Wreck - It - Ralph (2012)

   Wreck - it - Ralph is the perfect example to me of why great cute kiddie movies can be enjoyed by anyone and bad cute kiddie movies can only be enjoyed by children. Don't get me wrong this movie definitely falls into the former it's got a great cast and a beautiful art direction with fun and exciting visuals and like all Disney films it has memorable colorful characters ya just wanna hold onto forever. It's just plain to see that this movie works as a kids movies because it ignores a lot of mind blowing out of the box ideas in favor of a simple cute little story divided up among a few well written characters with video game jokes and candy puns galore. 

   I'll get this out of the way now, the movies biggest problem is complexity, because it has to be accessible to a younger audience they have to cut out of the cute interesting story to explain and re-explain all the rules of the world around them. Details and conflicts that are important to the story but the movie doesn't seem to have the balls to work in subtly because the kids need to be able to follow too. To put it simply the world is that of classic arcade games, the movie takes place in an old arcade and though we briefly see people outside the games the story focuses on the characters within an old school 8 - bit platformer, a cutsie candy coated racing game, and a swarm infested sci-fi first person shooter. Wreck - it - Ralph, the antagonist of a game called Fix - it - Felix, is sick of being the "bad guy"and getting no recognition for the hard work he puts in every day and the hard life he lives being shown no respect. He starts game jumping throughout the arcade and eventually befriends a little girl named Vanellope who is desperately trying to be a part of a racing games that looks like Candy Land. 

   I won't spoil the rest but for what it's worth this is a good movie. Despite its problems it has loveable characters, a good story, and a lot of funny nerdy video game jokes from all manner of retro games. Nerds like myself will get a kick out of a lot of what they sprinkle in throughout this movie. What makes it great is what makes all these Disney and Pixar movies great (I mean the good ones... I mean not Cars or the Rat one) characters you immediately connect with. Characters you want to see succeed because you can identify with their struggles. 

   This isn't exactly the masterpiece Toy Story for video games I was hoping for but for my money it was a great animated movie. Everyone should see it at one point or another. 

Daniel Craig's James Bond

   I'll be the first to admit that even though I watch and enjoy a lot of movies, I'm not that into James Bond. I like some of the really old ones, but the franchise overall never really hit it for me. When I saw Casino Royale as a young lad all those years ago I remember asking myself why more James Bond movies weren't like this. And when I saw Quantum of Solace a few years later I remembered. Now that I've seen Skyfall, and they've wrapped up a good trilogy of Daniel Craig I think I understand the point. 

   Let's go back a ways shall we? James Bond , code name 007, is a fictional character created in 1953 by writer Ian Felming, who featured him in twelve novels and two short story collections. He's a British secret service agent who drives hot cars, fraternizes with any and all hot women, and shoots many manner of cheesy villain with a number of crazy guns and gadgets. The original novels have to date been adapted to death and over the last fifty years film after film starring the suave James Bond have hit the screen and always hit high numbers in the box office. 

  The series has had it's highs and lows, it's amazing works of art and its shoddy piles of shit, but the films always keep to form and always try their damnedest. At some point in the early 2000's someone decided to change it up a bit. 2006's Casino Royale put a lower ranking (Now mega star) Daniel Craig in the role of James Bond. While keeping to a lot of the classic James Bond traditions it certainly feels more serious and more real than any of the films that came before it. By making the villain seem cartoonishly evil, but then wrap him in a very realistic conflict with lots of deep espionage that we haven't even begun to scratch the surface of by the end of the film. That said its still a great movie, Craig proved to be the perfect modern day James Bond and they squeezed out a damn good espionage thriller out of what should have been a generic action movie. It also introduced to great casting choices, Craig as Bond and Judi Dench as M, the head of MI6 the British Secret Service. Dench is always a good choice but as her part in these movies gradually got bigger, to the point of her being a main character in Skyfall it was obvious someone was thinking ahead. She's strong in every one of her many scenes and brings the trilogy to a whole other level of quality.

   Despite being different Casino Royale was a success and Craig was signed on for a sequel entitled; Quantum of Solace. Which critics across the board deemed far less than satisfactory. In an effort to keep the story of the previous film going it picks up right where Casino Royale left off and gets immediately kinda confusing and strange. Not really making the antagonist or the conflict clear, it tries to deal more with Bond growing and changing as a character based on the events of the first movie. 

   Except it can't really do that because James Bond is pretty much a stock character and the way Craig plays him he's already a lot more badass than any of the Bond's before him. So his growth is all played out vicariously through a side character, a girl out for revenge of the man  that killed her family. While this sounds good on paper it forces us to accept some things that don't seem within Bond's character. For one we're supposed to believe he genuinely loved the girl who died at the end of Casino Royale. Which while the movie tried to make it seem that way, that isn't something James Bond would do. He's a suave womanizer but he's far too cold and distant for true love. 

   It also means that we're supposed to pay more attention to a supporting character's feelings then the protagonists  But we can;t do that either because while the film tries to keep up its main story it can't always contrive reasons for the girl to be around except  in the beginning and the end. We don;t get to see her change, and nothing ever confirms that she does. So we're left with Bond trying to play off this girl, he's supposed to relate to her struggle so that they can over come vengeance together. It all kinda falls flat because we don't get enough of the girl and it doesn't suit Bond on his own. 

   By the time the end rolls around the movie has plainly tell us "He was the bad guy, and this was the bad thing he was doing". No one really cares movie. Sorry. While I don't hate this movie, it really isn't very good. It begs the question, where were they going with this?

   Looking back on all that I'm surprised this wasn't more obvious. Skyfall turns out to be both the least and most James Bond - esque movie of the Daniel Craig trilogy. What really boggled my mind was that it could be so action packed, and have a great deep villain with an interesting story, and segway out of this series perfectly without feeling the need to compensate for the weird shit that happened in the previous two stories. I'm pretty sure they planned a lot more of this out from the start than anyone predicted and as far as I'm concerned these three films make the entire series of movies feel a lot more complete. 

  Basically during a rough mission Bond gets taken out of the job for a while and most people presume he's dead. As it turns out he's just trying to move on from everything that happened to him. But when a villain from his supervisor M's past come out swinging at MI6 agents through cyber terrorism Bond will have to come back to finish the job.

   And that he does with gun fights and car chases and international travel and its all very sloppy because he's so out of practice from those years of being dead. This movie doesn't have nearly as much espionage as the other two and it absolutely has its heart set on one thing, seeing James Bond stare his limits in the face. He's not fit, he can barely fire a gun, and he spends all his time in a stressed panic because he can't keep up with the villain played by Javier Bardem. Who, as we all know, is the best a playing psycho killers. I won't spoil where all that ends up or what the movie is really playing trying to show us Bond's weaknesses but by  the end of the movie, with all its great action and fantastic acting coupled with starborn writing I understood theses movies. What I'm about to go into is A SPOILER and I recommend if you haven't seen the movie yet do that because it's great. 

   The Daniel Craig James Bond films are prequels to the series as a whole. Through the three films they've managed to explain all of James Bond most known qualities; he's a heartless womanizer because love betrayed him, he doesn't go out for revenge and stays cold and calculating because revenge doesn't solve anything, and he's loyal to his job because the one person who always stuck her neck out for him died under his protection and he wants to do his country the utmost justice. That's why these movies don't feel like James Bond movies, because they seem to be more about the origin of how James Bond as we know him came into being. Which in my opinion makes them all totally awesome. Daniel Craig's acting never falters and in Skyfall there is literally a scene where he allude's to his past and explains how he got to his lowest point and we as the audience realize with him that James Bond can't leave, nor can he die, nor can he love, nor can he look back. Because if he does, the world around him literally crumbles. 

   I for one cannot wait to see where they take James Bond in the future but the franchise seems to be in good hands. 

Midnight Horror Marathon (2012) : Paranormal Activity 4, Sinister, V/H/S, Silent Hill : Revelations

   Ya know the feeling of walking into a store you think might have exactly what our looking for only to find that it has nothing of the sort? The way the store laughs you back, spits in your face and calls you trash? Horror movies this year have been making me feel this way. HOWEVER over the past few weeks I saw some horror movies. Movies I expected to suck, Movies I had no hope for. Movies that seemed like gigantic wastes of time. These are those movies. 

   I can't say I was really hyped for this film, the series as a whole is just okay and the only part of it that I think goes above and beyond is the end of the third film. So when I saw that not only had this hit theaters, but that it wasn't a joke, I was very concerned. Then I actually went and saw it with my manliest of manly compadres and we didn't even really scream like little girls at all. No way. Not once. I'm happy to report that while my hopes weren't high this movie actually didn't disappoint me. It had a few slow moments, several obvious plot turns, some iffy effects, and some acting I might not consider acting but overall as a movie it does what it probably should, jump scare a bunch of obnoxious teens in a theater at ten every Friday night and then make everyone think about the ending.  

  Plot wise this film isn't original ; because of stuff in the other movies there's creepy stuff happening to these people who's interpersonal problems get in the way of their ability to see whats really going on in front of them, something supernatural tortures them for a bit, and then in the last 20 minutes shit hits the fan mad hard, and to this films credit it has the best of the shit hitting of the fan of any of these films. Now this movie had a lot of problems that I expected, like I said some of the acting was sub-par  especially the fact that a big portion of the movie centers on two kids who don't seem to understand what they're supposed to be doing and the film really doesn't have a lead character, because of the way the focus shifts as the film goes on. AS you probably expected the film gets most of its scariness off of jump scares and doesn't have a lot to creep or crawl slowly up your skin. 

   What the film does best is, as crazy as this may seem, is pacing. I said it was slow, but it isn't a "dull" slow, it's a sort of strange and engaging slow that 90% of the time can keep your attention simply by putting a lot of subtle images on the screen at once. The main house set is very detailed and real, while the classic Paranormal Activity gag of all the different cameras stays fresh by making all the shots drastically different. Sure they kiss the Kinect's ass in every scene but those shots are some of the coolest and creepiest in the film. 

   It's not without its flaws; while the characters are nice and well rounded compared to the others in the series the plot surrounding them and their back story is weak and standard and blandly uninteresting  The audience can't really identify with one character, instead I'm guessing different people will find themselves in different characters, which would be okay if all the characters didn't act weirdly insane or completely oblivious. The character I identified most with was the nerdy alternative boyfriend who, for lack of a better term, is actually kind of a douche and spends a lot of time off screen. 

   Over all it's not a perfect film but it's certainly engaging, satisfying, and  a great addition to a modern horror franchise. 

   

   Ahhh yes, and on top of the pretty good Paranormal Activity 4 we have the astounding Sinister. And I sincerely mean astounding. Not just because the majority of other horror movies this year have been less entertaining than a moist fart, but because for such a simple looking movie it has amazing acting, writing, directing, make-up, visuals, and proper use of jump scares. Not to mention that it actually feels like an original movie for once. 

   I won't spoil the plot but there's a writer, some murders, and some freaky shit. That really isn't what's important. What matters is that the movie is the only truly good horror movie of the year. Why? 

   Well it has a lot going for it right from the start; an original story with an interesting idea draws everyone in. The writing and the visuals lie somewhere shy of guillermo del toro's over the top style, starting totally grounded in reality and by the end flipping the visuals to elaborate in mysteriously subtle ways. The fact that the movie pretty much has two locations, and takes place primarily in one room is boggling when I think about how much happened. The way they use the central plot device (Some old homemade film reels) to keep up the film's momentum shows impressive film making skills. Keeping it simple, without letting you get bored,

   The place I think the movie shines most is the star. Ethan Hawke  provides a very deep character. It isn't easy having a horror movie about , what is essentially, someone descending into madness without a supporting cast. I mean he has a family and a local sheriff who hate him but Hawke is pretty much alone for the entire movie, and his character brings madness upon himself to the degree where you question whether or not he was in control from the beginning . It makes the movie stand out in a modern horror crowd, reminding me most of classic Lovecraftian short stories about the old gods driving a curious mortal insane, 

   And honestly while I don't think everyone will notice, or even like this but the movie has some pretty cool make up. It walks the same line as the visuals over all being creepy but not too ridiculous. 

   This is, in my opinion, the best big screen horror movie of 2012. Check it out. 

   Ooooooh you frggin kids. With your fracken Pyramid Head. Oh boy... You kids these days... 

   For the uninitiated Silent Hill is a game franchise produced by Konami and developed by a few different groups over the years, though originally by a team called Team Silent who's idea of making a truly great survival horror game wound up spawning a great but slowly dying survival horror franchise that set the bar for what true survival horror means. What made the original three or four games great for me was that everything had a purpose, every gross monster was really a big in your face symbol, and every set piece was really just the town seeing what you would do. It also created some great memorable characters who, after being put through some serious hell, managed to really connect with the player because they felt real and you could see how the town fleshed them out into their truest selves.

   While I feel that not a lot of people saw it back in 2006, I hold to my position that Silent Hill, while not fantastic, is the best video game movie around. It holds truest to the themes of its source material without trying to eradicate the canon or shove any nails into any coffins. It also had impressive visuals, it wasn't so much that they look good more that they looked like Silent Hill, something even some Silent Hill games struggle with. Apart from some shoddy acting it's a great film.

   And the sequel? Well apart from some shoddy acting, it's a great film. Essentially it works for the same reasons that the first one does; keeping pace with the original story of both  the first movie and the games without destroying either, interesting and clever call backs to things that are both relative to the story and fun for fans, and most importantly it gets the visuals. Silent Hill has always been a series where what you see is important both because the town itself is evil and could always be playing tricks on you and because everything has a purpose. 

   As far as the story goes while it could fit in between some of the games I don't really hold the movies in the same cannon as the games. They use the characters and settings from the games to tell their own fitting tale. The story of this movie isn't the best ever told in the series and it really isn't as deep as the first one but it manages to be a little twisty here and there to keep us interested. The dialogue is equally imperfect, and often times very cheesy which I feel may have been intentional but ends up hurting what could be some of the films better moments.

   The cast has some girl, John Snow, Sean Bean ( not dying yet again), and for some reason Malcolm Mcdowell appears very briefly as a crazy blind man. It's kind of super awesome. They really could have been played by anyone and it wouldn't have mattered. Even the times when the acting's good feel like accidents, and are easily the weakest part of the film.

   Sadly I fear that what made this movie for me were the things that related to the games, and non fans will be lost at times and really won't get as much out of it. Objectively it works fine, even if it doesn't feel as cohesive or interesting as the first. If your a fan of the franchise or of original horror visuals you should check it out but otherwise skip it.

   Fuck you for giving me some hope you rancid, boring, and insulting piece of shit. I hate you. Don't ever watch V/H/S.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   I hope everyone had a good October. :D This holiday season looks pretty strong in the film department. Get hyped.

Resident Evil : Retribution (2012)

                        Ummmmmm ... Well it's a Resident Evil movie. Go see it if you care.
                                                  Barry Burton is totally in it though. That shit was pretty hype.

Looper (2012)

    First off I owe someone money for saying I thought this movie would probably flop. It's fantastic. Not just fantastic, it's an instant sci-fi classic I hope no one ever touches again. It's up there with Minority Report, the original Star Wars, the Matrix, and even Brazil (for those of you know who know what that is). I'm actually kinda speechless, this movie is pretty perfect. It's visually impressive, it's smart, it's well written, it's proper well acted, and it's very VERY original. 

    So Looper... what are you really about? I guess it's about, at it's core, how the smallest events affect our lives as much as the biggest sacrifices. It's about how love can drive us to the edge, and about how time influences all things. As far as an actual plot ; Loopers are specialized assassins. When criminal organizations in the future need to kill someone, they send them back in time (which is highly illegal) and the Loopers remove them. They're payed well, and live rich lives. That is until they have to close their loop, essentially meaning killing themselves from the future to prevent any trace of the murders. Over the course of his life Joseph Gordon Levitt's character, a young Looper named Joe, notices all his Looper friends are being closed, his older self finally comes back. Old Joe played by Bruce Willis happens to have an agenda of his own, to change the future so he and his wife can live long happy lives together. 

    I won't spoil any of the more interesting plot points, but suffice it to say the movie has a lot going on. The plot moves fast but manages to keep you connected to the characters, changing who you like, who you hate, and who your routing for scene to scene. The two leads along with a fantastic supporting cast make this the best most heartfeltly acted movie I've seen in a long time. I'm taking this sentence to say I think (and have thought for a while) that Joseph Gordon Levitt is the best actor around right now. Bruce Willis doesn't do bad either, and Emily Blunt not sounding British is a great turn as well. 

   The effects when used are great, but what really stands out are the make-up as the two characters transition into one another, and the design of all their sort of near future gadgettry; such as floating motorcycles and cellphones in your hand (which is cool here as opposed to when Total Recall did it) and just GAH this movie is so good. The story will be remembered long after any of these actors.

   Everyone should go see this now. It has no flaws, I have seen it twice and I will go see it again, and you will see it again and again and YOUR FRIENDS will see it again and again and everyone in the world will see it. Go see it today. 

    

The House at the End of the Street (2012)

Yeah...  thought this was about ghosts too.

    Hub blub dub wubb wubbly bubbly dub bub.... oh hey. So yeah, someone made this movie. Honestly I shouldn't be surprised it's a sack of shit garbage, every other horror movie this year has been, why wouldn't this be too? The Possession, the Apparition, hell I hear V/H/S is pretty shitty too. If Sinister isn't good and Silent Hill doesn't entertain  I'm condemning the horror film genre for a few years. 

    Anyways so House at the End of the WHO GIVES A SHIT the title isn't relevant is about a mother and her daughter who move into a new very nice house after coming out of a bad neighborhood. They can afford the house because a nearby house (possibly at the end of some street) is occupied by a young man who's little sister murdered their parents. While it doesn't go exactly where you think it does it does stick to the formula of the girl falls sympathetically for the guy and the guy shows only a few signs of being psychotic. 

    I don't even want to talk about the film making; endless shaky cam and poor lightning, no real logical set design, poor simple borrrrring writing, no real characters, and for the love of god someone needs an acing coach (I'm talking about all of them). The biggest disappointment (Besides the whole thing and the poorly convinced twist ending that doesn't affect anyone) is Jennifer Lawrence. Here's this attractive girl with zero potential who keeps getting put in movies. 

                                                                            HEY

    Stop that bullshit.  She can't act and the only way to make her look passable is by jerking off the camera every second she's on the screen.  I really don't have a lot else to say about this movie, it's not worth it, it's a piece of shit. It's awful. Never go see it. Forget it exists. Fuck off Jennifer Lawrence. 

The Possession (2012)

   Sooooooooooooooooooo after two weeks of college, moving into my dorm, meeting new people, working way too hard, and waiting through two party hardy weekends I FINALLY got to the movies with a cute lil vixen from the third floor of my dorm, and we had a lovely time.

I mean the movie was piece of garbage and I hate everything 
But she was pretty cute

   So if you can't tell based on the STAGGERINGLY ORIGINAL AND COMPLEX title, the movie is about a little girl who is possessed by a Jewish demon that feeds on children. It's not a bad idea, I mean it's not super original but it's a cool idea that could work easily. It's just busting at the loins with shitty creative decisions. For example you know you need to transition between scenes or else the movie feels ridiculously disjointed? Well this movie's longest scene is probably 11 minutes if that. The cuts are rapid because the scenes are short because the director seems to have his lips securely around the dick of a few piano notes that play in every single fracking transition. It's annoying, and any good development gets cut way too short. 

   Complaint number 2, WHY THE F*CK DON'T GOOD CHILD ACTORS EXIST???? I mean there have to be more then two or three of them right? The main little girl in this movie, ya know the one that's supposed to be possessed and scary and drive the plot and shit? Ya she sucks. Not just because she can't deliver a line properly to save her life, but she can't make emotions via her face or any other part of her, and most importantly she Jake Lloyds(LOOK IT UP) all over her serious scenes. She was a massive casting mistake. Shame on you movie.

   But I guess my biggest complaint is that's its blue - gray wintery affect reminds of a not so slick rip off of every recently sorta good to great horror flick and it worries me that THIS is where bad horror movies are moving. I love silly bad horror movies and ridiculous  bad horror movies but this new breed of crap and melodramatic horror movies don't sit well with this cracker!

Just skip this movie it literally has NOTHING to offer. 
Unless you take a cute girl. 
Then it's totally cool. 

The Apparition (2012)

   

   I can't remember the last time I was this excited to write a review. Why? Because this movie was not only a massive pile of terribleness, but it was also very confusing, lacking in plot themes, and characters but it also has the audacity to throw in what the director probably thought was a big symbol about modern day culture. A scene that I not only laughed at while it was happening, but that I will probably laugh at till my dying day. 

   So yeah, The Apparition is about (Let's just pretend it's about something for the sake of argument) a young couple moving into their own place. The movie doesn't open with that but since it's one of the two plot points I thought I would mention it. The movie actually opens with two very short scenes; a small group of people having a seance in the 70's and they sort of revive a ghost, but then it cuts to college kids many years later trying to replicate the experiment but with fancy science. One of them gets taken by something, then the movie stops caring and moves on to our main characters played by some guy and Ashley Greene from Twilight. Moving into their new house they start having bizarre supernatural experiences, and the guy learns that his old friend has been repeating the experiment, trying more and more elaborate things to contain the "entity" but makes it more and more powerful. 

   It gets stronger, there are a few scenes where it attacks them and then the movie ends. It's not only bad, and incredibly boring, but its really confusing. It's almost as if someone bought a collection of Stephen King's short stories, thought they were cool, got d-runk, and then mashed together a bunch of the worst recurring elements into an hour long screenplay very few characters, a disappointing but somehow unexplained enemy, and then a lot of nothing happening followed by a weird message. Oh, and did I mention it's barely 70 minutes long? Yeah, it seems to hit the climax in the middle and then wind down, then hit another sort of climaxy thingy, then wind down with the one of the stupidest endings of all time. It literally does nothing, goes no where, buries itself in the back yard, and dies of dysentery. 

   I am not only annoyed and confused but very disappointed. I mean the concept is so cool ; Do ghosts exist because we believe in them? And then it IMMEDIATELY drops the premise and gets stupid. Not just stupid but boring and empty. I would really like the people who made this movie to lock themselves in a box because I know they wouldn't find their way out, but then Ashley Green might die, and that would be sad. Don't go see this movie. If you do I hate you.

Quick List of Movies I Watched Recently But Don't Get Full Reviews Because I Said So...Again

Detention  (2011) :
Since you haven't heard of this movie I'll keep it short; it's like a cross between Cabin in the Woods and the Scary movies and I loved it a lot. Check it out. 

Lord of War  (2005)  :
I've always been a fan of the supreme Nicholas Cage, and in my opinion there haven't been enough movies like this recently that show off just how good of an actor he can be if he's written and directed by magicians. 
If you ever have the chance, watch this movie.

Redline (2007) : I recently picked this up on Blu-ray on a recommendation from a friend and man oh man I was not disappointed, a crazy quick, gritty, action packed, colorful and creative anime movie for a more mature modern audience. 
A must see for all anime fans. 

Insidious (2010) : It isn't often that a new horror movie can give me the creeps but damn is Insidious a crazy load of fun that almost could have given me maybe half of a nightmare. 
Great for anyone who can appreciate the horror genre.

Limitless (2011) : I knew there was a reason I didn't see this when it came out... who the hell thought this was a good idea? 
Skip it. 

The Shrine (2010) : .... what a piece of junk!

Total Recall (Totally Remade in 2012)

   

I'll just say it, I think Colin Farrell looks silly here

   When I walked out of the theater for this movie a brilliant man gave me a brilliant peace of advice. "Enjoy your youth before they start remaking all your favorite movies". And he's right. When I get older I'm not looking forward to a Lord of the Rings remake, Harry Potter remakes, remakes of poorly re-made horror movies. I gotta say this guy really got me thinking that they better not touch Shrek. For the love of god, leave Shrek alone.
   ....if your wondering why I wasn't thinking more about Total Recall it's because there wasn't much to think about. 

   Straying even farther from the original Philip K. Dick short story (Speaking of which, leave I Am Legend alone from now on. I happen to like the book and the original movie a lot) this version of Total Recall is really just forgettable. Oh ha ha puns. Starring Colin Farrell in the principle of role original played by Arnold Shwatrzgenhimener of the great California and I have to say if anything has improved while at the same time being a lot worse it's the acting. The original movie has tons of cheesy over the top 80's style action acting while the new is actually full of a really great cast who all do an amazing job. But I for some reason, I find myself enjoying the original more because it doesn't take itself quiet as seriously. All the other acting is the same way, everyone in this remake is better but it never feels as fun. 

   I feel the same way about the visuals, they're great and sparkly but as opposed to the cool colorful collective of the original's design we have what look like Blade Runner throwing up all over *Insert scene from any Bourne movie here*. And while the movie doesn't look bad modern day conventions of grey drab sci-fi city combined with the classic J. J. Abrams lens flares makes this movie a little boring to look at. I won't spoil it but the coolest thing in the movie to me is what they do instead of going to Mars, even though the Mars stuff is great in the original this movie's version is to me a very interesting change. 

   I can't really say this movie is bad, the acting is great and the effects are great, but everything else is so standard and bland that I can't really recommend you check it out. That said if you get trapped in some sort of social vortex where you must go see it the movie definitively won't kill you with sheer horribleness. 

The Dark Knight Rises (2012) (Extra Full Special Fun Times With Spoilers)

  This is a Batman movie. An important Batman movie. One that concludes an epic trilogy of super-hero movies the quality of which probably won't ever be matched by another Batman movie/movies. I'll tell you now you should definitely go see it. You will definitively enjoy it.  I am 100 % sure its a great movie. It just isn't perfect, it's not as good as the Dark Knight, and more importantly its not as good as the Avengers.

   Calm down, come back, come back I'm not the devil. Just let me explain myself. Like I said, the Dark Knight Rises is a great movie, very well written, very well acted, great effects, great costume work, good at being serious without being silly and even manages to be touching. On the other hand for a movie that's almost three hours long it drags out, has a lotta fluff, a lot of obnoxious side characters, and no one I MEAN NO ONE gets the screen time they deserve. When your movies almost three hours long everyone should be getting too much screen time. This is not a good thing people.

   It's really a shame because all the acting, even the actors that don't have to be good, are amazing. Tom Hardy nails a difficult but unique villain, Anne Hathaway makes Catwomen as believable as any of the other characters, Gary Oldman and Joseph Gordon Levitt could pretty much star in their own movie compiled just of their scenes together in this movie, and he other actors we see are great. Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, Marion Cotilliard are all great. Every side character and their mother is awesome. 

 But its got problems so let me break my complaints up clearly, after all this is a critique not... the complimentary equivalent. If you want that go read Metacritic, Rotten Tomatoes, or some other internet snob with more joy in his life. 

   Before I go on there will be spoilers so I'll just say this ; The Dark Knight Rises is a flawed film, but its great, its memorable, and its a pretty fitting  end to the best saga of Batman films we will probably ever see. Joseph Gordon Levitt and Anne Hathaway truely stand out and make the movie a must see along with all your favorite classic Batman characters, and while there is a lot to criticize below the movies still great, the good things like the acting, writing, and effects just on't lend themselves as well to reviewing. Definitely check this movie out. If you still wanna know more... well.... 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1. An Hour Worth of Nonsense : I tend to love long movies. Why? Cuase I'm a big nerd. The best example of this is the Extended Cut of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. If you haven't seen them, I can't recommend them highly enough. Not only are they more faithful to the books, but they add some much needed characters development in places, while adding more ambiance in others. The Dark Knight Rises is almost as long as the shortest of the extended cuts annnnnnnnnnd it squanders a lot of that time,  and frankly I'm not even sure how. I mean I know all the scenes with Bruce Wayne in the pit are mostly pointless but that's only about 20 minutes. And while its not all bad it drags out too long and the visual coolness of it vanishes after the first couple shots. It's hard to say where else the movie wastes time, maybe the scene with the Special Ops guys who are supposed to be super bad asses but then die in small simple ambush, maybe its the scene that spoils the twist while Bruce Wayne is sleeping with Marion Cotillard's Talia' Al' Ghul. Who knows, but for what its worth more time could have been spent on the great characters like Joseph Gordon Levitt's Robin John Blake and Anne Hathaway's Catwomen for sure. As they stand being some of the best parts of the movie they barely get anytime on screen. I'd call that a bad choice on the writer's side. Shame on you. Go back to writing the next Call of Duty game you sick bastard. 

2. Catwomen had a sexy costume : .... oh ya its a complaint. Normally I wouldn't even bring it up but considering Anne Hathaway doesn't have that many scenes I was surprised to see how much work they put into her costume. Its actually a very cool modern interpretation of the old school shiny leather and whip motif. So whats the problem? Well she only wears it in two scenes, only one of them is during the day, and lets be honest the money shot of her in the suit is her ass on the bike which is REALLY gear grinding. She's supposed to be not only a master jewel thief but a strong independent female character that doesn't need anyone else, anytime she wants a man she seduces him into doing whatever she wants. Why is the most prominent shot of her in this movie so degrading and pointless?  Good job assholes. 

3. Hey Batman... bye Batman... oh hey Batman where have you been for the whole movie? : So ya along with squandering a lot of time not giving great actors a chance to play great characters there are only actually 2 and a half scenes with Batman as Batman. There are a lot of Bruce Wayne not being very useful and being kinda lost of in pain but barely any Batman. This wouldn't be a problem if so much of the movie didn't drag on that you actually start to wonder when Batman will be back, and then they cut to Bruce in the Pitt and your like "Oh the babby hurt his back, almost forgot. Take off that rope, fear is why blah blah blah". Look the Pitt is a cool idea and I can see why its important to all the character's backstorys but it just goes on forever and seems to be an excuse to keep Bruce Wayne in the movie because they have no idea what Batman should be doing while Gotham goes to hell. It's not like Batman could help or anything. He just needs to go through another trans formative experiences... like in the other two movies only this time with more fear to motivate him. Honestly though, Batman just doesn't appear enough in his won movie because it has so much padding where he isn't needed.

4. "I'm immortal... no, not like in the comics" : So one of the first scenes with Bruce Wayne in the Pitt has Liam Neeson, a great actor who's coming back as an action star in a big way, appear to him as his character from Batman Begins, and because that movie didn't make a lotta money they had already been spending a lot of time retracing his back story which they manage to do in subtle cool ways that gel pretty well with whats happening. And when he actually appears to Bruce saying "I'm immortal" I very obviously giggled because his character Ra's al Ghul is effectively immortal. Even though we saw him die in Begins, he could very easily be back here right now and kick this movie into overdrive. Then he.... fades away because it was all a hallucination.
...
Alright fuck off. Can't "I'm immortal" just mean "I CANNOT DIE BECAUSE LAZARUS PIT" like its supposed to. I mean I can see what they were going for his spirit cannot die and his bidding will be done but couldn't they find some other outlet to portray that message. Like have his daughter say it later in the movie? 
... 
Oh she does? 
Oh ya I remember that. 
...
Alright fuck off. 
This scene is so pointless and yet another example of time not well spent with a great actor. Not only that but its a missed opportunity for a great twist set up. 

Because of the Lazarus Pit he's like super immortal all the time yo. 

5. Robin John Blake : Kids for those of you... sorry, PEOPLE for those of you haven't read any Batman comics there are 5 Robins. FIVE! And yet they insisted on making up a new random name for a new random character and then slapping Robin onto his name. I wouldn't mind except that the ending explains well enough the he pretty much becomes Robin, why not just give him an actual Robin's name? Or better yet  Terry McGinnis the Batman from way in the future. A professionally missed opportunity if I've ever seen one.

6. Touching moment... touching moment... the ending... touching mome- wait what!? : So yes, that scene where Alfred tells Bruce that he can't watch him kill himself is INCREDIBLE. It well written and its touching and its by far one of the best scenes in the movie. You pretty much wanna die as this old man guy who has lived a long life looking after this kid basically has to give Bruce and ultimatum.  And then in the middle, it kinda gives away the very ending... I mean they aren't gonna build that cafe' set for one scene, and as long as the ending is a happy one even Alfred has to get his just reward. So if your paying attention you do in fact get the ending spoiled for you. 

7. Who the hell is that? : This complaint is smaller but worth noting, Bane, Catwomen, that one business guy who was evil Daggit or something like that, and Commissioner Gordon all have minor characters riding on their coattails. Catwomen has that annoying blonde lesbian with no name and even fewer lines, Bane has that bad ass sniper guy with no lines and even fewer names, Daggit has that creepy bug eyed guy in the grey suit, and Gordon has the most obnoxious cop in the history of Gotham P.D. who only seems to exist to go through a rushed and unimportant character ark. 
I have no words.
I just wanna know why these characters are in the movie at all. They are wasting time.  

8. Nods and bows and screw ups oh my : I'll give this movie credit, up until this point Christopher Nolan seems to have been pretty against a lot of the source material in the comics, in favor of twisting elements to his liking and as  with some of the complaints above there are a lot more old school comic nods in this movie. Which is a shame because the ones they did used they seem to have botched, and the ones they could have used better really stand out ; 

   i. Robin John Blake , I already mentioned this but I'd like to point out that this character is probably going to wind up in the comics later because of his portrayal in this movie. He's pretty much a combination of the first three Robins, and is all around a great character acted well. I just think his name is dumb. 

   ii. The scene where Bane beats the shit outta Batman, this is actually a pretty famous part of the comics. Bane was the first person not just to defeat Batman but in his debut comic appearance in Knightfall beat the crap out of Batman, and breaking his back as it was shown in this movie. However where Knightfall used Bruce Wayne being out of commission to introduce now interesting characters this movie just uses it as a framing device so that Batman can go through the same process of returning to Batman as he has in the other two movies.
And ya know, in the beginning of this movie. 

SEE HOW AWESOME THAT IS?!

   iii. Did ya notice how bizarre that was ^ , The movie starts with Batman being crippled, getting back into the game and pumping himself up ONLY to hurt him and have him go through the exact same process again half way through the movie. WHY?

   iv. Talia al Ghul wasn't a good twist  - though it seemed to be THE twist, So ever since Liam Neeson's character in the first movie was seen everyone pretty much knew that at some point Talia was going to show up. Why? Because shes Batman's most consistent love interest and half the reason any writer brings Ra's al Ghul into a story. So eventhough everyone knew she was coming, and they give hints throughout the movie that shes coming, they still expect it to be a shock. 

Ya they're together a lot in some of the comics.

   And there ya have it. Is it a bad movie? Well like I said with these in mind I still have to recommend it. I don't think it'll win any awards and I don't think its going to be at the top of any of these actor's best movie lists but when it comes down to the wire this movie pulls off what it needs to do : End an amazing trilogy of movies, written well, directed well, scored by a master of music, and acted tremendously. Its not as good as the other two but its great and it deserves your support. 

The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)

   SPIDER-MAAAAAAAAAAAA,
SPIDER-MAAAAAAAAAAAN
RADIOACTIVE SPIDER MAAAAAAAN
DODADOOOO - okay you get the idea I really really really like Spider-man. From the earliest of comics all the way to this new movie I will always like Spider-man. He's a punk ass with super powers flying around New York city with a camera. Whats not to like? For the record I like the first and second of the Sam Raimi movies, regarding the second as the best super-hero movie of all time. Does this one measure up? Well I'll tell ya... 


   I loved it. I thought the acting was great, I thought the writing was great, I thought the action scenes were legitimately memorable and most importantly I thought this was a faithful rendition of the Spider-Man origin I know and love. The writing feels great, and there isn't more than one seen where the acting feels forced.
..we'll get to that seen in a moment. The acting is great, while this cast isn't any bigger or more star studded then the last but for the times it's definitely no less. And on top of that what really matters, the caliber of the acting, is fantastic :  Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Denis Leary, Martin Sheen, Sally Field these are some strong actors and they all pull their weight. Nothing that was written too cheesily really comes off that way when they deliver the line, nothign feels over the top or unnessary for a super-hero movie. Everything falls pretty perfectly into place. If this was the whole movie i'd be pretty thirlled. 


  The problem this movie seems to have on its hands is the Lizard played by Ryhs Ifans, he isn't a bad actor he just doesn't seem to have much to do. Once his connection to Peter Parker is explained he really only gets a small handful of scenes to develop a motivation, a character, an alter ego, and finally an evil master plan. It isn't awful but he feels rushed and under cut. What could have been a deep interesting and tormented character gets kinda shoved to the side. I mean this movie does put a lot more polish on Spidey's story but it doesn't let the villain pop. And being that Spider-man has some of the best villains in the marvel universe that's really saying something. 


   All in all I say this movie is worth a look and I hope it kicks of a new more stable franchise of good Spider-man movies. As you'll notice I didn't mention the third Sam Raimi film becuase it was terrible. Go check out this summer super-hero block buster that definitely ...is worth a look. But is not as good as the other super-hero movies we have already seen or are about to see (Avengers and the Dark Knight Rises respectively.)

Ted (2012)

   
   Walking into Ted I expected a simple kinda half assed version of every dude bro-ship clashes with relationship comedy, except made worse by having to stare at a cheaply animated teddy bear. What I got was in fact a shock, one of the best dude bro-ship clashes with relationship comedies in recent memory, that actually had some decent characters, good acting, and .. well a few cliche's but we can't win em all! 


  Ted opens very simply; a young boy without friends gets a new teddy bear for Christmas and wishes that he come to life. Contrary to what probably should happen, the bear comes to life and assumes the mantle of the young boy's best friend. And because he's a magical talking adorable teddy bear the two become quiet famous. Years later the fame has died down, leaving the two now young adults at an emotional level of man-child because they're always had each other. When the guy (played by Mark Wahlberg) starts getting serious with his girlfriend (played by the dazzling Mila Kunis) she asks if maybe after all these years Ted (Voiced by writer and director Seth MacFarlane)  could move out so they can start a life together. 


  Annnnnnnnnnnnd you can see where that takes them, the idea isn't terribly original and the curves in the plot  can be picked outta the crowd like bright red tomatoes in a bagel factory.... see even the metaphor I used was more confusing then the plot of Ted. What makes it worth watching are three things ; the acting, the writing, and Mila Kunis. Now Mila Kunis is self-explanatory beautiful and a good actress but most importantly actually a funny and deep female character in this sort of a movie with a real motivation we actually believe. The jokes , while I won't get too specific, are a mix of all MacFarlane's favorites playing out in proper live action. And for what it's worth his jokes only work for me half the time so to say that I think its funny is some evidence that it should have a broader appeal then Family Guy. It's a mix of obscure references to his favorite era in which he grew up and very precise political humor that rarely crosses over to the offensive side. 


   But what really does it for me in this movie is in fact the acting, everyone plays their character so well ; Wahlberg uses his classic accent to stay in a kind of meta-immaturity, 
Giovanni Ribisi plays the perfect - OH I'm sorry didn't you know he was in this movie? Ya he is and he's f*cking weird. He plays the hell out of his weird creepy character but still... ick. Even Patrick Warburton, who you  will immediately recognize, who has less than five scenes in the movie is hilarious. 


   I can't promise you'll love this movie but isn't too long, it's funny, and when it suits the film its actually kinda sweet. Worth a quick look. 

Can Charlize Theron Act? Part 3 : The Verdict

Yes. 

Yes she can.

   Despite the fact that neither of these are her best movies, Charlize Theron is a crazy good actress. Going from crazy Witch-Queen to stark somewhat mischievous scientist in these two recent films and nailing both only proves that this girl can act. She's the best part of Snow White and she's damn good in Prometheus, even if she doesn't get all the screen time she deserved.

Why did two of her movies come up a week apart? 

Well I'm still not really sure.

   But apparently shes gonna be in Mad Max 4. So that's cool. 

Can Charlize Theron Act? Part 2 : Prometheus (2012)

   Prometheus is the kind of movie I feel like I'll enjoy a lot more later. Not to say that it's bad, but it has holes and unanswered questions and a few little Easter eggs I might not understand until Easter rolls around. Never change Ridley Scott. 


   For those of you who don't know ; Prometheus is about some scientists in the future who after finding several clues on earth venture deep into space looking for the origin of man in the form of a pre-human humanoid race that they dubbed the Engineers. After arriving they find some mysterious ruins and discover that they may not like what they've found. 

   And while that's very very cool the movie's set up is a little confusing. The opening scene in particular makes very little sense and simply exists to be pretty. In fact a lot of this movie is aiming right for your eyes, hoping to wow you with visuals so that you don't notice how little is going on during some scenes. And to be honest, it does work. This movie is gorgeous, beating the crap out of whatever hack designed the look of things on Avatar. Prometheus presents us with a breathtaking look at an Alien world, with some Alien ruins, and some other freaky gross but still cool Alien stuff. I'm not gonna say it sacrifices any plot for visuals, but I'm willing to bet the Director's Cut of this movie is going to be a very different , and much longer film. 


   And that really isn't a bad thing, I enjoyed Prometheus as a sci-fi movie, as a movie in the Alien universe, and as two hours of eye candy. And so will you, the look is original and once they get into the fray the plot is wild and intense. Opening up a whole new side to this story then most people are prepared for. I'd go so far as to say it's better than Aliens 3 and 4, it's on par with 2, but it doesn't quiet hit the classical spark that the original did, other versions with standing. 


   The actual writing and the acting are all around solid. Not great or original but they don't really feel generic. Some of the characters don't feel fleshed out, but they aren't pulled from something else. And the dialogue is as good as any venture into Ridley Scott's view of how people will talk in a hundred years. The acting is.. pretty fantastic, Charlize Theron, Noomi Rapace, Idris Elba, and Michael Fassbender all did an incredible job in this film, and while it's none of thier best films this movie manages to put a lot of big talents on display without feeling crowded, even if the other 13 members of the crew sorta fall behind. 


   If your a fan of Alien, or any of Riddley Scott's movies go see this, its a great Sci- Fi. But it's not an instant classic, and when it hits DVD I feel like we'll see a longer, broader, more spectacular version of this already beautiful film.

Can Charlize Theron Act? Part 1 : Snow White & The Huntsman (2012)

  

   Let me get this train crashing as fast as possible; Snow White ampersand the Huntsman sucks. It's dull, disjointed, full of cheesy terrible writing, and even worse cheesy terrible acting. And who do I blame?
   
   I blame Kristen Stewart . Yeah f*ck you Kristen Stewart. The internet loves to rag on her right? She's terrible in this movie, showing no facial expressions and giving a lower grade performance than usual. Shame on you Kristen. Charlize Theron and Chris Hemsworth both tried thier damnedest to salvage this, where were you?
   
   Hmmmm who else? 


   Well I guess the main problems with this movie stem from it trying to do too many little cool things, and failing at joining them into a big movie. It opens with a LONGGGGGG 40 minute flashback sequence explaining the plot, a plot I'd like to remind you most people this movie is targeted at know by heart. Then when the actual movie we came in for starts it's a cheesy mess. Every scene drags because the acting and writing are so terrible and generic. Even good actors like Charlize Theron and Chris Hemsworth look utterly lost in a movie that seems to be pinned on them, even though they aren't at the center of anything. Hell, between the two of them they're barely in half the movie, and neither of them have a scene with Kristen Stewart in the first hour of the movie. F*ck me, Charlize Theron doesn't have a scene with Kristen Stewart until the last 20 minutes. 


   What really blows my mind about this is how many good ideas seem to have been thrown at it. For instance while there's some good, but obviously, marketed casting throughout the movie that your probably already sick of. But I bet you didn't know the seven dwarfs show up half way through and are cast spectacularly. But between the seven of them they have about 25 minutes of screen, and about the same number of lines. Crazier still the visuals are mostly bland, and then halfway through there are some seriously beautiful fairy tell cameos that actually made my jaw drop. For a brief moment it was like being transported a much better movie. Of course it lasts about three minutes and is never explained at all, further confusing me. 


   Some part of me just wants to write it off and assume every scene of this movie was filmed in a separate year by several different groups of people speaking different languages. But since I know that's not true, because that's impractical, I'm just gonna have to chock this up to a bad directing job. He probably showed up late everyday. Completely hungover. Never read the script. Made it up as they went along. The transitions between sets make no sense, characters and ideas, some of which are cool, keep getting lost and thrown around because of the poorly written and acted story they're all centered on, and above all it's like no one watched it before pushing it to theaters. 


   Just skip it. Kristen Stewart isn't getting any better, and Chris Hemsworth should forget he's in this movie because you will five minutes after you see it. Ya know the character he plays is an alcoholic. That really makes sense to me now...