Dash figuring out that he can run on water, chortling as he does so with the soundtrack silencing and crescendoing back in. There are plenty of fights in the sequel, but sadly no scene is as iconic and memorable.

As an older boy, I find myself relating more with Elastigirl this time around, who spends a majority of the movie out of the home purposely seeking danger in order to show a super's perspective to the world. While the movie focusing on a female protagonist is the new thing in America (not sure if "new" is appropriate considering it's been done many times in recent years with a wink and a nod) many of the plot devices and story elements have been done before, surprisingly enough even in the first movie! In both films, the protagonist is approached by a wealthy, eccentric billionaire claiming to be sympathetic towards supers and wants to give them a chance, despite supers being illegal. The protagonist, through their new employer, carries out hero work, unbeknownst to them that the one behind the villainous strings is the one who hired them. In the end, the villain attempts to use the protagonist to carry out their own agenda to demean the existence of supers.

Syndrome's classic line from the first movie is "And when everyone's super, no one will be."

The Screenslaver says something along the lines of "Make supers illegal permanently."

Both villains are backed by reasonable and heartfelt stories, but Syndrome's boyhood dream of wanting to become a super along with his past connection with Mr. Incredible makes him a far more complex antagonist. Mr. Incredible essentially made the villain Syndrome, while the Screenslaver is more of a female villain in a female lead adventure. It's the classic, the protagonist is a woman, so let's make the antagonist a woman as well! It's cool, but nothing personal is going on between Helen Parr and Evelyn Deavor, besides the awkward nods of acknowledgement tossed back and forth between the two. When Evelyn reveals herself to be "the mastermind behind the mastermind," and Elastigirl says, "I trusted you!" I couldn't help but think, Why, at the same time Evelyn replies with the exact same thought. Just because she's a woman? Just because you gave her a nod and she gave you one back? That revelation was not an enjoyable scene. In fact, I'll label it as the worst scene in the movie. It didn't help that the true identity of the villain was more predictable than the twists in Ocean's 8.

But at least, like its predecessor, Incredibles 2 allows the rest of the characters an opportunity to shine. Jack-Jack gets a bit of a long sequence showcasing some of his new and old powers while fighting a raccoon. Fun, but again, a bit long. Edna Mode seems to steal the show for some people with her unique characteristics and manner of speech. And Violet and Dash provide the everyday family problems of boy trouble and math respectively (you never know, it's 2018). You'd imagine that there would be plenty of laughs to be had with Mr. Incredible struggling to fulfill the role as a stay-at-home dad, but most of the situational setups procure sweet, tender moments instead, which is typical of Pixar. However, there are no tearjerker scenes. (The Incredibles franchise hasn't come to that yet.)

Either way, through empathy or humor, the latest Pixar film with leave you smiling. It won't be an incredible smile like Frozone's, but something along the lines of super.

Annihilation (I) (2018)

Horrifically disappointing

[6/10 · 5 March 2018]

The intriguing trailer with "The Alien" melody sold me on watching Annihilation in theaters instead of waiting for it to appear on Netflix. The synthesized notes promised an eerie, captivating, and horrific journey into Alex Garland's adaptation of the first book of the "Southern Reach" trilogy. And horrific is right. Horrifically disappointing. The film follows Lena (Natalie Portman) and fellow scientist/volunteers into a mysterious "Shimmer" that changes the land it encroaches upon. All of the previous military volunteers that have entered are never heard from again, except for Lena's husband (Oscar Issac). In order to save her husband from mysterious health problems, Lena joins a group of scientists to study the "Shimmer" and reach its core at the lighthouse. Interestingly enough, the group is all female, which reflects our current climate of the all female dream team (Ghostbusters, Ocean's). The film has a great cast with amazing performances, blah blah blah. Okay, now that we got that out of the way, let's get to the negatives. In the "Shimmer," the group makes groundbreaking discoveries, while attempting to survive. But the film digs its own grave when it comes to caring about the characters and building suspense due to its opening, which shows Lena post journey out of the "Shimmer" being interviewed by scientists. She mentions who dies, who goes missing, and the very fact that she's there in a lab room confirms that she survives as well. So scenes later where danger is imminent, we already have a good idea as to what will happen. Talk about fun. When we compare Annihilation with Alex Garland's previous sci-fi film, Ex Machina, the flaws become obvious. Unlike Ex Machina, Annihilation is not focused. It's an adventure, drama, fantasy, horror, mystery, and thriller. There's the aches of love, the influence of psychology, the beauty of evolution, the creation of monsters, the existence of aliens, and the crisis of existence. The film spreads itself too thin, with more ambitious topics than there are baddies in Spider-Man 3. I would rather watch a story that delves into one or two of these ideas, than try to tackle many parts of a different whole. Like Arrival (which is a much better alien mystery), Annihilation relies on several twists of its own. But compared to the weight that they're given, the twists don't hold enough impact or surprise. You could even say that the final twist is a failed attempt at an Inception like ending. With Inception, viewers are so engrossed with the dream world and its implications that the twist of whether Leo's character is still in a dream or not comes naturally. In Annihilation, a question is asked in the end which falls flat on itself like a teenager trying to sound deeper than s/he actually is. The question shouldn't have been asked. It easily takes away the buildup of the final scene and makes the whole ending laughable. David Ellison, financier at Paramount, was concerned that the film was "too intellectual" and "too complicated" and wanted changes to be made to appeal to a broader audience (in order words, dumb it down). I couldn't disagree more, not for the same reasons as the director, but because there's nothing complicated about the film. Intellectual? Sure, it deals with science. But the actual science within the "Shimmer" is completely fictional and relies on the entertainment value to make any of it believable. Complicated? Now that's just an insult to moviegoers. Although don't be surprised if you run across several people who bought into the film as though-provoking. On the surface, it's shrouded with stupendous fantasy. But at its very core, like the one in the "Shimmer," it is as purposeless as the alien that lives there. Chad: 3/5 (Still, the movie is really pretty (e.g., effects, Shimmer, Natalie Portman) and the soundtrack is chilling.)

The Post (2017)

Better than Spotlight, but forgettable

[7/10 · 27 February 2018]

Back in the 1960s, while the fruitless conflict in Vietnam raged on, newspapers discovered a massive cover up of government secrets that spanned four U.S. presidents. The Washington Post, lead by Katherine Graham (played by Meryl Streep) and her unyielding news editor, Ben Bradlee (Tom Hanks), takes on the reins to inform the public, despite challenges imposed by President Nixon, legalities, and... deadlines.

The Post comments on a time sadly not so different from our own and draws connections to the importance of real news in our democratic society. The film avoids turning out too dry while dealing with complicated laws and self-important bureaucracy by trusting its characters to carry a large weight. While preachy at moments, The Post exemplifies Steven Spielberg's innate skill at storytelling, and succeeds where Best Picture Spotlight falters: displaying a thrilling drama about news reporters doing the right thing, and acting as a visceral reminder of the nostalgia that the printing press holds.

The film is nominated for two oscars: Best Motion Picture and Best Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role. Both nominations have a fair chance of winning, but when considering the opposition, it is definitely not a certainty. Although upon watching The Post, one thing is for certain. Meryl Streep is an artistic master at capturing a character and performing faultlessly in their skin. Katherine Graham does not have a particularly eccentric personality. She is fairly orthodox where acting roles are concerned (not your typical Oscar role). Yet, Streep is able to spin gold from Graham's hesitant demeanor and carry a full, satisfying character arc.

Tom Hanks gives a showy performance that rounds out the film with fiery passion and humor. With Tom Hanks, Meryl Streep, and Steven Spielberg-three cinematic powerhouses-the film is expected to be exceptional.

But is it as untouchable as its top talents?

Not entirely.

The film is regrettably forgettable, which is especially unfortunate considering the historical content and timeless message of free speech that it celebrates. The acting is superb, the characters are somewhat interesting, and the well-paced story is captivating in the moment, but there's nothing grand to hold on to. Perhaps this has to do with the film's ending. Or perhaps the corny boastfulness that calls out in triumph as if it's the movie's own dampers the spectacle built from earlier conflicts and developments. Or perhaps it's just me.

Whatever it is, let's see if The Post will last in the minds of viewers until the next Oscar bait film decides to portray a team of news reporters.

Kick-Ass 2 (2013)

Just stick to the first one

[3/10 · 28 August 2013]

"Try to have fun. Otherwise, what's the point?"

Kick-Ass was one of the most fun movies to watch in 2010. It's innovative, hilarious, and memorable. The characters are interesting, and the story makes sense despite the outlandish subject of real life superheroes. I thought, judging from the first movie, that the sequel would be on par (if not better). However, I was utterly disappointed and embarrassed at what Kick-Ass 2 had to offer. The sequel is lost in its recycled story that has very little reasoning, and the characters seem confused as to what really needs to be done. Yet, the faults do not lie with the actors – they obviously did the best they could with such a nonsensical script.

Right from the start of the movie, Kick-Ass (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) fumbles back to square one, wondering if he can really be a superhero. I felt as though this dilemma of "where do I truly belong" was already solved in the first movie when Dave took up the suit, gained comrades, and defeated the evil mob boss. But even after all that, Dave spends the entirety of the second movie deciding whether or not being a hero is his true calling. Hit-Girl (Chloë Grace Moretz) goes through a similar identity crisis even though it's pretty clear that she was born to fight. Her adventures of trying to fit into high school makes the film feel as though it is targeted for a younger audience despite what the R rating implies.

Jim Carrey's inclusion as Colonel Stars and Stripes was (a waste and) pitiful to watch. He only has about 7-8 minutes of screen time; however, the audience is expected to feel connected to his character. That's especially difficult to do, considering not much character development occurs within that small time frame. And besides, the Colonel's purpose in the film is to primarily instigate violence. Most of the movie focuses around shameless violence and comical gore, which is definitely a step down from the previous film's suspenseful action sequences.

Also, the movie dishes out lame racial jokes so freely, that it almost seems ignorant of how the minorities are being negatively portrayed. Asian characters with Korean last names speak an entirely different Asian language. If movies are going to castrate minorities and use them as punching bags, they might as well do it right.

It's fairly easy to see where the drop in quality from the first to the second movie originates from. Matthew Vaughn directed the first film, while Jeff Wadlow directed the sequel. Vaughn is responsible for other successes such as Stardust, Layer Cake, and X-men: First Class. Wadlow on the other hand, made movies such as Cry_Wolf and Never Back Down, which have received terrible ratings. If Vaughn directed Kick-Ass 2, I feel like it would have been on a completely different level.

So overall, Jim Carrey was right. I should have took his withdrawal of support as a warning, but my thirst for a potentially entertaining sequel blinded me. You know a movie is bad when it tries to make rape funny or if it finds the need to show girls puking and defecating uncontrollably. Those are the complete opposite of comical. It's a shame, really. While belonging to a well known franchise and containing talented actors, Kick-Ass 2 could have been a contender instead of a pointless movie, which is what it is.

Rules of Engagement (2007–2013)

One of the best recent sitcoms

[8/10 · 23 August 2013]

One of my favorite things on American television are the sitcoms. They never get old, even though most of them revolve around the same thing: relationships. Rules of Engagement is no exception. The recently canceled series focuses on five New Yorkers (later six, including the addition of Timmy played by Adhir Kalyan). Adam (Oliver Hudson) and Jennifer (Bianca Kajlich) are the young couple experiencing the early stages of a relationship while Jeff (Patrick Warburton) and Audrey (Megyn Price) are the married couple who've been there, done that. Russel (David Spade) is the playboy of the group who has yet to be in a committed relationship and prefers seducing women. Does any of this sound familiar? The setup is similar to the popular show, How I Met Your Mother, however Rules of Engagement has more dry humor and doesn't try so hard to be funny. (I'm looking at you Ted.) Also, unlike HIMYM, RoE maintains its humor as the seasons continue and doesn't go off on a tangent with dull story lines.

All of the characters have extreme personality traits that allow each of them to offer something different to the table. Patrick Warburton usually steals the show with his monotonous delivery of punchlines and typical husband behaviors. He also has the best lines that normally involve sarcasm and teasing. Oliver Hudson is a close competitor, portraying an extremely naive and funny, but well-intentioned fiancé.

Some of the material gets a bit repetitive and overdone, such as Russel and Timmy's master and servant relationship, but that's a problem that every sitcom faces. Still, Rules of Engagement is definitely an underrated show and deserves a chance from everyone, especially those who think that Two and a Half Men and HIMYM are the best sitcoms ever. Those shows robbed RoE of the spotlight.

Elementary (2012–2019)

Longer episodes needed

[7/10 · 15 July 2013]

Sherlock Holmes has become quite a popular franchise in these past couple of years. With the Hollywood movies, BBC's Sherlock, and now Elementary, it's safe to say the British consulting detective is at his all-time high in today's modern society. But just because something is everywhere doesn't necessarily mean that it's a good thing. It's interesting to see all the different adaptations of Sherlock Holmes, however, Elementary goes beyond the usual stereotype. Elementary and Sherlock are similar in that they both place Holmes and Watson in the present day, where computers and mobile devices are the norm. The key differences are that in Elementary: 1) Holmes and Watson preside in New York instead of London, 2) Holmes is a recovering drug addict who enjoys sex, and 3) Watson is portrayed as a woman, of Asian descent. While these changes are certainly intriguing, they do come at a price.

There are obvious problems with the American TV version of Sherlock Holmes. First of all, each episode is a lot shorter than BBC's version, making each case less intricate. There doesn't seem to be enough time within each episode to make a lasting detective story worthy for Sherlock Holmes. In some cases (more than I'd like to admit) it's too easy to deduce who the actual culprits are. Even so, thanks to the brand name personality of Holmes, the show is a slight step above the usual crime, drama, mysteries, such as Cold Case or Without a Trace. And the great thing about Elementary is that every episode allows for character development for both Holmes and Watson, further strengthening their abnormal arrangement. Which brings up the next point about Watson's gender. Making Watson a female character creates complications between Holmes and Watson, romantically. There's an expectation that the two, being of opposite sexes and considering both of their lifestyles, would one day take their relationship to the next destructive stage. However, the show does a fairly good job at displaying Holmes and Watson as nothing more than friends and colleagues. And in a way, this is a huge step forward for actress Lucy Liu, who is mainly known for her highly sexualized, martial arts roles from Kill Bill and Charlie's Angels. As Joan Watson, Lucy Liu has the opportunity to flesh out and modify a character as her own, and stay away from the boring stereotype as the dragon lady.

While Elementary isn't exactly a remake of the British show, it, along with most American adaptations, suffers from a loss of quality entertainment. Despite the effort to be challenging and different, Elementary is rated considerably lower than Sherlock by a substantial amount. Elementary took a risk with a female Watson and it hasn't quite paid off yet. Also, Jonny Lee Miller's Sherlock might be a bit too eccentric (if that's even possible). But more so than all that, each episode of Elementary is 30 minutes shorter than Sherlock, restricting more complex crimes. I feel Elementary has the potential to be on par with the British show if only the episodes are longer. But for now, the show is among the upper ranks of other American, crime dramas. The crimes may not be elaborate enough, but the characters are certainly interesting.

Scandal Makers (2008)

Speedy Scandal contains similar lighthearted humor and serious drama that made My Sassy Girl such a hit

[9/10 · 10 July 2013]

Cha Tae-hyun has come a long way since his big debut in My Sassy Girl. 14 films later, he starred in a dramedy that potentially rivals the 2001 classic. Speedy Scandal contains similar lighthearted humor and serious drama that made My Sassy Girl such a hit. Just, with a different kind of love story. While My Sassy Girl centers around the romantic relationship, Speedy Scandal focuses on the love between family. Cha Tae-hyun's character, Nam Hyeon-soo, is a radio DJ who finds out he has a long lost daughter and grandson. Being a bachelor and a "famous" person, the sudden intrusion of taking in Hwang Jae-in (Park Bo-young the nation's little sister) and Hwang Ki-dong (Wang Seok-hyeon) is certainly overwhelming. And so the journey of accepting his (un)wanted family begins.

Pretty much right off the bat, the premise of the story starts. The film does a great job of showing Hyeon-soo's uptight personality with the opening credits being a tour of his large apartment filled with neatly organized suits and cologne. His high class lifestyle makes the entrance of unknown dependents so much more shocking and entertaining. And it's not just Cha Tae-hyun that makes the film interesting to watch. Park Bo-young, who has since gained a lot of popularity for her role as the under aged mother, makes for a cute daughter who has a lot of spunk. And as for the little boy (who is also kind of cute), Wang Seok-hyeon, he's not only responsible for the main portion of the humor, but also acts as the catalyst to bring the family together. All the actors make the film very enjoyable and hard to let go.

It's obvious that Nam Hyeon-soo will change his characteristics and become a better person in the end, so the conflicts that occur are what you're really watching the film for. Just because Cha Tae-hyun is the main protagonist doesn't mean that the film is all fun and games. The film touches upon some serious topics, such as abandonment, family values, and the need to be loved. Park Bo-young delivers some pretty great crying scenes that make even the viewer feel the guilt of the father.

After watching the film, I couldn't help but feel the need for a sequel. Like when many good shows or movies end, people require a fair amount of closure to feel satisfied. The end of the Lord of the Rings trilogy is a good example. Ending scenes in The Return of the King seem to go on and on. For Speedy Scandal, the ending is complete and ties up all loose ends (unlike a lot of Korean films), but I guess I like the characters so much that I wish for a sequel. That will most likely not happen though, since Korean cinema isn't so keen on spin-offs. Maybe the film is missing just one more scene in the end to give it the perfect closure.

Breakfast at Tiffany's (1961)

Charismatic actors for trouble-minded characters

[7/10 · 9 July 2013]

Everybody is familiar with the title Breakfast at Tiffany's, a timeless classic starring the beloved actress, Audrey Hepburn. While the story itself isn't particularly noteworthy, the charm that the actors bring makes the film well worth viewing. After all, the film is responsible for the iconic image of Audrey Hepburn arrayed in the famous black dress.

The film represents the social aspects of the time, filled with smoking, drinking, and more smoking. Holly Golightly (Audrey Hepburn) is in the middle of it all, using rich men to sustain her flamboyant lifestyle. Paul Varjak (George Peppard), the obvious love interest, sparks an attraction with Holly and attempts to save her from slowly destroying herself. The love story is pretty straightforward and lacks any sort of twists. However, the film has its moments (particularly the ending scene) and Cat (the ironically, nameless cat), that tie the story together with its recurring motif that people and things actually do and can belong to one another. Cat also provides some comic relief when scenes become a little too intense with emotions.

Both Holly and Paul don't make for such interesting (or healthy) characters. One smokes and drinks all day, leading a frivolous life, while the other is poor and acts as a gigolo. Both characters are deeply troubled, but Audrey Hepburn and George Peppard do a great job at giving the characters some likability and allure. Even though Holly is childlike and unpractical, she is undeniably enjoyable to watch, similar to Leonardo DiCaprio's performance of Jay Gatsby. Upon watching Breakfast at Tiffany's, it's understandable how Audrey Hepburn was one of 20th century's most celebrated actresses.

The Grand Heist (2012)

Not on the level of Cha Tae-hyun's other big hit movies, but still fun

[6/10 · 6 July 2013]

In 2012, towards the end of July, a Korean film with an ensemble cast called The Thieves was released. Around two weeks later, another Korean ensemble film more focused on comedy came out, titled The Grand Heist. While The Grand Heist is also about a robbery carried out by a group of "professionals," it is set in the late 18th century. During this time, ice is a valuable commodity which is regulated by the government. However, corrupt officials (who the two main characters have beef against) take over the business and form a monopoly. An avid reader, Duk-moo (Cha Tae-hyun), along with his stern, combatant partner, Dong- soo (Oh Ji-ho), come up with a plan and gather 11 members total to steal the ice blocks in the royal storage to distribute back to the people. It is an interesting story that unfortunately, comes with a few weak plot points.

Let's start with the diversity of characters. Because there are 11 heist members, it's difficult to get to know all of them and care about them. In a couple of scenes, some of the members are on the verge of getting killed. Even when Min Hyo-rin's character, Baek Soo-ryun, is in a dire situation, it takes some effort to be concerned about whether or not she'll get out alive. This is probably because most of the characters lack a background story to show who they really are. You could say some of the characters in The Thieves suffer the same fate. However, The Thieves makes up for it with lots of suspense. In The Grand Heist, there's just nothing suspenseful about the dangerous scenes, even if characters are close to drowning. The camera flows too well, like the water being shown on screen, rather than rapidly cutting back and forth to build up tension.

Also, the film has a couple of unlinked references that seem out of place when shown. Towards the end of the film, when Duk-moo is about to fire a gun, a book about guns and the posture to hold when aiming is shown, to indicate Duk-moo's recollection of the stance. It wouldn't have been that strange if the film actually showed Duk-moo reading the book early on. The film sort of digs its own grave by putting so much emphasis on the gunshot when the outcome doesn't really lead to the ultimate victory for the protagonists. Perhaps it would have been better if throughout the film, multiple short recollections of information from books pop up that aid Duk-moo in pinches, since he's a book collector. Just having that one scene kind of throws the viewer off.

The bonds between characters aren't addressed very well, and the love stories all feel a bit forced. Even so, once you let go of certain expectations, the film can be funny and entertaining. You definitely shouldn't expect the level of humor of Cha Tae-hyun's big hit movies, like My Sassy Girl and Speedy Scandal. There's an O.K. joke that gets a bit overused. However, the film guarantees a few laughs (disregarding the childish fart jokes) and has a pretty satisfying ending. The Grand Heist should be viewed for the actors and their interactions with the historical Korea setting.

The movie is... O.K. ^^

Miracle of Giving Fool (2008)

A touching film that stays with the viewer well after the ending credits

[8/10 · 4 July 2013]

BA:BO is a 2008 film based closely on a popular webcomic by Kang Full. While the film does contain some comedy, it tells a much deeper story than any of Cha Tae-hyun's other films. I would even say that the film is purely an emotional drama with only mere hints of romance and slight humor. In BA:BO, Ji-ho (Ha Ji-won) returns home after studying and playing the piano in Europe for over ten years. She left Europe because of the frustration that came with an instance of stage fright. Back in her hometown, she meets her mentally challenged, childhood friend, Seung-ryong (Cha Tae-hyun), who runs a small toast shop in order to take care of his younger sister, Ji-in (Park Ha-sun), who unfortunately despises him. Along with Seung-ryong's best friend, Sang-soo (Park Hee- soon), and Hee-yeong (Park Grina), the characters all suffer life problems of their own. It is the village idiot, Seung-ryong, who heals and saves them all.

Ji-ho and Sang-soo's interaction with Seung-ryong evokes pity and nostalgic sympathy. Due to a misunderstanding, Sang-soo's guilt as a child drew him close to Seung-ryong as a true friend. Ji-ho on the other hand, was admired by Seung-ryong ever since they were little due to her piano playing that, according to Seung-ryong, would cause snow to fall and stars to appear. It is sweet and a bit sad to see Ha Ji-won's character treat Seung-ryong so nicely because of his innocent mind. While he genuinely likes her, she finds comfort and strength when she looks after him. The film tells a story that really can only be fully understood by reading the expressions and actions of the actors. And it is those actions that can cause the viewer to get a bit teary eyed here and there throughout the film.

Speaking of actors, Cha Tae-hyun plays his role as the hardworking, village idiot so convincingly. And he does so with his own style – his signature goofy smile adds so much authenticity to his character's innocence. He really is one of the best actors in Korea. Ha Ji-won impressed me as well, considering that this is one of her first works that I've seen where she isn't type-casted as a cutesy love interest. The slight, emotional changes that her character experiences can be seen thanks to her superb acting, despite the limits that the script has for her character. All the other actors were great as well, besides Park Ha- sun in one scene towards the end of the film – while the scene evokes grievous emotion, it appears questionably forced.

It is fascinating how the individual stories of each character seem separate, but all converge in the end. And it is that result that really makes the viewer sit back and think how people, no matter how smart or talented, can affect the lives and happiness of those nearby. BA:BO is a touching film that stays with the viewer well after the ending credits. I highly recommend giving it a watch, especially if you're a fan of Korean dramas.

You Don't Know Jack (2010 TV Movie)

Al Pacino is the obvious highlight

[8/10 · 4 July 2013]

Al Pacino is great at what he does, and with age, he has only become better at his role as the defeated man of stubborn reasoning. Like in many of his previous films (such as The Son of No One and Insomnia), Al Pacino is the obvious highlight. His captivating acting and eccentric personas are enough to push ratings up a whole level. In the case of You Don't Know Jack, Al Pacino doesn't lift up a terrible movie to become bearable, but a good movie to become great. While the film may have very depressing tones (it's about assisted suicide after all), it doesn't mean that it lacks entertainment value in any way.

Jack Kevorkian (Al Pacino) is nicknamed the "doctor of death" for his involvement in many assisted suicide cases. His sister (Brenda Vaccaro), Neal Nicol (John Goodman), Janet Good (Susan Sarandon), and his lawyer (Geoffrey Fieger), help him avoid the law as he aids people who are in too much pain to continue living. The film sends a strong, legal message about how people should have the right to choose whether or not they want to pull their own plug. The message gets you thinking about your own life and the people you care about, which easily makes the film a lot more of a personal experience than one might expect.

The entertainment values that are to be expected from this TV film are along the lines of an educational journey and heart wrenching acting. Al Pacino sells his role very well, as if he himself is advocating for the rights. Also, his slight Midwestern accent is compelling to see. John Goodman's existence in the film relieves the overbearing darker moods and helps humanize Jack. The other supporting actors are all great additions to the cast as well.

The story may take a while to develop, but if you stick it out, you are sure to learn a thing or two.

Monsters University (2013)

Monsters University contains enough Pixar spark to turn the unoriginal story into a fun adventure

[9/10 · 1 July 2013]

Let's be honest, Pixar has been in an obvious slump recently with Cars 2 and Brave. Sure Brave won an Oscar, but did it really win over your heart? Brave doesn't have the traits of being brave at all, with its typical characters, safe story, and weak title. And Cars 2 is, well, a disappointing sequel to a mediocre franchise. (John Lasseter may have made Pixar, but he is definitely not the best director that they have.) Monsters University continues with Pixar's recent safe route of storytelling. However, the film shows a glimmer of hope for the company. This prequel may not be what people expected, but it is thoroughly entertaining, innocently funny, and made for the enjoyment of all ages.

Likable duo, Mike Wazowski (Billy Crystal) and James P. Sullivan (John Goodman), are back for a lot more laughs than in the original. Monsters University shows the two monsters' background story of how they meet in a college (that looks notably similar to UC Berkeley) and eventually become best of friends. Of course, this doesn't happen without rivalry and conflict. Basically, the whole story in a nutshell is Mike and Sulley uniting together with a group of misfits (from the most unattractive fraternity) in order to win the school's Scare Games and prove their worth to join the exclusive scare program. The story is certainly formulaic – we've seen this same plot hundreds of times before. The protagonist gathers a team of nobodies, trains them despite the opposition, and the team, to everyone's amazement, ends up winning the entire tournament – becoming heroes. Even so, Monsters University contains enough Pixar spark to turn the unoriginal story into a fun adventure. Each scene is littered with careful and specific details that tell so much more about the characters and their emotions. Mike's passion of wanting to win to prove himself could not have been displayed better and Sulley's frustration to keep up his family name is clearly shown.

The supporting characters in Monsters University blows the previous film away, giving a lot more variety and flavor to the monster world. The unpopular fraternity members, Squishy, Don, Terri, Terry, and Art, all bring a lot to the humorous side of the story. Every character has his moments, but I found Squishy's parts uncontrollably funny (especially the dance scene at the frat party). Of course, it's nice to see the return of supporting character Randy (Steve Buscemi) as a nerdy, self conscious kid, trying to fit in with the cool group. Randy really ties the two films together: in Monsters University, it's revealed that Randy has good reason to want revenge on Sulley, while in Monsters, Inc. Randy acts out on that vengeance.

Monsters University is fast paced, fun, and has a bit of heart in the end. Unfortunately, many people can't fully appreciate the film because they view it as an average creation – (by Pixar standards, of course). It only goes to show the high expectations that Pixar has brought upon itself. But people should really view the film not as one of Pixar's moderate works, but as one of the animation genre's best. Stunning visuals, distinguished characters, and a fun plot – what more can people ask for?

It's surprising how entertaining a G rated film can be. Monsters University is certainly capable of winning an Oscar. The Monster franchise has been waiting for one. And this time, it will be well deserved.

The Yellow Sea (2010)

The Yellow Sea starts with drama and ends with mindless action.

[7/10 · 17 June 2013]

"Start your life over."

Na Hong-jin, the director of the successful thriller, The Chaser, made another film two years later containing similar themes of crime, desperation, and gore. Both films have the same lead actors as well, instead this time, Kim Yun-seok and Ha Jung-woo switch places as protagonist and villain. And it works out pretty well for them. Ha Jung- woo plays Gu-nam, a poor taxi driver in the Yanbian Province (a Chinese region bordering North Korea and Russia). His wife left him and their daughter to go work in South Korea and send over money. The lack of communication from his wife for over six months has him worried and his debt only increases. In comes Kim Yun-seok's character, Myun-ga, a hit-man boss who offers Gu-nam a chance to pay off his debt and see his wife if he carries out just one hit in Korea. Gu-nam tucks away what little values he has left and hesitantly accepts, resulting in him being shipped off to Korea over the Yellow Sea. A complicated murder and chase story then begins.

Just like other Korean thrillers, The Yellow Sea is gruesomely violent and puts its protagonist through many harrowing situations. The film starts off strong, with a clear idea of where the plot will lead: Gu-nam goes to Korea, kills the man he's been sent to murder, and returns. However, things don't go as planned, resulting in Gu-nam being chased down not only by the police and Myun-ga, but by another hit gang as well. At this point, the movie becomes lost in its initial story of a man trying to commit murder for money and branches off as an hour long chase film. There are literally scenes up to 15 minutes of poor Gu-nam running from a fight he's been caught in the middle of. The chase sequences consist of a lot of action, including multiple cars crashing and flying into the air, without flashy CGI. Because of these chases, the film distances itself away from the characters, or more likely, the characters run away from the film. What starts as a film focusing on the characters' lives and internal struggles, ends up having less and less to offer about the protagonist's dark mentality, and more to offer in terms of physical fights and blood gushing from a hapless victim.

The Yellow Sea starts with drama and ends with mindless action. On the other hand, The Chaser is a continuous spectacle of psychological entertainment. Even so, The Yellow Sea proves that lovers of suspense and thrillers should continue to keep an eye out for Na Hong-jin's future works.

This Is the End (2013)

This Is the End is definitely the end of Seth Rogen movies for me.

[4/10 · 17 June 2013]

"This is embarrassing."

In a mood for a movie and not for another adaptation of a disappointing franchise (Superman), I decided to go see This Is the End. I had the expectation that the movie would provide numerous laughs based on its surprisingly positive ratings. Based on Seth Rogen's previous movies, I guess it was wrong to believe so. This Is the End houses an empty plot filled with over-the-top vulgarity that is seemingly supposed to make viewers laugh rather than be disturbed and confused. And again, it was my fault to even hope that a Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg movie was going to be good, or even funny.

The film starts off with an interesting and new premise: Hollywood actors/comedians playing their fictional selves in an apocalypse. While the main cast consist of Jay Baruchel, Seth Rogen, James Franco, Craig Robinson, Jonah Hill, and Danny McBride, there are many cameos throughout the movie, including Emma Watson and Michael Cera. Michael Cera steals the spotlight in the beginning with his horny and drug addicted awkwardness. While his parts are the funniest scenes in the film, sadly, he is one of the first to go. For the rest of the hour and a half, the film attempts to make rape jokes, regurgitation, and excessive masturbation into something humorous. The film has potential, but definitely ends up as a hit and miss. I was surprised to find other viewers laughing their heads off when someone on screen had their own head chopped off and kicked around. But then again, they were mainly obnoxious high school students. It just goes to show the level of stupidity and maturity that the movie has.

The film tries to focus on Seth and Jay's shaky friendship. But the movie is careless with its story, paying more attention to the cast getting high with Psy's international hit playing in the background. So it's obviously safe to say that the film lacks any sort of real story and is just a narcissistic display of actors ridiculing themselves for creepy and cheap laughs.

I couldn't help but feel embarrassed for watching such a horrific attempt at comedy. I also couldn't help but feel embarrassed for the actors as well. This Is the End is definitely the end of Seth Rogen movies for me.

http://www.mrwickedproductions.com/wickquoting/

Arrested Development (2003–2019)

Season four made a huge mistake.

[9/10 · 13 June 2013]

"I've made a huge mistake."

One of the most highly rated comedy TV series has returned for a fourth season after a seven year gap. And, while there's no doubt that the first three seasons are must sees, the latest season is a bit lackluster. However, the fourth season sticks to the comical roots and ongoing gags that has made the show what it is today – an offensively dynamic comedy that we all used to love unconditionally.

Arrested Development focuses on the lives of a dysfunctional Bluth family who've lost their company wealth. Michael Bluth attempts to save his family's business while putting up with his outrageous kin. The interaction between the family members trying to make things work is what drives the show forward without losing sight of what the series is really about – looking out for your crazy family. No matter how many times George Sr. and Lucille trick their son and despite the petty fights that Gob forces upon his younger brother, Michael always comes back to solve everyone's problems with his egotistic attitude. Through the lies, deceit, and vanity, the family would always reunite back together, incorporate a hilarious continuous joke, and solve their outlandish (huge) mistakes. That's what made the first three seasons work so well: a counterproductive family that exchanges favors and somehow works together. This is where I feel season four went terribly wrong.

Right from the start, Michael finally cuts ties with his family and the real estate business, and goes off to work as a Hollywood producer for a movie based off his family (possibly hinting and also destroying the idea of an Arrested Development movie in the near future). His motto of "family first" deteriorates, leaving the Bluth family to scatter and deal with their own problems separately. Perhaps this is why season four is a bit distant from its predecessors. The story no longer circles around Michael – instead the show is made up of nine different parts (one for each family member) and slowly pieces together the narration of misunderstandings and many coincidences. The Bluths are no longer a family attempting to gravitate together towards the "sun," but a family distancing themselves from one another. Even Buster has his own episode displaying his independence from the family (or simply just his mother).

However, even with the unstable atmosphere of the layout of the plot, the show still shines at moments with old and new reoccurring drollery. Unfortunately, because the series isn't exactly made up of standalone episodes, the season requires a lot of start up time in order to really integrate the jokes into the story to make you literally laugh out loud. Season four is kind of like a broken chainsaw: Episode 1-to around 10 is when the engine is struggling to start, and then, once it's running, the show commences and is able to cut right to the funny bone. Gob's constant use of forget-me-now pills, and the cue of the song, "The Sound of Silence," whenever he makes a huge mistake is hilarious. George- Michael's blanking out, along with various other new gags, can easily remind you of a once flawless comedy.

Seven years later, most of the actors obviously look a lot older than how they use to look before, which is why it seems a bit strange that the show decided to pick up where they last left off. It's not a big distraction but it can be a little awry to see a 25 year old Michael Cera play a newly graduated high school student for brief parts within the season. At least it's not as bad as seeing Daniel Radcliffe in his early 20′s play a thirty something year old father.

So to sum it all up, season four of Arrested Development isn't the pinnacle of the show. A few of the first few episodes can be a bit painful to get through (especially Lindsay's first section); however, the episodes only get better as the show goes on. So it's really up to the viewer to decide if plowing through the first few episodes or so is worth the trouble to enjoy the last remaining few. And it's not like you can directly skip to the later episodes due to the format of the narration – that would only make the season more confused than it already is. Now I understand why the episodes for season four all came out at once, instead of one per week. The series as a whole would be a 5/5, if not for the extremely slow and uninteresting start of the fourth season. Season four made a huge mistake.

http://www.mrwickedproductions.com/wickquoting/

A Werewolf Boy (2012)

A far better love story than Twilight.

[8/10 · 13 June 2013]

"Don't go."

A romantic film without a single kiss. It's an amazing feat, especially for a film so critically acclaimed. A Werewolf Boy is a Korean film about the forbidden love between a werewolf and a young girl. While the premise may seem shallow and overdone, A Werewolf Boy goes a completely different direction from the Hollywood stories. A sickly girl, Soon-yi (Park Bo-young), moves with her family to an open countryside, where they encounter a homeless boy with wolf/dog like behaviors. The family decides to take care of the young man for the time being, giving him the name, Chul-soo (Song Joong-ki). Soon-yi "trains" Chul-soo, resulting in the growth of a beautiful bond between master and boy.

The film may start slow for some, but the first half is filled with many charms, usually just from simple interactions. Song Joong-ki does a very convincing job acting like a wild canine, especially considering that most of his acting comes from facial expressions and body language alone. A lot of the early lighthearted humor comes from him scoffing down meals and fetching objects. Strangely enough, seeing him act like a dog doesn't seem a bit ridiculous whatsoever. Even though Soon-yi initially treats Chul-soo like a pet, their relationship steadily turns into something more: he is a (good looking) human being after all. The chemistry between the two characters and two actors work perfectly. Basically the first half of the film is innocent fun, mainly strengthening the ties between Soon-yi and Chul-soo in order to make their conflicts more devastating. And Park Bo-young, with her superb acting, really sells the devastation.

A Werewolf Boy easily succeeds in creating a really despicable villain character. Ji-tae, a son of a rich family, stops at nothing in order to get rid of Chul-soo and claim precious Soon-yi as his own. It's safe to say that the film builds up Ji-tae to be a bit too nasty, to the point where I found myself constantly wishing for him to just rollover and die. The antagonist almost seems to come straight out from a play, where his actions and mindset are cranked to extreme levels of arrogance and evil. I hate him more than Joffrey from Game of Thrones.

While the film is geared towards young women, it still has the potential to be entertaining for men as well. The film is a lot deeper than your average love story, relying more on character development, story, and emotional turmoil rather than CGI, love making scenes, and fantasy action. Viewers not only see the bond between Soon-yi and Chul-soo, but feel it as well. However, the very end of the film is slightly disappointing and has a missed opportunity to really sink in the emotions and leave the story with some mystery. Even so, A Werewolf Boy is most definitely a better love story than Twilight.

Now You See Me (I) (2013)

Fun to watch, just not too closely.

[7/10 · 13 June 2013]

"I was a hundred and forty million dollar distraction?"

Distractions are key to magic tricks, diverting attention to successfully pull off illusions. Now You See Me is filled with great distractions that attempt to hide obvious flaws within the plot and characters. However, the big twist (which is to be expected in a film centered around magic) is a good enough final act to make the film superficially entertaining and enjoyable.

The film has a wide variety of cast members, including Jesse Eisenberg, Woody Harrelson, Isla Fisher, Dave Franco, Morgan Freeman, and Michael Caine. In the film, Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine's characters are portrayed negatively, which is a bit off seeing these old gents play personas that are far from their usual, likable statures. However, Morgan Freeman still gets his scenes of explaining exactly what is going on at the moment. The four magicians (Eisenberg, Harrelson, Fisher, and Franco) aren't very interesting as characters, mainly because they aren't given the chance. The film jumps back and forth between the escaping artists and the FBI, Dylan Rhodes and Alma Dray (Mark Ruffalo and Mélanie Laurent), that it becomes confusing as to who the main protagonists are. The way the film is put together limits character development, which is why even by the end of the film I found myself not caring about the magicians whatsoever. Their over-the-top personalities are smart distractions for the lack of character development.

Story wise, the film is pretty much one big setup for the final plot twist. The viewer isn't told exactly what the motivations are for the magicians to continuously break the law. Therefore, it becomes slightly confusing as to why the magicians would abandon their successful lives in Las Vegas to become fugitives. The act of leaving their elegant lives goes directly against their personalities - street performers (who obviously love the attention) finally get their own Las Vegas show only to throw it all away. It seems as though even the magicians themselves lack information as to what the end goal holds for them. Perhaps if the viewer is shown that the magicians care more about being the best illusionists rather than having an endless amount of cash, their conflict throughout the film would be a bit more believable. Showing them to be con artists and thieves in the beginning of the film (both which have the end goal of making easy money) doesn't really help the story. But, the twists are elaborate enough to distract from the holes in the plot.

The chemistry between Dylan and Alma, along with the action and chase scenes, round out the film for a wide range of audience members. While the film isn't focused on action, the chase scene of Dave Franco's character running from Dylan has interesting choreography and a good amount of suspense. Other similar scenes demonstrate that the film looks great visually. However, the CGI makes some of the illusions look fictitious, even though the film does not cross over into the realm of fantasy or sci-fi like The Prestige. In addition, a number of scenes are filled with real life impossibilities. It is important to note that Now You See Me can be best enjoyed by following the big picture rather than paying too close attention to the plot and character development. Ironically, the closer you look, the less there really is to see.

So in a way, the film with a budget of $75 million is a $10 distraction for people who want to have a fun time with magic. Sure the plot and some of the characters are trivial, but that doesn't mean that the film can't be entertaining - and it is. And that's what really matters.