Directed by: Matt Shakman
Starring: Pedro Pascal, Vanessa Kirby, Ebon Moss-Bachrach, and Joseph Quinn
Rating: PG-13
Genre: Science Fiction / Adventure

The Fantastic Four: First Steps is easily the best version of the Fantastic Four that we’ve seen on the big screen. The cast is great, the score is absolutely wonderful, and the decision to set it on an alt-universe Earth with a retro-futuristic aesthetic allows it to stand on its own in the MCU with no prior homework required. It gets to be both a little campy at times to match its 60’s Jack Kirby comic book origins, while also creating very real and relatable stakes for the family and their world.

The Fantastic Four is known as “Marvel’s First Family.” They’re a group of four astronauts who acquired superpowers after being exposed to cosmic rays during an adventure in space. This origin is wisely told in the form of a flashback montage for those unfamiliar with the story without wasting precious screentime for those who know these characters well. First Steps begins 4 years after their cosmic incident, where the team is already well established as public figures and a loving family of four that’s about to welcome a fifth.

The chemistry between the cast is thankfully the strongest part of the movie, with some of the best moments just being conversations between them. Pedro Pascal is forced to tone down his usual charm to portray Reed Richards, whose intellect often conflicts with his emotional understanding. Vanessa Kirby’s Sue Storm serves as the story’s emotional center and foundation of the team. Ebon Moss-Bachrach brings a warmth and heart to Ben Grimm, and though I had my initial doubts with the choice of Joseph Quinn for Johnny Storm, he delivers the expected, though somewhat tempered, attitude of the Human Torch. Even Galactus, a character whose appearance could come across as too goofy to adapt, is perfectly executed here. His size and presence are often terrifying, made even more so by the vocal talent of Ralph Ineson.

Unfortunately, for everything it does right, there are a few aspects that keep First Steps from really reaching the next level. Ben Grimm is the most likeable member of the team, but probably has the least amount of screen time. They introduce an arc for him, but it doesn’t really go anywhere satisfying. They start to play with the idea of hero worship and public perception, but that too gets quickly resolved in favor of the larger story. A quick backstory is established for Julia Garner’s Silver Surfer, but the resolution of her arc lacks the emotional punch it could’ve had. In regard to the action, there’s a decent amount of sequences that look cool, but they generally lack any standout moments that’ll truly “wow” you. Even The Thing’s inevitable shouting of his catchphrase doesn’t inspire the cheers that it should.

The Fantastic Four: First Steps is a solid entry in the MCU, and fortunately one that stands on its own. Sporting an incredible cast, score, and aesthetic, it’s only slightly hindered by unrealized potential in certain aspects.

Directed by: James Gunn
Starring: David Corenswet, Rachel Brosnahan, and Nicholas Hoult
Rating: PG-13
Genre: Science Fiction / Adventure / Action

Let’s get the obvious out of the way. Superman is ultimately a James Gunn movie through and through, so if you’ve enjoyed his past projects, chances are you’ll enjoy this too. True to a James Gunn movie, on the negative side it’s a little overstuffed with too many characters at times, while on the positive side it’s just as frequently overstuffed with heart.

David Corenswet is possibly the most “human” and grounded Superman we’ve seen on the big screen, often wrestling between his desire to be kind and do the right thing and the seemingly inevitable consequences of making those choices. He cares about everyone and everything, going out of his way to save every life he can, no matter how big or small. While we spend only a brief time with Ma and Pa Kent, their influence on Clark’s beliefs and life choices are immediately evident.

Rachel Brosnahan embodies all the vulnerability and ambitious focus we’d want in a Lois Lane, who does everything she can to get to the truth regardless of the risk to herself. Nicholas Hoult’s version of Lex Luthor is brains over brawn, making him a formidable foil to the Man of Steel. He walks a fine line between his overconfident brilliance and his insecure jealousy. There are many other side characters throughout the movie and each one gets their moments to shine. James Gunn’s scripts tend to excel at dedicating just enough time to a full ensemble cast, and that’s no different here. Jimmy Olsen gets to be his usual comic relief self, but also serves the plot in a very important way. The Justice Gang of Guy Gardner, Hawkgirl, and Mr. Terrific each have distinctive personalities and relationships with Superman, and I have no doubt Mr. Terrific will quickly become a fan favorite. Even Metamorpho, as small as his role is, has a story arc that’s completely satisfying.

And of course we have to talk about Krypto the Superdog. Gunn has stated that the original script didn’t include Krypto at all, but the adoption of a rescue dog of his own changed the shape of the story. Of all the side characters, Krypto might have the biggest role, and I can’t imagine the movie without him. Most dog owners will probably agree that his depiction as both the best little guy and the most chaotic nightmare is incredibly accurate. Krypto gets not only some of the most memorable moments in the movie, but his relationship with Superman also enhances how believable they each feel.

If I had any complaints with the movie, it’s that I’m still not completely sold on Superman’s costume as it feels a bit boxy at times, and the head-on camera during some of Superman’s flights wouldn’t be my first choice, but those are pretty minor complaints. If this is the tone we’re setting for the future of the cinematic DCU, I’m very excited to see what comes next.

Melvin (portrayed wonderfully by Stephen Dorff) is a party animal still living with his mom and sister in New Orleans. Divorced from his wife and longing to see his son, he spends most of his days hanging out with his best friend Lucille (Eddie Griffin), a fast-talking, wheelchair bound veteran. The movie opens with Lucille finding Melvin passed out in a parking lot after a long night of booze, drugs, and women, the final nail in the coffin that could prevent him from seeing his son again if he misses his court appointment.

Oh wait… did I mention that Melvin’s telekinetic? Well yeah, there’s that too. In what seems to be public knowledge to most of the community he lives in, Mel has the ability to move objects with his mind, something he occasionally does for fun or to make some quick cash. You’d think that this would be the focus of the movie, and while it’s what certainly caught my interest, it’s not nearly as important as what it represents.

American Hero is a story about a guy who has great potential and squanders it. In the movie, it exists as Melvin’s telekinetic ability, but what it truly represents is the potential that every person has. The idea that it doesn’t matter what skills you possess or how intelligent you are if you lack the motivation to put it to use. Melvin lives in a post-Katrina, crumbling neighborhood infested by drug dealers and does nothing about it until a near-death experience invigorates him with a new sense of purpose.

The greatest successes of the movie are both delivering this message without getting needlessly deep and watching Stephen Dorff guide us there with his portrayal of Melvin. Dorff is fantastic in this role, showing a man hitting rock bottom and believably rising to meet his calling. While Melvin is certainly not without humor, Eddie Griffin’s Lucille keeps things even lighter, providing the comedy relief while often being the emotional crutch for Melvin to lean on.

A questionable decision by director Nick Love is that of taking a documentary-like approach with the presentation, one that presents itself randomly at times while seemingly being forgotten at others. There’s never an explanation as to why the documentary crew is following Melvin and Lucille, or why they would be OK with a larger audience seeing the resulting doc about Melvin and his abilities, especially when he refuses to visit hospitals because of them.

American Hero works due to the strength of Stephen Dorff’s portrayal of a lovable loser, even if some of the decisions made by the filmmakers don’t support it. If you’re looking for a superhero action-fest, look elsewhere. But, if you’re looking for a lighthearted tale of one man’s fall and redemption, with a touch of telekinetic badassery, American Hero is well worth your time.

Django, played by Jamie Foxx, is a freed slave turned bounty hunter who partners up with Dr. King Schultz, played by Christoph Waltz, who together set out to save Django’s wife from the slaver Calvin Candy. The title to this film is inspired by the 1966 Italian spaghetti western Django staring Franco Nero. For those of you familiar with that movie, you’ll notice Franco Nero makes an appearance in this remake during the Mandingo fight scene. I have always loved how Tarantino pays homage to past films from which he himself was inspired.

From an acting standpoint, I do believe this is some of Leonardo DiCaprio’s best work. His portrayal of a ruthless southern plantation owner is very believable. The real star here though is Christoph Waltz. Watching him in this film is worth the price of admission. His ability to bring a character to life, and most importantly bring emotion from the audience, is unmatched. Whether you hated him in Inglorious Basterds or loved him in Django, you certainly won’t forget him. Speaking of Django, Foxx did a great job portraying this character. I for one am not a big Jamie Foxx fan, but after watching this film I’m much more open to him as an actor. Also starring in this film is Samuel L. Jackson as Stephen, and you will absolutely hate him even though he makes you laugh quite a bit. This is another great performance by Mr. Jackson.

As with most other Tarantino films, Django spares no expense on fake blood. There are moments in this movie that are downright difficult to watch but are a reality. Tarantino did a very good job of portraying the brutality that was slavery in the United States. There is also a great deal of gun shooting and blood splattering throughout this film. One of the things I’ve noticed Tarantino become better at is controlling the flow of dialogue to action and back. Although this movie has a run time of 2 hours and 45 minutes, at no point did I find myself looking at the time or hoping for an ending. The movie flowed nicely and offered action, romance, and comedy.

As I mentioned before, this film deals with slavery in the United States and takes place two years before the civil war. If this type of content or the use of the slang word for negro offends you, I strongly recommend you do not see this film. I think Tarantino really pushed the envelope of what’s acceptable in film but he did it with purpose and it paid off. I think when we look back upon Tarantino’s career someday Django will stand out as one of his best films, maybe even his best. I strongly recommend you see this movie.

[xrr rating=10/10]

The first thing I want to clarify about Pitch Perfect is that this movie is NOT a musical. Yes, it does feature singing, but in a musical songs are often used in place of conversation and the characters are not aware of the fact that they’re singing. This is not the case in Pitch Perfect. This is a movie that features music, specifically several a cappella groups.

The plot goes a little something like this: Anna Kendrick plays Beca, an outsider-type girl who has some daddy issues because he’s making her attend college instead of pursuing her dream of producing music. He wants her to fit in and make friends, while she just wants to keep her headphones on all day. Meanwhile, there’s a rivalry going on between two a cappella groups… the Bellas and the Treblemakers. The Treblemakers are the top dogs and this year the Bellas are looking to knock them off their throne.

Things look pretty formulaic on paper and to a degree they are, but for something that could have been completely ridiculous, Pitch Perfect‘s greatest success is its self-awareness. It’s a movie about rival a cappella groups that treat themselves with gang mentalities. The Treblemakers somehow manage to pull off being jerky, meathead, frat boys while still being a group of guys who believably love to sing. It’s all pretty ridiculous, but the movie walks a fine line between poking fun at the concept while still holding onto enough seriousness to keep the audience invested instead of allowing them to join in on the bashing. There are a few elements in the movie that feel a bit out of place due to their level of absurdity (like the reason the Bellas lost the competition last year and a super creepy, quiet talker), but even these moments add to the strange, welcoming vibe that runs through it. If not for this internal vein of absurdity, the movie could have come across as cheesy. Fortunately, it just ends up being a lot of fun instead.

Roles that should feel tired and overdone end up feeling fresh due to the performers in them. Anna Kendrick’s Beca embodies a lot of the anti-social, grunge cliches, yet still manages to come across as warm and inviting. Rebel Wilson’s “Fat Amy” could have easily been accused of ripping off Melissa McCarthy’s character in Bridesmaids, but offered just enough of a different spin to keep it unique. Brittany Snow and Anna Camp are your typical dolled up sorority types, but provide a dynamic between the two that makes it work. Lastly, Alexis Knapp plays the voluptuous sex-kitten Stacie, another role that could have been 2-dimensional, but manages to sneak in her own brand of comedy.

And as much as I hate to admit it… I even enjoyed the musical numbers.

Bottom Line: A well crafted level of absurdity and self-awareness allow Pitch Perfect to avoid the cheese-pit and rise up as a fun and enjoyable movie.

[xrr rating=8/10]

If you’re browsing around on a site called The Geek Generation, then you already know who Stan Lee is, but how well do you know the man behind the legend? This is the simple question that the 80-minute documentary With Great Power: The Stan Lee Story aims to answer.

The film explores Stan’s rise in the comic book industry, from working in an office of just three men, to holding down the fort on his own, and emerging as an innovator who took comics in a new direction while giving birth to Marvel. The path to glory wasn’t always a smooth road for “The Man”, as Stan reveals in this clip that he had thoughts in the 1960’s of quitting the comic book industry before his wife convinced him to try things his way, giving birth to the Fantastic Four.

The famously humble Lee walks the viewer through this rise, providing insightful commentary every step of the way with a touch of humor as only he can. Because Stan can never compliment himself enough, the documentary also features a parade of prominent faces to speak on his behalf, from industry peers such as Dick Ayers, Frank Miller, and Todd McFarlane, to the elite of Hollywood like Bryan Singer, Patrick Stewart, and Nicolas Cage. The different voices along with the motion-comic presentation keep the story flowing in a seemingly effortless manner.

Lee’s superhero innovation of focusing on the “man behind the mask” and motivations for creating some of his most famous characters are explored, explaining the “everyman” that is Peter Parker/Spider-Man, the gamma-irradiated monster the Hulk emerging in a time of nuclear fear, and the struggles of diversity and intolerance endured by the X-Men. Through humanizing his characters, Stan truly created that initial bridge of understanding between reader and comic book superhero that helped people identify with these superpowered beings.

Even with the amazing life that he’s lead in the comic book industry, the film’s most entertaining and heartwarming element is the always-present love story between Stan and his wife of 60 years, Joan. To see them interacting together is to truly understand Stan Lee’s character and success as both a husband and father. In every way his female counterpart, he and Joan play and joke together delightfully, and even share their stories of hardship with a sparkle of humor. The energy, adoration, and attitude of the couple is the real stuff of legends.

Bottom Line: This documentary should be watched by every Stan Lee fan, every comic book fan, and every movie fan.

[xrr rating=9/10]

With Great Power: The Stan Lee story is set to air on EPIX as part of its Marvel Heroes Weekend on April 27.

When leaving a screening of Project X, the first thought in my mind was, “What the hell am I going to write about that?” It’s certainly not the easiest movie to classify and dissect. However, I will go right ahead and say that it’s incredibly funny. That much is undeniable, but there is a sense of worry that went along with watching a movie like this.

The story line is very typical of high school movies. Let me set up a couple plot points and you feel free to predict the outcome on your own, because you’ve seen it all before:

– Main storyline: Three “losers” (Thomas, Costa, and JB) decide that the path to “cool” is throwing a booze-filled, moderately-sized party in hopes of getting laid while the parents are away…

– Romantic subplot: Thomas’s childhood female friend Kirby’s coming to the party, but he’s lusting after local bombshell Alexis…

– Absurd subplot: After scoring some drugs from a former military burnout, Costa thinks it’s a good idea to steal his yard gnome…

If you’ve ever watched movies before, I’m sure you’ll have no trouble completing those plot points. While chaotic in presentation, the storyline remains very predictable.

So why worry? When it comes to movies, TV, video games, and pretty much all forms of entertainment, I’m very liberal. I will also admit that I’m not a big partier, never have been, but aside from being entertaining the movie also struck me as being a bit socially irresponsible. The movie really is just one big party. There’s no underlying message, moral, or life lesson that I could pull out of it. At one point, it felt like the movie turned on itself and took a darker, more “sober” look at what was going on. I thought that perhaps the whole thing was a setup for some social commentary, but unfortunately it didn’t spend nearly enough time going down that road. The movie also only views women through the eyes of the three hormonal male leads, as none of the female characters are fleshed out beyond basic descriptions like “hot, popular girl” or “cute childhood friend.”

The presentation is one that’s becoming more popular lately, that of the “found footage” video. While it does increase the realistic vibe and audience immersion, it wasn’t handled as well as the recent Chronicle, as most of the movie is seen through the lens of one camera instead of using a compilation of multiple views. There were creative uses of this type of shooting, as jokes could be quickly brought on and off the frame, leaving the viewer to process and enjoy it for longer than it was on the screen. The combination of the bouncing camera, high energy atmosphere, and general chaos can be overwhelming though, leaving the viewer exhausted. I imagine this was intentional though, as it replicates the energy level of the post party-goers themselves.

While it may look as though I’m just complaining about the movie, I do want to reiterate that it was still ultimately entertaining. There are more than a handful of moments when you’ll be laughing out loud, and just as many where you’ll feel Thomas’s anxiety. Overall, it’s best classified as more of an experience that you have (and hopefully one that stays vicarious) than just a movie that you watch.

Bottom Line: Project X is chaotic in presentation with a storyline that remains very predictable, but ultimately delivers enough humor to make it worth viewing.

[xrr rating=7/10]

Directed by: David Fincher
Starring: Daniel Craig, Rooney Mara, Christopher Plummer
Rating: R
Genre: Crime / Drama / Mystery

Originality is a welcome commodity that is increasingly hard to find. There seems to be more remakes and rehashes than ever before in all facets of entertainment. Often these remakes are better at creating buzz than actually creating something of value. However, there are a few instances where a remake can go beyond that title and actually become a valid form of entertainment. That accomplishment requires a few things: first and foremost is a filmmaker who is more interested in created a quality product than a cash cow. That is clearly the case with The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. David Fincher injects his own style and directing ability to create a film that is better than the source material.

In the film, Daniel Craig plays Mikael Blomkvist, a disgraced writer whose career is likely over. His attempt to take down a corporate industrialist backfires as he is accused of reporting incorrect information. To make matters worse, he loses a Libel case and is required to pay damages to the industrialist. Things begin to look up for him when he is offered a job by Henrick Vanger. Vanger wants him to unveil the truth of his niece’s disappearance 40 years ago. Blomkvist is reluctant to take the job, but Vanger’s need to pay his debts makes it impossible for him to refuse. As Blomkvist looks into the case he begins to discover how bizarre the Wagner family is. Family rivalry, Nazi links, and unyielding greed only begin to describe the craziness of this family. Blomkvist continues to dig deeper into the case and stumbles upon a break. Something he feels will lead him to solving this mystery. However, not wanting to make the same mistake he did with the industrialist, he asks the Vanger family to provide a researcher to validate his findings. They end up hiring Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara), the same person who did the back check on Blomkvist. Lisbeth is a dynamic character that attempts to rebel against the norm in every conceivable way. Her life has been a difficult one. Due to past digressions she is on probation. She is given a guardian who controls all of her finances. Lisbeth does have some things going for her though, namely a photographic memory. This gift gives her a knack for computer hacking and becomes a vital tool in solving the Vanger case.

It was an interesting choice for Fincher to keep the setting in Sweden. I assumed, like the remake of Let the Right One In, he would move the story to America. In the end, I believe his decision was the correct one. There are a number of links to Swedish law and culture that may not have translated well in a new location. I feel you would have had a lot of changes if the story took place outside of Sweden. What Fincher does do differently in his film is establish an importance to the setting. The Vanger home is given an eerie presence that makes you stand on edge. The combination of both Fincher’s camera work and Trent Reznor’s score work masterfully to create tension in almost every frame. Reznor and Fincher have proven to be a great combination and I hope to see more from both of them in the future. Reznor’s score here isn’t as great as his score for The Social Network, but it perfectly fits the theme and tone of the film.

Another area where this film improved on the original was in the performances. Daniel Craig’s portrayal was a lot more compelling in this than the original. There is not much depth to the character, but Craig’s own personality allows it to go beyond a fill-in role. Rooney Mara was fantastic as Lisbeth Salander. Her version of the character was more well rounded and complex, with a sense of innocence that really humanized her. Small changes in the story help the humanization surface. You see this tortured soul has a tendency to be abrasive towards others, but she also is capable of showing tenderness to those she slowly lets in. Mara is also capable of depicting the irreverent side of the character as well. It is a character that is ambivalent to the majority of society. She has a limited expression of emotion that is conveyed in her complete coldness. Mara’s transformation into this character is easily one of the best performances of the year.

While there are a lot of elements of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo to admire, there are a number of issues. The biggest is with the story itself. When you break down the story to its core, it’s not much more than an extended CSI or Law and Order plot line. It attempts to dress up that story with a dynamic character, but in the end that just felt like window dressing. You have these two plot lines that diverge into one, and when they meet, the mystery completely overshadows any uniqueness that may have allowed it to stand out more. It’s not that the mystery is uninteresting. The issue is that you feel like you have seen this story before, and that’s not even considering it’s a remake. Fincher does the best he can with the source material, but the fact remains it doesn’t go beyond being a basic thriller. This story is like The Da Vinci Code in that its complex elements are relatively hollow. That hollowness is filled with commonality that makes it easy to digest. Also, like a number of Fincher films, it goes on a little longer than it should. The last 30 minutes felt extremely tacked on and never well defined its purpose.

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo does accomplish a pretty impressive feat. It tackles some challenging and taboo issues, but handles it in a way a general audience can deal with. Fincher does infuse his own unique style to make this stand out over normal run-of-the-mill mystery thrillers. At times it’s very demanding of the viewer. I just wish it was able to do more with those demanding sequences. I feel there is an underlying message that is trying to be stated, but it’s never clearly defined. It wants to be a force for empowerment, but certain decisions it makes lessens that impact. The way it handles the partnership of Lisbeth and Mikael is the perfect example of this. Their actions are clumsily put together to the point of confusion. A relationship that starts off as unique turns into an overly done stereotype.

The major flaws of the film can be traced back to the source material, because they are found in both versions of the film. The reason this version is superior is a simple one. It was made by a better film maker. Fincher couldn’t solve all the issues without reworking the story in a major way. He ironed enough away to create a crisper film that is more gripping than the original. While it doesn’t elevate the material to a large degree, the improvement in style and atmosphere make it the version to see. If you haven’t watched either I would definitely advise making this your first choice.

[xrr rating=8/10]

Synopsis via IMDB: “A Hollywood stunt performer who moonlights as a wheelman discovers that a contract has been put on him after a heist gone wrong.”

Written by: Hossein Amini (screenplay), James Sallis (book)

Directed by: Nicolas Windling Refn

Starring:

• Ryan Gosling- Driver
• Carey Mulligan- Irene
• Bryan Cranston- Shannon
• Albert Brooks- Bernie Rose
• Oscar Isaac- Standard
• Ron Perlman- Nino

The Good:

• Phenomenal acting. Every actor and actress played their part perfectly. Gosling did a great job playing a character torn by his decisions in life and his current state. Perlman was awesome as usual. The entire cast was great.
• The movie had a good pace to it. Quite a lot of talking but the moments of action were good and very vivid.
• The music used in the movie was different and quite good.
• This was a movie in which I could feel the suspense and cared about the outcome of each character.
• The city of LA was brought to life quite well. Although full of people, the director created a sense of loneliness within it.
• The movie from start to finish is GREAT!
• The few moments of violence are intensely real and gory.

The Bad:

• I would have liked to know more about the Driver’s past.

Final Thought: Awesome movie. Enough cannot be said about this film. It needs to be seen on the big screen. Go see it today.

[xrr rating=9/10]

Synopsis via IMDB: “Decades-old found footage from NASA’s abandoned Apollo 18 mission, where two American astronauts were sent on a secret expedition, reveals the reason the U.S. has never returned to the moon.”

Written by: Brian Miller, Cory Goodman

Directed by: Gonzalo López-Gallego

Starring:

• Warren Christie – uncredited
• Lloyd Owen – uncredited

The Good:

• It’s treated as though it’s actual footage.
• Good amount of suspense.
• You’ll jump out of your seat at least once.
• The acting was good. You’ll feel what they feel.
• Creates a feeling of hopelessness right away and is able to hold it.
• When the film is over you think, “Could this be real”?
• Intriguing ending to the movie. Leaves you wondering, “Could something bigger be coming down the road?”
• Very unique look at what an alien could be.

The Bad:

• The entire movie is viewed through the usage of security cameras and hand held cameras. You’ll feel like you’re watching footage from the 70’s and this can be difficult at times.
• The first 30 minutes or so are slow but it does pick up pace at the end.
• When it ends, you’ll be left with a feeling of sadness.

Final Thought: The movie is played as if it’s real found footage and does it perfectly. This is a film worth seeing. I’m excited to see if they do anything with a sequel or if this is building to something bigger in the future. Go see this movie!

[xrr rating=7/10]

Synopsis via IMDB: “A young girl is sent to live with her father and his new girlfriend discovers creatures in her new home who want to claim her as one of their own.”

Written by: Guillermo del Toro

Directed by: Troy Nixey

Starring:

• Katie Holmes as Kim
• Guy Pierce as Alex
• Bailee Madison as Sally

The Good:

• Katie Holmes and Bailee Madison’s acting ability shine. You can sense their curiosity, fear, and feeling of hopelessness.
• Set in a Newport, RI mansion. Very creepy and unsettling location.
• Special effects are well done.
• The back story of the “creatures” is intriguing.

The Bad:

• For a movie that runs 1 hour and 30 minutes it really dragged. I was expecting the final 15 minutes to be intense, but they were not.
• Guy Pierce is terrible in this movie. Did he ever take acting lessons?
• An opportunity to build a great back story on the origins of these “creatures” was missed.
• The ending is a let down.
• The creatures themselves are a bit of a letdown. Although different, they also felt familiar. Nothing new here.
• I never felt the suspense.

Final Thought: An opportunity to do something different and explore an untapped sector of horror and suspense was missed. Better luck next time.

[xrr rating=5/10]

There has been a long list of superhero movies recently, and along with them, the fear that the genre may become watered down. But have no fear, Captain America is here. Captain America: The First Avenger is the story of Steve Rogers (Evans), a guy from Brooklyn, New York in the 1940’s who wants nothing more than to do his part and serve his country. The problem is that Rogers isn’t exactly a physical specimen. He’s short, scrawny, and asthmatic, but the one thing he does possess is the heart of a hero. It doesn’t take long for this to get recognized by a military doctor who nominates Rogers to undergo the Super Soldier treatment he has developed. A few injections and Vita-rays later, and Rogers is not only a more impressive human specimen, but a superhuman one.

On the other side of the coin is Johann Schmidt, aka, the Red Skull (Weaving). Schmidt is the head of a Nazi deep science division called Hydra and was the first to undergo the Super Soldier treatment, but chose to use it prior to its completion, therefore undergoing scarring physical side effects. The Red Skull sees himself as a superior being, and insists the rest of the world view him in the same way. In order to accomplish this, he seeks out the Cosmic Cube, an ancient artifact that is said to have been left behind by the gods themselves. Using the Cube, his forces create a new breed of powerful weapons which he plans to use to eradicate major cities across the world as a demonstration of his power.

The only way a hero like Captain America can work is if his rise to the name and suit are believable. He can’t merely throw on a costume and start using the name. The movie does a great job of showing this evolution from the scrawny Rogers to the USO “dancing monkey”, to the icon that we know and love. The movie does such a great job at establishing the goodness in Roger’s heart, that even when he is the heroic, larger-than-life Captain America, we can still look into him and see the person he always was. Ultimately, that kind of heart is what the story of Captain America is all about, and fortunately the film never forgets that.

The action scenes in The First Avenger were fluid and satisfying. Just as Thor’s hammer can be a challenging weapon to portray, so is Cap’s vibranium shield, and just as Thor made wielding a hammer look cool, so does Captain America in regards to his shield. There is one scene in the film in which there is a motorcycle chase that made me think of Raiders of the Lost Ark. Perhaps it’s the inclusion of Nazi villains or the period in time, but it was a welcome parallel.

Chris Evans veers from his usual cocky comedy self in order to play Steve Rogers, and he does so incredibly well. That’s not to say there’s no humor, it’s simply spaced out in order to keep the role from becoming a caricature of so many superheroes we’ve been seeing on the big screen. Hugo Weaving is the perfect casting for the Red Skull, and pulls off the unforgiving evil demeanor of the character. The remainder of the cast, from Hayley Atwell to Tommy Lee Jones to Sebastian Stan as Bucky Barnes bring more levels of depth to the already immersive story.

Captain America: The First Avenger succeeds on so many levels where it could have faulted. It’s not an overly patriotic story holding the USA up on a pedestal. It’s the universal story of an underdog standing up against a bully. It offers just enough comic book “cheese” to make it extraordinary, but still grounds it in reality. And for the ladies, it also contains the most romantic and believable love story of any of Marvel’s superhero movies. Well done Cap, now bring on The Avengers!!

Bottom Line: Captain America: The First Avenger tells a fantastic story of an underdog standing up to a bully… with a badass vibranium shield.

[xrr rating=10/10]

Nick (Jason Bateman), Kurt (Jason Sudeikis), and Dale (Charlie Day) have horrible bosses. Nick’s boss (Kevin Spacey) likes to toy with him while dangling the possibility of a promotion over his head. Kurt’s boss (Colin Farrell) is a coked-up loser sucking his daddy’s company dry. Dale’s boss (Jennifer Aniston) is the definition of sexual harassment. This could be a welcome thing, except Dale has a new fiance that he doesn’t want to mess things up with. The three hatch a plot to rid themselves of their living nightmares once and for all… murder each other’s bosses.

The majority of humor in this movie comes from the trio’s clumsy attempts to plan and prepare these murders. They’re SO bad at it that they hire a murder consultant played by Jamie Foxx. I’d tell you his character’s name, but I try my best to keep my movie reviews clean. The movie works so well because of the performances given by each of the three bosses. They’re all despicable human beings that are just on the edge of believable, but outrageous enough to serve as caricatures of bosses that the audience may be all too familiar with.  Each is heartless enough to get the audience excited for their potential demise.

The performances were solid all around. The trio have great chemistry with Jason Bateman serving as the straight-man, Charlie Day as the bumbler, and Jason Sudeikis as the punchline-dropper. In some ways they felt like a modern-day Three Stooges with slightly more brains and a tad less slapstick. Colin Farrell’s role is almost too small to note, but was fine for what it is. Kevin Spacey couldn’t come across as a more slimy, disgusting person, and pulls off an attitude that few actors can. Jennifer Aniston is surprisingly raunchy, which is hilariously shocking in terms of the movie, but yet very welcome to see as she’s been locked into the same type of role for so many years.

Bottom Line: Horrible Bosses has arrived at a time when the economy can make people feel like they’re locked into their jobs and serves as a humorous, commiserating companion.

[xrr rating=9/10]

Green Lantern is the story of Hal Jordan (Ryan Reynolds), a brash test pilot who one night encounters a crashed spaceship and a dying alien. The alien gives Hal a green ring, saying it is a great honor and responsibility to be chosen. From there, Hal is whisked away to Oa, the planet that the Guardians have created as a central precinct for the Green Lantern Corps., a group of beings that serve as the protectors of the universe.

Lost yet?? You might be, and this is the first problem with undertaking a universe like the one that exists in the Green Lantern comics. The Green Lantern universe is so expansive and full of details and history that it’s very difficult to cover what’s needed in a 114-minute movie. While the intro summary is informative, it might be too much too soon for the audience to handle. I’m fortunate that I have a good knowledge of the Green Lantern universe, but not all movie-goers will fall into that category. The movie does a decent job of providing the viewer with what they need to know, but this movie should have been more around the 2.5 hour mark, and it seems the expenses needed for that time frame just weren’t an option.

Before I talk about what didn’t work, let’s talk about what did. The special effects in Green Lantern were impressive. The suit itself was the most noticeable effect, but not to a point where I thought it was bothersome. Oa was beautiful, and the creatures that inhabited the planet felt like they belonged. Mark Strong gave the most impressive of the performances as Sinestro, the best warrior of the Lanterns. Blake Lively was much better than the trailers portrayed, and twice as hot. Ryan Reynolds was an acceptable Hal Jordan, but only felt like he truly filled the role in the last 15-20 minutes of the film. Perhaps I’m judging too harshly, as part of the movie’s intent was to show that transformation.

So now on to what didn’t work. The jumpy cuts from scene to scene felt disjointed at times. I’m not sure whether to blame the editing or Martin Campbell as the director. One of the most interesting elements of the movie was the training and learning process Hal had to go through on the planet Oa, but those parts were rushed through much too quickly. In the comics, Sinestro serves as Hal’s mentor and they develop a close bond, but this doesn’t occur in the movie and feels like a wasted opportunity. Finally, the movie’s story structure felt too dated. It was the same old DC formula from the Christopher Reeve Superman days, and doesn’t quite hold up against the modern superhero origin stories.

All those elements aside, I can’t argue that Green Lantern wasn’t a fun movie. It may not be the most well-crafted superhero flick out there, but it was a good time. Perhaps that’s just my love for the character speaking.

Bottom Line: While not living up to its full potential, Green Lantern is still a fun superhero adventure.

[xrr rating=8/10]

Super 8 is the latest project from producer Steven Spielberg and writer/director J.J. Abrams. Not only is this the title of the movie, but it’s also what originally connected the two men, as one of Abrams’ first jobs in the film industry was restoring some of Spielberg’s old Super 8 films.

If you haven’t heard of J.J. Abrams before, you’d better learn the name. Not only he is responsible for directing 2009’s Star Trek, but he was also the initial writing force behind the mystery-based TV shows Fringe and LOST. Character-driven mystery stories are where Abrams excels, and Super 8 is no different. Set in a small town in Ohio, the story centers around a group of kids with a passion for making movies. One night while filming, their Super 8 camera captures a train wreck behind them. Following the wreck, the military shows up, while strange events start occurring in town. Electricity flickers on and off, people are missing, and all the town’s dogs have run away. Deputy Jack Lamb (Kyle Chandler) suspects a military cover-up of whatever is causing these mysterious events. Meanwhile, his 12-year old son Joe (Joel Courtney), who witnessed the crash, leads his movie-making group of friends on an investigation of their own.

As always, Abrams tells a story driven by the characters. While the mystery remains the driving force of the plot, the relationships between the kids, as well as their relationships with their parents, are the true focus of the film. Joe is coping with the recent loss of his mother and a workaholic father who is growing more distant as a result. At the same time, he’s developing a bond with Alice (Elle Fanning), who on her first night of shooting with the group also witnessed the crash. Instead of revealing much more of the plot, I’ll leave it for you to experience on your own.

As a character-driven movie, the performances had to be up to par to make it a success. Newcomer Joel Courtney shines in the role of Joe Lamb, who is only one of many great child actors to fill the cast. Continuing to impress is Elle Fanning, who’s career I’ve been admiring since her touching performance in Phoebe in Wonderland. The remainder of their friends aren’t starved for personality either, as one loves to play with fireworks, while another fancies himself a budding director.

It’s not too often I talk about the score of a movie, but the music in Super 8 is worth mentioning. Aside from the bicycle-riding, flashlights in the dark, and other Spielbergian visuals, the score is perhaps the largest cog of the nostalgia machine, feeling very reminiscent of early 80’s classics like E.T. or Back to the Future.

Bottom Line: Super 8 is a nostalgic trip through time, mixing J.J. Abrams’ brilliant storytelling with the feel of a Spielberg classic.

[xrr rating=10/10]

X:Men: First Class was one of those movies that looked like it could go one of many ways. It could be good like X-Men, great like X2, or downright embarrassing like X-Men: The Last Stand. While I had high hopes, I feared that a cast of virtual unknowns in a prequel attached to the same franchise would result in another X-failure. I’m glad to report that not only is First Class great, it’s the best offering from an X-Men movie to date.

This is no doubt due in large part to the return of Bryan Singer, and the addition of Kick-Ass director Matthew Vaughn. Singer originally departed the franchise after X2 to take charge on Superman Returns. Whether or not you agree with the way that the X-movies reorganize some of the characters, Singer clearly understands the underlying message of the X-Men: acceptance and coexistence. No movie up to this point better illustrates that struggle better than First Class. Whether it be Xavier’s undying faith in humanity, Beast’s efforts to hide his mutation, or Mystique’s tug-of-war between the ideologies of Charles and Erik, the message rings loud and clear.

If there is a highlight in First Class, it has to be the performances of Michael Fassbender and James McAvoy, along with the relationship between their characters, Erik “Magneto” Lehnsherr and Professor Charles Xavier. In proper prequel fashion, backstory is given for each man to lay out their journey up to the point of crossing paths. Their respective journeys give ample motivation for each of their belief structures. Charles believes mutants and humans can coexist peacefully, while Erik has seen the darker side of humanity his entire life. Under certain circumstances, like the ones played out in First Class, it’s completely believable that the two could be practically brothers. Their complex relationship is the backbone of the movie and is reflected throughout so many of the characters and events that take place.

The roles of the remaining cast are filled fairly well. Kevin Bacon is a wonderfully sinister villain as the Hellfire Club’s Sebastian Shaw. Jennifer Lawrence is a complex, yet sympathetic Mystique. Each of the “First Class” mutants bring something unique to the table. The one disappointing performance was that of January Jones in the role of Emma Frost, who managed to transform a major character from the comics into that of a wooden marionette.

As there are few flaws to point out, it’d be a crime not to see a direct sequel. On a sidenote, First Class features what is perhaps the best movie cameo I’ve ever seen. I won’t spoil it for you here though.

Bottom Line: The best of the X-franchise features some great performances and stays true to the core message of the comics.

[xrr rating=9/10]

When first hearing about a sequel to The Hangover, I’m guessing your first thought was one of two things:

1) I loved The Hangover and can’t wait for a sequel!!

OR

2) How are they going to make a sequel to The Hangover?

I fell a bit more into the second camp. While I enjoyed The Hangover, it wasn’t as spectacular to me as it seemed to be to other people. From a storyline perspective, there was really no justification to create a sequel, but the studios could easily justify it because they knew how much money it would bring in. The result is a sequel that shares the exact same formula as the first movie. One guy’s getting married… there’s a bachelor party… they wake up clueless as to what happened and start to put the pieces back together through a series of hilarious events. This time around there was a small tweak to the formula… they left out the humor. The Hangover: Part II felt like any Ben Stiller movie to me, in which I felt so bad for the characters involved in the story that I couldn’t find their situation comedic in any way. I may have let out one, maybe two laughs during the entire 102-minute snoozefest.

The reactions of characters to certain events are also completely unrealistic. I can’t imagine a human being on Earth that would be happy, or even just nonchalant, about losing a finger and not remembering how it happened. I know this is a comedy and there’s a certain amount of suspension of disbelief, but that only goes so far.

The Hangover: Part II tries so hard to take things from the first movie and make them work again. Yes, it was funny when Mike Tyson showed up in the first movie and sang In The Air Tonight. No, I don’t want seemingly random songs played throughout the movie for comedic effect… and no, having Mike Tyson show up to sing again doesn’t work either. In fact, it may have been the single worst movie cameo I’ve ever seen.

Lastly, and I’m cutting this review short because I don’t want to continue reliving scenes from this debacle any longer, when a movie has mystery elements of unraveling how events took place, don’t reveal the answers to those mysteries through a series of still images during the credits. Make them a part of the actual movie. To do otherwise is just lazy.

Bottom Line: The Wolfpack is back, but they should have quit while they were ahead.

[xrr rating=2/10]

For me, the character of Thor was in the same camp as Iron Man. I was always fairly familiar with both on the surface, but never bothered to dig too deep into their respective worlds. Because of this, it made the first Iron Man movie that much more of a pleasant surprise. Now, having seen Thor, I can say that I’m just as pleased.

One of the people I saw the movie with referred to Thor as a “Reader’s Digest” version of the character, and I agree with that assessment. Each of these Marvel films leading up to The Avengers has the task of introducing the mainstream to all of the heroes that will be involved. While Thor did succeed in this regard, it was in no way fleshed out to the extent that Iron Man was. Don’t, however, mistake that as me saying that Thor sucked, because it most certainly did not. It’s just different, and different isn’t always a bad thing.

Thor wasted no time in moving the plot along, and it really couldn’t afford to since there was so much to cover. The nine realms, including Asgard, needed to be introduced and completely understood… and it was. The relationships between Odin, Thor, and Loki all needed to be established… and they were. Thor’s journey from arrogant prince to humble hero needed to be believable… and it was. While fast-paced, Thor had clear goals in mind and hit the mark with each.

One of the best parts of Thor were the action sequences. Thor’s style of aggressive fighting, Mjolnir in hand, couldn’t have been portrayed any better on the big screen. If you think watching a guy swinging a hammer around would get dull, think again. There was clearly a lot of thought put into using Mjolnir in creative ways. They certainly had lots of material to pull ideas from.

As far as the acting went, Chris Hemsworth’s performance as Thor was superb, successfully managing to portray all aspects of the character’s personality. There have been doubts by some that anyone would be able to share the screen with Robert Downey Jr. in The Avengers, but Hemsworth’s charisma and presence put him in a good position to. Anthony Hopkins delivers as he always does in the role of Thor’s father Odin. Tom Hiddleston was perfectly cast as the villainous god of mischief, Loki. Natalie Portman was fine as Jane Foster, but the role was clearly unchallenging for someone of her caliber. Even the warriors three shined throughout the film.

If there’s anything to take away from the success of Thor and Marvel’s other recent releases, it’s that you can’t mess around with the source material. If this is the path that they continue on, I look forward to both Captain America and The Avengers.

Bottom Line: Thor is an action-packed blockbuster that provides a fun and faithful experience.

[xrr rating=9/10]

Some people like their movies summed up by comparing it to other similar movies, so for those people, here’s an equation: The Matrix + Groundhog Day + American Beauty = Source Code.

Source Code is the story of Captain Colter Stevens (Gyllenhaal), a military man who is part of a new project in which his mind is transmitted into the “memory echo” of a recently deceased terrorist attack victim. This is The Matrix connection. Once occupying the body of the train passenger pre-mortem, he has 8 minutes to find the bomb and bomber before the train explodes. If he fails, he can go back in and repeat the same 8 minutes, but this time can adjust his actions and hopefully return successful. This is the Groundhog Day connection. The whole purpose of doing this is to find another, larger dirty bomb that the same terrorist is planning on detonating if he’s not caught in time. So where then does the American Beauty connection come in? For me, American Beauty was one of those movies that struck your soul and made you really appreciate the gift of life and every second you have. Sure, it’s wrapped in a different package, but Source Code had the same effect.

There are not a lot of bad things to say about this movie. The performances were solid, particularly from both Jake Gyllenhaal and Vera Farmiga. For having the same initial sequences repeated as often as they were, each time it was presented in a different way that prevented it from feeling overly repetitive. With only 8 minutes at a time to get things done, you can imagine how fast-paced the action had to be, which results in some suspenseful moments. And to top it all off, there are layers of complexity here far beyond what the trailer had originally suggested. Let’s just say that the terrorist bomb plot is only half of the mystery. I won’t go into it any further than that since I don’t want to ruin anything.

Source Code is also the sophomore effort by director Duncan Jones, who hides behind a fake name for a reason that escapes me because soon after directing Moon it became widely known that he is the son of David Bowie. Famous father and pseudonym aside, if Jones keeps putting out quality flicks like Moon and Source Code, he’ll soon be on the fast-track to directing the next big Hollywood blockbuster.

Bottom Line: Source Code is a mystery as fast-paced as the train it takes place on, with unexpected turns lining the track ahead.

[xrr rating=9/10]

It’s only fair that I begin this review by stating that I’m not a big fan of military or war movies, so I was hoping for the sci-fi element of Battle: Los Angeles to shake things up a bit. The story goes like this: Aliens invade our planet by concealing themselves Trojan horse-style inside meteors which all land nearby major cities across the globe. Their suggested aim is to eliminate the indigenous population of humans and take the planet’s water for their own use. While there are mentions of a war spanning across the globe, the movie focuses on one military unit assigned to search for and rescue any civilians left in an area of Los Angeles.

Unfortunately, the alien element was not played out as well as it could have been. It didn’t even have to be aliens. They could have easily swapped out the enemy for any mass of people or creatures that used different technology, since it was really just about having an enemy that was unfamiliar to us. That being said, the aliens themselves were actually designed fairly well. The weapon integration made it very clear that this is a warrior race with a clear goal in mind, enough to alter their own bodies to accomplish it.

The acting was adequate, but featured a cast that was capable of more, specifically Michael Peña and the lead, Aaron Eckhart. The rest of the cast that compiled the military unit simply weren’t given the time to build enough depth to their characters. Like many war movies, and wisely so, Battle: LA wasn’t afraid to kill off important characters, but also like many war movies, I often wasn’t familiar enough with a particular character when they died, thus taking away any real emotional response to their death. There were, however, two deaths that actually did mean something, so I’ll give credit there.

The biggest flaw with Battle: LA was the unyielding momentum of it all. A well done story is like a roller coaster. It has peaks and valleys as it moves along. An action sequence or a critical moment may occur and heighten your emotions and adrenaline, and then it slows down and allows time for absorption before working up to the next peak. Once the battle started taking place here, there was pretty much only one extended sequence of downtime where the audience was allowed to relax from the constant feeling of paranoia that the rest of the movie offered. This results in a roller coaster that’s always on the way down, and a somewhat uncomfortable viewing experience.

The biggest success of Battle: Los Angeles was its military accuracy. Sure, there were some tiny flaws here and there, and admittedly I’m no expert when it comes to these things, but a close friend of mine with an abundance of military experience couldn’t say enough good things about how faithful the movie was in regards to all things military-related.

Lastly, +2 points for casting Taryn Southern as the reporter on the beach, but -3 for blowing her up. And -5 points for a glaring continuity error involving a pistol near the end.

Bottom Line: Battle: Los Angeles is not the horrible abomination other critics are making it out to be, but it’s certainly nothing new or special either.

[xrr rating=5/10]

Eddie Morra (Cooper) is a fairly untalented, or maybe just unmotivated, writer until his former brother-in-law Vern offers him a little clear pill that allows the user to unlock the full potential of their brain. Upon “awakening” with a new-found mental prowess, Eddie succeeds in accomplishing tasks in mere hours that months of struggling couldn’t achieve. He finishes his book in days, accesses subconsciously-stored memories with ease, masters the stock market earning him millions, and learns new languages by simply hearing them in the background. Unfortunately, it quickly becomes clear that this world offers more than just successes, as Eddie finds Vern with a bullet in his head. Not only that, but the drug has some unexpected side effects to deal with.

Limitless is a great “what if?” story that poses a long series of questions. What if you could unlock your full potential just by popping a pill every day? What would you do with the new abilities you have? Is it worth the risk of negative side effects? How would the people around you respond to the “new you”? Is everything you’re accomplishing really you, or is it the drug? There was a lot of room for failure in a movie like this, but Limitless does it right… for the most part.

There are parts of the film that jump around and may feel confusing, but given the context they’re supposed to be. There may also be several moments in the movie where you find yourself asking, “If he’s so smart, why didn’t he think of doing this or that?” Let’s keep in mind that we’re watching a movie that’s supposed to be exciting. Limitless could have been 30 minutes long, but who wants to watch that? As a result, there are a few areas where things may have been made longer than necessary for the sake of drama. There’s also one subplot that surfaces and quickly feels tossed aside, but by the end of the movie you may not even care; I didn’t.

Bradley Cooper continues to rise in Hollywood, but seeing him back in the days of Jack & Bobby, I knew he had the acting chops to make it big. It certainly doesn’t hurt to have someone as polished as Robert De Niro to play off of either.

Bottom Line: Limitless has a great “what if?” premise and follows through to deliver an exciting thrill-ride.

[xrr rating=9/10]

After losing an election for the U.S. Senate, David Norris (Damon) has a seemingly chance encounter with a beautiful woman in the men’s bathroom while preparing his concession speech. Elise (Blunt) is a woman unlike any he has ever met and serves as the catalyst for a speech that gets his political track back on course. The two share an intimate moment before being separated with no way of contacting the other. Another chance encounter brings them together yet again, but leads to a revelation for Norris. Arriving “too early” to his office, he finds a group of mysterious men who are orchestrating the behaviors and altering the minds of the people in his life. He is a given a brief peak behind a curtain that most never see and learns of a predestined plan for both his life and the woman he now loves. David is given the difficult choice of being with Elise and watching their dreams crumble, or having both his and Elise’s dreams fulfilled, but in order to do so, they must stay apart.

The Adjustment Bureau is another movie in the reality-bending genre that invokes the important question of fate and predestination. Are the choices we make the determining factors of our lives, or are we all ultimately subject to a greater power that has our lives planned out for us? Not only the title of the movie, The Adjustment Bureau is a group of mysterious men who are altering the judgment and events of peoples’ lives in order to make sure they stay on the written path. Their influence reminded me of the beings in Dark City, but the intentions of the Bureau are nowhere near as malicious.

The movie does a great job of setting up the life of David Norris, providing plenty of motivation as to why he’s a politician and how much career success is important to him. This in turn makes his decision that much more meaningful. The later acts of the movie become a cat-and-mouse game, with David and Elise doing what they can to dodge the Bureau. I don’t feel I’m spoiling anything with that, because what’s a movie about fate vs. free will going to do other than challenge the idea of fate? The cat-and-mouse portion is handled extremely well, combining intense, edge-of-your seat chase scenes with the audiences’ desire to root for the forbidden lovers. Another successful aspect of the movie is the focus on the members of the Bureau. While it seems that they have a higher power to answer to and a job to do, they aren’t denied their free will.

Matt Damon and Emily Blunt have fantastic on-screen chemistry, and they’d have to in order for us to get behind them. Aside from their performances, both John Slattery (who I’m a big fan of) and Anthony Mackie both shine as members of the Bureau.

There were, unfortunately, a few flaws in the movie that kept it from being ranked higher. The fact that David Norris is given a choice at all as to how his fate will play out somewhat undermines the idea of fate at all. However, I am making the assumption that they were actually presenting him with a choice, as opposed to just telling him that he had one while interfering to ensure he makes the choice that they want. Couldn’t they have just influenced his mind as they had with his co-workers, or is there some rule against doing that in his case? The movie also ends rather abruptly. There is a clear ending, but it moves very quickly from a frantic pace to the conclusion and credits. It’s worth noting that the movie’s release date was pushed back 6 months from its intended release. I imagine some re-tooling was done in this time, and perhaps the abrupt ending was a result of this.

Bottom Line: Aside from a few flaws, The Adjustment Bureau tackles the continuing question of fate vs. free will in a creative and exciting way.

[xrr rating=8/10]

Not to be mistaken for the 2006 mystery drama of the same name, Unknown is the story of Dr. Martin Harris (Neeson). Dr. Harris and his wife Elizabeth (Jones) are visiting Berlin on a business trip, when in a moment of separation, Martin gets into a car accident leaving him in a coma for 4 days. Upon awakening, everything he knew to be true is now in question. Someone else is going around claiming to be Dr. Martin Harris, and he has no way to prove this alleged-impostor wrong. His own wife even denies his identity to his face. It’s as if he never existed in the life that he remembers. Believing his memories to be real and his identity to be true, Dr. Harris seeks out the driver of the taxi that saved his life in the crash (Kruger), as well as enlists the services of a private detective to help put the pieces together.

From the trailers, many people are looking at this as Taken 2, but I assure you it’s not. Yes, there are a decent amount of well-executed action sequences, but these are just the icing on the cake. The real meat of Unknown is the mystery. New details and facts are dropped in quite skillfully in the movie – some to lead us in one direction, while others cast shadows of doubt on what we believed to be true. I’ll admit that while I have a knack for seeing through many movie mysteries, Unknown had me fooled right to the end. The majority of evidence is there if you’re looking for it, but you may not even have considered it as evidence when it originally presented itself.

Aside from a minor plot hole that could most likely be rationalized if necessary, my only issue with this film is the pacing. There are some portions that seem to drag just a tad longer than necessary, but not long enough to cause boredom or pull you out of it. It could have been edited a bit tighter, but then again I could just be nitpicking too much.

All the performances are solid, while Neeson remains the most convincing 58-year-old action star I’ve ever seen. While most of my comments have been a showering of praise, there is a certain “something” lacking from the movie to bring it up to the next level, I just wish a knew what that missing factor was.

Bottom Line: Unknown is a well-crafted mystery with just the right amount of action mixed in. I doubt you’ll figure this one out before it’s revealed.

[xrr rating=8/10]

I Am Number Four is the story of nine human-like, alien beings who were sent to Earth from a dying planet so that they could fulfill a greater destiny. Each of them is numbered and being hunted down by another alien race, the Mogadorians. The enemy race has already succeeded in eliminating numbers one through three, so the character focused on here is John Smith (Pettyfer), aka Number Four. John has been forced to move from town to town his whole life to keep safe and is looked after by his also alien protector Henri (Olyphant). Just as John is learning that he’s next on the list, he starts to develop abilities, referred to as “legacies”.

The origin story here feels very similar to another super-powered, orphaned alien ::cough::Superman::cough::, but isn’t nearly as fleshed out. We know that these nine each have special legacies, which is their reason for being sent to Earth, but that’s really all we know. The Mogadorians seem to want to eliminate the nine because they’re a threat to their plan to dominate Earth, but it seems that they’re only interest in Earth is the nine themselves. The only explanation we’re given is that the Mogadorians are decimaters by nature, and nothing much else beyond that. If you’re willing to just accept the terms as they’re laid out, you’ll enjoy the movie much more.

Speaking of super-powered aliens and stories, the writers responsible for this screenplay are Alfred Gough and Miles Millar, the same writing team behind Smallville. I Am Number Four is based off of a book by the same name, but their writing style is clearly on display here. The movie feels much like a CW show brought to the big screen with much better special effects. Fortunately for me, I enjoy Smallville, so I ultimately enjoyed I Am Number Four.

As far as performances go, Alex Pettyfer is fine in the role of John Smith. As an actor that’s just starting to break out, I’m interested to see how well he’ll fair in something more challenging. Glee’s Dianna Agron brings a soft-spoken innocence to the role of Sarah, making for a perfect damsel in distress. The standouts for me were both Timothy Olyphant as Henri and Teresa Palmer as Number Six. Olyphant’s certainly no rookie to Hollywood, and his experience brings an appropriate confidence to his role. My only issue with the character of Henri is that for a skilled warrior, he doesn’t seem to do a lot of fighting. Australian native Teresa Palmer, on the other hand, does a LOT of fighting as the badass Number Six. She’s the only character in the movie who seems to have a clear purpose and mission.

Bottom Line: I Am Number Four bears a striking resemblance to something you might see on the CW, and that’s just fine if you’re into that sort of thing.

[xrr rating=7/10]

Vince Vaughn and Kevin James have been in pretty bad slumps lately. Vaughn’s last few movies were Couples Retreat, Four Christmases, and Fred Claus. James hasn’t been faring much better, as his recent credits include Grown Ups and the infamous Paul Blart: Mall Cop. Needless to say, I wasn’t expecting much going into The Dilemma. I had forgotten about one small detail though… director Ron Howard. Certainly the man who brought us Apollo 13 and A Beautiful Mind could harness the talents of these two comedic powerhouses and save their careers from continuing to spiral downward, right? Right?

Simply put… yes. Yes he can. While The Dilemma certainly isn’t the caliber of Wedding Crashers, it’s a vast improvement over something like The Break-Up. While I walked in expecting another comedy that was too stupid and disjointed for its own good, I came out delighted to see a film with much more substance.

Simply put, The Dilemma explores what Ronny Valentine (Vaughn) should do when he catches his best friend’s wife (Ryder) having an affair. Does he tell him right away? What about the whole “shoot the messenger” mentality? Should he confront her first? Will revealing the truth emotionally destroy him, resulting in massive ulcers and ruining their chances of landing the dream contract that could make or break their auto design firm? Yeah, that last one’s a bit heavy, but it demonstrates that there’s nothing simple going on here. The audience joins Ronny on quite the emotional roller coaster as he wrestles with all these decisions. While the movie is being advertised as a comedy, it’s strength lies in the drama portion. Jennifer Connelly brings a lot to the table in this regard as the girlfriend of the commitment-phobic Valentine.

Vaughn and James actually have great on-screen chemistry and their life-long friendship comes across as very believable. There are some comedy elements that do work, such as Vaughn’s classic quick-witted ranting, Queen Latifah’s overly sexual metaphors, and Channing Tatum’s unexpectedly sensitive personality. The comedy is sprinkled in just enough to keep things from getting too serious, but as I mentioned already, don’t go expecting to see a raunchy macho-fest. This one has a more complex web to spin.

Bottom Line: More drama than comedy, The Dilemma will play with your sympathies and get you thinking about how you might act in a similar situation.

[xrr rating=7/10]

Let me start off this review by stating that I may have a slight bias towards The Fighter, because a few summers ago my brother and I ventured up to the Tsongas Arena in Lowell, MA and spent the day on the set, serving as crowd extras for some of the fight scenes in the movie. As two movie buffs, this was an amazing experience for the both of us. For me personally, I was even more excited to see two of my favorite actors (Bale and Wahlberg) doing what they do best right in front of my eyes.

The Fighter is based on the true story of “Irish” Mickey Ward (Wahlberg), a boxer from Lowell, MA who wants to be just like his older brother and hero Dicky Eklund (Bale). Dicky, the “Pride of Lowell”, once stepped into the ring and went toe-to-toe with the great “Sugar” Ray Leonard. Dicky begins to train Mickey before falling into a world of drugs and crime. Mickey’s manager and mother has her eye on the prize and sees Mickey as more of a money-maker than a son. The family dynamic is rocked when Mickey meets bartender Charlene Fleming (Adams) and starts to see his destructive family from another point of view.

The film as a whole has a very gritty and realistic look. Many of the fight scenes appear more raw than what normally appears in a movie as they were actually filmed using television cameras to recreate the look and feel of the original fights. I’m no boxing expert, but it appears that adequate attention was paid to the fights and how they were played out. My one complaint was that the final fight of the movie could have been drawn out slightly more to make it feel more climactic. Although, that could be my bias showing through again, as watching it on the big screen flashed me back to the day of filming where I watched the final scene play out a good 8 or 9 times in a row.

The performances are all spectacular. Mark Wahlberg brings the usual dynamic and physicality you would expect from him. Amy Adams continues her maturing of roles that began in Sunshine Cleaning and further justifies her spot on 2010’s list of Hollywood Hotties. The real standout here that will no doubt get an Oscar nomination for best supporting actor (despite having nearly as much screen time as Wahlberg) is Christian Bale. Bale’s performance in the role of Mickey’s crack-addicted half-brother continues to show the diversity of characters that he’s capable of. I have yet to see a role that Bale can’t master and I’d love to see him earn that recognition for a movie that I was a part of, even if that involvement was a ridiculously small part.

Bottom Line: The Fighter is a better, more realistic underdog story than Rocky.

[xrr rating=9/10]

Just as he did in The Wrestler, Darren Aronofsky once again pulls back the curtain to reveal a world that most people would never have thought to explore. In Black Swan, we’re given a look at the dedication it takes to rise to the top in the world of ballet. For some, that might be enough information to avoid this review and movie at all costs, but I beg you to bare with me so I can change your mind.

Natalie Portman plays Nina, a New York ballerina who strives for perfection of her art so that she can earn the top spot in the upcoming production of Swan Lake. However, new arrival Lily (Mila Kunis) is a naturally passionate dancer that might be just what the director is looking for.

Aronofsky does a brilliant job here by taking the story of Swan Lake and mirroring that tale throughout Black Swan. As Nina works harder toward her goal, she begins to feel the stresses of achieving and maintaining success. This is the psychological journey that we are taken on. Unexplained events pop up throughout the film as evidence of Nina’s mental breakdown. At first it’s a flash here and a flash there, until the pressure becomes too much to take and the dam breaks. This is where the film really starts to get your heart pumping and why it will appeal to a mass audience. It’s much more about the psychology of the art than the art itself, and that’s what people will relate to.

Just as The Wrestler was a success based on Mickey Rourke’s performance, so is Black Swan on Natalie Portman’s. I’ve always been a fan, but never have I seen a performance of hers that was so challenging and ultimately impressive. There’s already a lot of Oscar buzz being generated, and I’ll gladly throw my vote into the hat. It’s not only impressive from an acting standpoint, but the amount of work that had to go into preparing for the physical demands of the role is mind-boggling. Let’s not forget the supporting cast though. Mila Kunis plays a perfect contrast to Portman’s Nina, Vincent Cassel brings an arrogant creepiness to the seducing director, and Barbara Hershey as Nina’s mother serves as the perfect motivation for madness.

My one and only issue with the film is the amount of non-reality flashes that occur. While necessary at times to properly illustrate the mental tearing, it can leave questions as to how things actually happened in reality. Most are fairly obvious, but without spoiling anything, the ending sequence may have you wondering exactly how it all could have happened the way it did. I’ll just leave it at that and allow you to pick up the pieces.

Bottom Line: Forget about the fact that it’s a ballet movie and prepare for a psychological thrill ride. This is Natalie Portman’s finest work.

[xrr rating=9/10]

So far, TRON: Legacy has been taking quite the beating among critics. I’m glad to say that I don’t share their ultra-negative views, and I think I know why that attitude has surfaced among so many. The original TRON that was released way back in 1982 is a cult classic, was a ground-breaking film at the time, and holds a special place in many Sci-Fi geeks’ hearts. Any time you’re going to take on something that beloved and innovative, it’s impossible to avoid comparison. So, let’s compare…

Since I was born in 1981 and the original TRON came out in 1982, you can imagine that it’s been awhile since I’ve watched the original. Honestly, I really only remembered bits and pieces, so before seeing Legacy, I started off my day by watching the classic. I don’t know what the big deal is. At the time, the visuals were like nothing that had been seen before on film, so I get that. But honestly, the visuals don’t hold up, so that whole nostalgia and innovation was lost on me. The plot as a whole is fairly mediocre when you really think about it. A wronged employee gets sucked inside a computer and battles an army of villains led by a Master Control Program in order to set the wrong things right and potentially save the technological world. Hmmmm… so it’s another “stop the bad guy from achieving world domination” story.

TRON: Legacy is along the same lines as the original. Clu, a program created by Kevin Flynn to help rebuild and optimize the world left behind after the MCP was destroyed, goes too far and starts building an army to take over the technological world before expanding his reach to our world. This time, Kevin’s son Sam is sucked into the grid where he reunites with his father to battle Clu’s forces and try to escape the digital realm.

While not necessarily innovative in terms of the visuals and 3D effects we’ve seen in recent years, TRON: Legacy is still a masterpiece of special effects. The look of the attire and environment have been updated for the better, making this new version of the grid appear much less barren and lifeless than the original. Fanboys may argue that things were altered too much from the original, but considering how much computer technology has changed in the past 20 years, it’s only logical that the digital realm would evolve far beyond what it once was in that same time-frame.

There are lots of nods to the classic TRON in Legacy, including cleverly-placed items that get a quick full shot or single lines of dialogue that echo the original. I personally thought that enough attention was given to classic references to satisfy the hardcore TRON fanboy, but not being one myself, I suppose I could be wrong. The one point that they glossed over and should have been more accurate with is the laser effect transitioning Sam from the real world to the digital world. It’s an effect that’s still referenced in pop culture today, and taking it away was a poor choice, as fans of the original were certainly expecting it.

As far as performances go, there weren’t any done poorly. The clear stand-out here was Jeff Bridges, who has certainly evolved as an actor over the years since the original TRON. Two of the major characters in the film, Kevin Flynn and Clu, are both portrayed by Bridges with an excellent dichotomy. To separate them even further, the digital effect of portraying Clu as a younger version of Bridges was fantastically executed and much less distracting than I had originally thought it might be. Garrett Hedlund is a worthy son to the iconic Flynn, and Olivia Wilde is charming in the role of Kevin’s surrogate daughter Quorra.

Bottom Line: TRON: Legacy is a well-choreographed action movie that showcases impressive visuals and technology. I don’t know what more people were expecting.

[xrr rating=7/10]

Due Date brings to the screen the odd pairing of “actor supreme” Robert Downey Jr. and “Hollywood’s current comedy IT-boy” Zach Galifianakis. The premise: Peter Highman (RDJ) is an expecting father that bumps into, literally, aspiring actor Ethan Tremblay (Galifianakis) at an airport as both men are preparing to fly to Los Angeles. While Ethan has hopes of making it big in Hollywood, Peter is rushing home to be present for the birth of his child. As the result of a plane mishap and a lost wallet, both men are put on the “no-fly” list and must ride together in hopes of getting to LA in time.

When creating an odd couple type comedy as Due Date clearly is, it’s important to have a strong chemistry between the involved actors. That chemistry is just not as strong as it should have been here. Even from the initial release of the trailers, I got the feeling that this movie was largely a chance for the studio to capitalize on two actors at the height of their respective careers. Both actors are amazing at what they do and their performances showcase their talents, but ultimately the story and situations placed behind them combined with the lack of on-screen chemistry lead the movie down a disappointing path.

The story itself is basically the tale of the comedic and idiotic bumbler who constantly defuses any hopes and plans of the high-strung, no-nonsense straight man. It’s a formula that’s been used before, but in the past it’s been executed more successfully. Yes, there were funny moments in which I found myself laughing out loud, but overall it felt very much like any Ben Stiller movie does. I ended up feeling so bad for Peter who just wanted to see his kid born, that I became too frustrated to find the funny moments as humorous as they could have been.

As most movies that deal with this type of dynamic need to do, we’re given brief moments looking into the sadness that accompanies Ethan Tremblay. This sympathy is the only reason the audience will tolerate his character instead of constantly wishing Peter would hurl him out of the moving vehicle. There are some moments where this sympathy feels justified, but as the movie progresses, Peter’s acceptance of Ethan feels very forced and unbelievable. His character basically pulls a 180 after a heroic act that doesn’t feel in character or logical in any way whatsoever.

Bottom Line: I wanted to like it more than I did. You’ll get a few laughs, but only if you can work through the frustration.

[xrr rating=5/10]

“Y’know what’s a popular video game? Resident Evil.”
“Yeah. We should make that into a movie.”
“Y’know what would be awesome? If the movie had Milla Jovovich killing zombies.”
“YES.”

When it came time for the sequel, this happened:

“So… Milla Jovovich. Fighting zombies…”
“Yeah. But we did that before.”
“Okay, but what if this time… SHE HAS SUPER POWERS.”
“YES.”

Then it was time to make another sequel:

“Super-powered Milla Jovovich fighting zombies…”
“Yeah, the well might really be running dry on that one.”
“Okay, but now she has like, god-like telekinetic powers.”
“YES.”

So the last movie ended with the promise of an army of Alice clones rocking the Phoenix force, which is pretty awesome in theory, but that premise would wear pretty thin over the course of a feature film. To the credit of Resident Evil: Afterlife, it does follow through on this scenario at the beginning of the movie, but after taking out a legion of Umbrella Corporation cannon fodder, the clones are wiped out and the original Alice loses her powers.

Unlike most movies that deal with a super hero losing their powers (I’m looking at you Superman 2 and Spider-Man 2), Resident Evil: Afterlife doesn’t waste time lingering on this plot point. Of course, unlike the movies referred to above, Alice isn’t trying to lead a normal life in a normal world, nor does she need super powers to wipe out zombies en masse.

For a series that hasn’t overburdened itself with continuity in the past, I was surprised by how much this movie served as a direct sequel to the previous installment. Alice (along with Ali Larter as Claire from the last one) are still searching for Arcadia – the last refuge from the T virus.

Alice picks up Claire in Alaska in what is apparently the most fuel-efficient prop plane in history and the two of them work their way down the west coast until they find a group of survivors holed up in an abandoned prison in Los Angeles. The survivors are a stock company of ethnically diverse post-apocalyptic survivors – a smarmy Hollywood producer, his Asian toady, a black basketball star, a Latino guy who isn’t really given anything to do, and a cute British chick who came to Hollywood with stars in her eyes.

What follows is fairly rote – a few jump scares as the living dead begin to penetrate the seemingly impenetrable fortress, followed by full-scale human-on-zombie warfare. To the movie’s credit, little time is wasted on exposition – the characters are sketched out enough that we get a general idea of who they are, and there’s no explanation of the continued evolution of the zombies. In this installment, they basically sprout Alien-style face-huggers out of their faces. Why? The movie never bothers to explain it. Does it matter? Nah.

The film’s chief virtues are Milla Jovovich’s performance as Alice – she’s not an incredibly gifted actress, but she does bring a certain gravity and haunted vulnerability to the role – and the movie’s utter lack of pretension. When the world’s overrun by the living dead, you already know pretty much everything you need to know – there’s no reason to try and add any social commentary at this point. Also, unlike a lot of other movies of this stripe, there’s no awkwardly-shoehorned attempts at humor – it’s all about killing the zombies before they kill you.

I saw the movie in IMAX 3-D, and since the movie was shot in 3-D (rather than converted to 3-D in post), it’s an incredibly good-looking movie. Sure, there’s lots of scenes with bullets, blood, fists, and feet flying in 3-D, but there are some great deep-focus shots in quieter moments that really take advantage of the medium. Like Piranha 3D, Resident Evil: Afterlife uses 3-D for a claustrophobic underwater sequence that really gets the most out of the technique.

The last act of the movie attempts to impose some sort of plot on the proceedings – as Alice has to face off with a big bad from the Umbrella Corporation who apparently served as Hugo Weaving’s understudy on the Matrix movies. There’s some nonsense about Alice’s super-awesome DNA and how he has to consume her to gain her ability to bond with the T Virus and whatever, but that’s just a limp backdrop for some incredible visuals and a bunch of action and special effects sequences cribbed, again, from the Matrix franchise.

Look, the Resident Evil movies are exactly the kind of thing I’m supposed to hate – thinly plotted, clumsily scripted, and ultimately brainless, but they manage to hit that sweet spot that keeps me entertained without caring too much about any of that. Paul W.S. Anderson is a workmanlike director who crafts easily digestible action spectacle without trying to overreach. Judging the film on that pedigree, it’s a success, but more discerning viewers might find it wanting.

This isn’t to say that Piranha 3D isn’t a pleasant enough distraction to sit through. It involves a fairly routine A story – a dorky teen getting into danger and rising to the challenge to become a hero – along with a routine B story – the good-hearted, responsible, and unheeded authority figures who try and save the community from unexpected peril.

The film would have been better served if these two stories were reversed in screen time. As the resort town’s Sheriff, Elizabeth Shue is terrific balancing the roles of mother, law-woman, and action hero. Ving Rhames is fine, but underutilized, as her Chief Deputy, and Adam Scott – who in a just universe would be an enormous star – is likewise great but underused. When one of your movie’s biggest problems is that the best actors don’t have enough screen time, you’re doing something wrong.
Instead, we spend a lot of time with Shue’s geeky son as he tags along with Jerry O’Connell’s Joe Francis stand-in. O’Connell plays the role too well for the kind of movie Piranha 3D wants to be. Sure, he drinks, snorts coke, screams profanity, and degrades women, but Jerry O’Connell is too young and innately likable to break through as the over-the-top, scenery-chewing villain he’s supposed to be.

Surprisingly, the movie’s two pieces of stunt casting – Jaws veteran Richard Dreyfuss as the first victim, and a delightfully unhinged Christoper Lloyd as a local fish expert (I guess) – actually work. There’s an extended underwater T&A sequence early in the movie that basically serves to parody the kind of exploitation movies that provided the movie’s inspiration. And when the gore really gets ramped up, the extended scene of piranhas feeding on spring break revelers (along with a few instances of man’s inhumanity to man) are unflinching in their depiction of fishy horror.

The beach-side slaughter sequence might have been even more effective if the movie had spent more time focusing on Shue and less on the misadventures of her children. In addition to her eldest’s adventures with the “Wild, Wild Girls” mogul, her younger children are stranded out on an island amidst the piranha-infested lake. Unfortunately, this is the kind of movie where you know that the innocent children will ultimately survive unscathed, while the victims will mainly be the morally bankrupt members of the cast.

Just before the final slaughter, Shue and her beleaguered local police force try to get the spring break crowd out of the water and onto the safety of land. Ultimately, the party-hardy kids ignore her until the feeding frenzy begins, and if the movie had concentrated more on the difficulty she had with trying to maintain order up until that moment, the ensuing slaughter would have been granted a greater measure of tragedy.

Like a lot of horror movies, Piranha 3D lags in the second act – after the characters and the threat have been established, a number of dull subplots are allowed to play out before the action begins in earnest. Piranha 3D is a serviceable but inessential addition to the catalog of Man vs. Nature horror flicks – it gets the job done, but never transcends the genre.

I attended a viewing of Scott Pilgrim vs. The World on opening night and right away was saddened that the theater wasn’t packed full. I hadn’t yet seen whether it was any good or not, but in a Hollywood of the “same-old, same old”,  I was routing for a movie that has originality written all over it. I should also state that unlike most comic book inspired movies that I’ve walked into, I had no previous knowledge of anything Scott Pilgrim-related aside from the PSN game that I had just started playing days before.

I’ll get this out of the way right now too. I’m not a big Michael Cera fan, to the point where I’ll avoid movies that he’s in just because I’m sick of seeing that same character done over and over again. Despite this, I was still very excited to see Scott Pilgrim. For the first time in a long time, I felt that it was finally a role where Cera could play his usual character and it actually made sense.

Inception is being applauded by Hollywood and fans alike because it successfully brought something new and fresh to the table. Scott Pilgrim is no different. Edgar Wright has certainly stepped up his game here. The direction, editing, and overall tone of the movie are absolutely perfect. The visual inspirations and sounds borrowed from video games make this a movie that any gamer should flock to. The relentless pace of the movie and quick (yet brilliant) transitions may feel rushed for some, but to me it felt like a story that hit the ground running and kept the action flowing.

There are several times during the movie where the average skeptical viewer may question events as they play out. Why does everyone have all these powers and crazy fighting abilities? What’s up with Ramona having snow melting roller skates and jumping through random doors? Why do people burst into coins? All of these questions are fair, but they apply to the real world. The world we see in Scott Pilgrim is one that none of us have seen before, and yet holds some familiar properties. The only way you’ll really enjoy this movie is if you stop asking questions and just go with it. They’re not creating plot holes by NOT answering these questions, they’re simply not willing to slow down the pace to give us answers we don’t need.

The action is incredibly visceral and satisfying. I don’t know if it was just my identification with the plight of Pilgrim, but I felt myself wanting to jump up out of my seat and get involved. Not since seeing the rage of the Hulk unleashed onscreen have I had such a similar reaction to on-screen combat.

As far as the characters and performances go, there’s a lot to be had here. Ramona Flowers (Winstead) could have been a little warmer, but I could see how damaged she is (sexy too, I’d certainly fight off seven evil exes for her). Knives was as annoying as expected. Unlike some, I at no point found myself rooting for her as she seemed far too young in comparison to everyone else. Anna Kendrick is adorably meddlesome as Scott’s sister Stacey and is quickly becoming one of my biggest Hollywood crushes. As far as the evil exes go, Chris Evans and Brandon Routh were by far the stand-outs to me. In a completely unexpected yet pleasant surprise, Kieran Culkin steals just about every scene he’s in as Scott’s gay roommate Wallace. I came out of this movie a much bigger fan of his and look forward to seeing where his career is headed. And yes, I’ll admit it. Michael Cera was great. Now leave me alone.

Bottom Line: Get your quarters ready, because Scott Pilgrim vs. The World is a movie you’re going to watch over and over again.

[xrr rating=10/10]

First things first, my intent was NOT to see this movie in 3D. However, as I was using a $10 off coupon only accepted by participating theaters and they were only showing it in 3D, that’s the format I dealt with. The 3D format didn’t necessarily hurt the film, but I can’t imagine it helped all that much either. Only two parts of the film seemed to be made specifically to cater to the 3D, that being a roller coaster segment at an amusement park and an extra comedy bit thrown in during the credits.

That being said, let’s take a look at the movie itself. The Oswald Cobblepot-looking Gru (Carell) is a villain living among the general population. He has no fortress in the side of the volcano; instead it hides below his home. He makes no attempt to hide his villainous vehicle, leaving it parked in his driveway. Right away you can see the tone of the movie. The villains are not so much the world dominating, homicidal creations seen in many movies, but instead “regular” people with a meaner disposition competing with one another to be the best at being the worst. The movie also sets its rules toward violence and consequences as being similar to Looney Tunes when Gru is shot with a collection of missiles and soon after exits a smoking crater stumbling and burnt. It’s nice to see that kind of “fun violence” again.

The story begins to take its turn when Gru adopts three young girls from a corrupt orphanage in order to further his efforts to acquire a shrink ray from his rival, thus allowing him to accomplish his diabolical plan of stealing the moon. Anyone familiar with this premise in movies will instantly see the direction its moving in, but that won’t take away from enjoying it. The adorable youngest girl, Agnes, had me thinking of Boo from Monsters, Inc. Her innocence and cuteness will win you over immediately.

The highlight of the film and a source of endless comedy are the Minions, yellow-pill looking creatures who eagerly follow Gru’s every demand and have a penchant for slapstick comedy and toilet humor. While they may appear to be a creation for use as a mere marketing tool, I’ll admit that I’m sold. Put out some plush dolls or video shorts of the Minions and I can guarantee I’ll be a buyer.

Aside from that, the animation is smooth and well done. My only gripe is that things seemed to develop far too quickly in the relationship between Gru and the girls. While a bit cliche, a montage could have helped provide a sense of development over a longer period of time. It’s a minor complaint in what was a very enjoyable film overall.

Bottom Line: A great family film that combines laughter, heart, and diabolical villainy.

[xrr rating=8/10]

Editor’s note: The following has not been spell-checked or edited in any way. Kids’ reviews are much better like that.

Dispicable Me is a great all around family comedy. All ages will love it . It is hilarious yet, heart worming at the same time. Rated PG. Genre Comedy. Directed by Chris Renaud. Starring Steve Carell, Jason Segel, Russel Brand, Julie Andrews, Will Arnet, Kristen Wiig, Miranda Cosgrove, Dana Gaier, Elsie Fisher. Releasd on July 9th 2010. Probaly my favorite PG movie of 2010. So go to the movies and take your kids this is a must see movie of summer 2010. I give it 4 1/2 stars out of 5 stars.

By Zak N.

Since the original Iron Man was my top movie of 2008, I was walking into Iron Man 2 with very high expectations. We had seen a lot of promise from the trailers…War Machine, Black Widow, and a more prominent role for S.H.I.E.L.D. director Nick Fury. Iron Man 2 delivered on a lot of those promises, more than a lot of other superhero movies had (cough::Venom in Spider-Man 3::cough).

Let’s first address what most people will complain about with Iron Man 2…the tone of the film. The first Iron Man was a classic origin story. A series of tragic events leads our hero to a new perspective which helps to redefine his purpose in life. The entire movie was very straight-forward and uplifting. Tony’s a jerk / Tony sees the light / Tony stops the bad guy. But then the twist comes. Tony Stark actually reveals to the world that yes, he IS Iron Man.

Iron Man 2 starts by taking us down that familiar road with the speech that concluded Tony Stark’s revealing press conference. Iron Man flies down into the Stark Expo and removes the red and gold to address his fans. The tone feels very comfortable and familiar until he steps behind the curtain to monitor a blood toxicity meter. At first, I took this to be a level of alcohol in his system, as in the comics Tony Stark has had a long-standing battle with alcoholism. The truth is revealed soon after that Tony is suffering from a sickness caused by the palladium core in his chest. The same device that is keeping him alive is now slowly killing him. This is where the tone of the movie shifts drastically from the first. It’s no longer just Iron Man vs. the bad guy, it’s Iron Man vs. Tony Stark as he gradually starts to become his own worst enemy.

The largest success of the movie is keeping the element of humor that made the first so great. Robert Downey Jr. is fantastic once again as Tony Stark, especially given the challenge of adding in a whole new dynamic to the character. He no longer can be as simple as the arrogant billionaire we saw before. However, we ARE given “classic Tony” in a hilarious Senate hearing scene that may have been the highlight of the entire movie.

Another success of Iron Man 2 was its ability to skillfully weave in a larger cast of characters. Each was given an appropriate amount of screen time, including Jon Favreau himself expanding his role as Happy Hogan, to the point where none of them felt underutilized. Sam Rockwell was particularly impressive as Tony Stark’s very hate-able business rival Justin Hammer. Don Cheadle was an acceptable replacement for Terrence Howard, but I still missed seeing the original actor reprise his role. I’ve always been annoyed by casting changes throughout a franchise.

No review would be complete without touching on the elements that could have been improved upon. At a run time of 2 hours and 5 minutes, I still felt many things in Iron Man 2 were rushed, while others dragged a little longer than necessary. Action sequences were brilliantly done, but at times seemed far too short. Both battles with Whiplash could have been extended, with the latter lacking that epic feeling that a climactic showdown should have. The female rivalry that was developing between Pepper Potts and Black Widow could have been explored a little more than it was. I felt like it was introduced quickly and then tossed away without much consideration later on. Anytime Justin Hammer is on screen he begins going on and on in monologues that should have been cut down a bit. I’m also still trying to figure out why Tony leaves his spare suits sitting around with power supplies in them…

…and one last thing. This is a criticism of Hollywood in general. Please stop putting things into trailers that end up on the cutting room floor. Most of the time I’m not walking into a movie waiting to see those particular scenes, but when I’m walking out I do recognize their absence. In Trailer #2 we see Black Widow wearing the suit’s gauntlet as Tony instructs her how to use it. This never happens in the film. In Trailer #1 there was a GREAT exchange between Pepper and Tony as she kisses the helmet and throws it out of the plane. Tony proceeds to jump after it throwing in a quick, “You complete me.” This also never shows up in the movie, which is too bad because I really enjoyed it in the trailer. Rant over.

Those things aside, Iron Man 2 was a fun ride that dared to try something a little different. We saw a superhero as a public figure that had to deal with an exposed identity as well as their own mortality. The visuals were amazing, the combat was for the most part satisfying, and the integrity of the source material remains intact. Mission accomplished.

Bottom Line: Iron Man 2 is a fun ride that takes the franchise in a more complex and mature direction…and does it successfully.

[xrr rating=8/10]

Dave Lizewski (Johnson) is an “invisible” high school student. His day-to-day life is underwhelming. He lives alone with his father and spends the majority of his time hanging out at a comic store with his buds. The pivotal point in his life is when he asks the simple question, “Why hasn’t anyone tried to be a superhero?” From here, Dave decides to buy himself a scuba suit and answer that very question by creating his alternate persona…Kick-Ass.

The film is based on a comic book series of the same name from author Mark Millar, who has also had a hand in The Ultimates, Marvel Zombies, and the recent Civil War story arc in Marvel Comics. While I haven’t read the series myself, I’m told that the film adaptation is a nice translation which holds onto the core of the comic books.

It’s within this translation that we stumble upon my first, and possibly only, gripe with Kick-Ass. Being a huge fan of Batman and all things in the respective Bat-universe, I was very upset to see such a blatant rip-off of the Batman costume being worn by Big Daddy. While other costumes in the film are at least close to their comic book counterparts, Big Daddy is nowhere near close. What we get instead is imagery of a Batman-looking character blowing people away with a variety of firearms. This upsets me for two reasons: 1) Batman doesn’t kill. 2) Batman doesn’t use guns. I don’t know if the filmmakers were trying to piggyback on the success of the recent Bat-films by creating this parody costume, but I for one am not a fan of that decision. Not only does it use Batman’s likeness in an inappropriate way, but it takes away from the originality of the character, as the audience will constantly be thinking “Batman” while looking at Big Daddy.

That said, there really isn’t much else to complain about with Kick-Ass. I think most people saw the previews and went in expecting a superhero comedy spoof, but that’s not what they’ll be getting. The movie straddles the line between spoof and superhero fantasy. At times, we’re looking at the goofy side with Kick-Ass himself and Red Mist. At other times, we have a more traditional superhero narrative going on with Big Daddy and Hit Girl. It’s the blurring of this line that makes the movie so intriguing.

The characters were very fleshed out. There were many times during the movie where my heart was racing as I feared what their fate might be. The action sequences are fantastic. While bordering on ridiculous at times, the film sets a tone and stays with it the whole way through. The clear stand-out here is Hit Girl, played by Chloe Moretz. Her performance is so spot on that you’ll actually believe an 11-year old girl is capable of that mentality and ability. There are lots of critics and naysayers out there complaining about the treatment of Hit Girl in the film. She’s crude, incredibly foul-mouthed, extremely violent while showing little remorse, and receives her fair share of abuse as well. The critics claim that this is inappropriate and will send bad messages to a younger audience. I’m sorry critics, but in case you didn’t notice, the movie’s rated-R. A younger audience shouldn’t be seeing this. It’s called personal and parental responsibility. The same kind of responsibility people should have been showing instead of bringing their children to see South Park: BL&U just because it was a cartoon. Did Hit Girl’s role in the film make me feel uncomfortable at times? You’re damn right it did, and that’s what the movie wanted you to feel. Huh, look at that…art making people feel emotions…what a concept.

Bottom Line: It’s not the superhero spoof you were expecting…it’s so much more.

[xrr rating=9/10]

I walked into Clash of the Titans having only seen bits and pieces of the original classic version, but being more or less familiar with the overall plot. Perseus (Worthington), the son of Zeus (Neeson) and a human mother (therefore a demi-god), is charged with the quest of saving the city of Argos from the wrath of the gods. His main motivation is to exact revenge on Hades (Fiennes) for the death of his family. As the story progresses, we learn that Hades has the ulterior motive of dethroning his brother Zeus and seizing Olympus for himself.

Congratulations…you’ve just seen Clash of the Titans…the modern version that is. You can thank me later for saving you the time. There are, however, some noticeable differences between the classic version and the modern version, namely the relationship between Perseus and Andromeda.

Aside from the plot summary listed above, there isn’t much substance to the modern version of Clash of the Titans. While visually impressive, the movie feels like a chain of action sequences tied together by a delicate string. At times the action feels a bit misplaced, namely the battle with the giant scorpions. Aside from Perseus, there is very little character development. Although, even he seems to be very non-reactive to the news that his father is the king of the gods. While the film attempts to help you care about Perseus’s crew, you’ll find yourself caring very little when they meet their untimely demises.

While I’m on the subject, I’m curious as to why they would remake a “classic” like Clash of the Titans. Usually in film, referring to something as a “classic” is placing it into a category in which you couldn’t possibly do better. Sure, the special effects have reached a level where a remake would be much more visibly believable…and don’t get me wrong, it is. The problem is that in doing so, it loses a piece of its charm. While the old-fashioned stop motion technique is now a bit dated, it certainly succeeded during the time it was used.

Bottom Line: Clash of the Titans is a non-stop action fest. While visually impressive, the character development leaves much to be desired.

[xrr rating=6/10]

I never sat down and watched the original all the way through, although I’ve seen enough here and there that I knew the premise and basic plot. When the hubby wanted to see the remake of Clash of the Titans on opening day, however, I jumped at the opportunity.  First, I have yet to disagree with Roger Ebert, who awarded three stars. Second, if anything ever happens to my husband, expect me to throw myself unabashedly at Sam Worthington.

‘Clash’ is about the definition of nonstop action. The only pauses in the running and jumping and screaming and slashing were to briefly emote on the victory or loss at hand. There is very little dialogue as well, even for an action flick. The bulk of conversation occurs very early on in the boat of Perseus’s human father and then in the city of Argos as we are introduced to the quest. This makes the movie just fly by. As the credits were running, I was surprised to see nearly two hours had passed, as I would have guessed no more than 75 minutes on the runtime.

I was surprised at how much the script accomplished with so little spoken interaction. Each character had a purpose and a motivation, and they all seemed to make sense which I normally don’t find. Perseus, instead of falling in love with Andromeda as the classic goes, is instead driven on this mad quest by a desire to get revenge for the death of his adoptive family. The men with him are, of course, trying to save their city. The ‘monster’ chasing our protagonist is the jilted husband of Perseus’s human father, for whom Perseus is a symbol of his humiliation at being cuckolded by Zeus. Some story elements are playing a bit free with the original story – which, remember, is all Greek Mythology – but I think the new version of events makes as much (if not more) sense.

This is the point where I admit to not watching the 3D version, just as I saw Avatar in 2D. 3D gives me a migraine, and I’m not paying extra to see a movie just so I can spend the next day immobile in a dark room. That said, I felt most of the CGI (particularly Medusa and the wide shots of Argos) were well done. Zeus’s armor was completely overdone, and there was a moment of “wait, what now? Scorpions? Where’d they come from?” that probably could have been done a lot better. Also, Medusa’s ability to turn things to stone seems to have mixed luck with clothing, as some newly petrified Greeks still had flapping skirts and others were solid clear through. I liked the awkwardness of flight the Pegasus had, and of course the Kraken was fascinating. Who’s to say this isn’t different in the 3D version?

I wanted to see the film because I wanted another angle from which to view Sam Worthington. Avatar was good, yes, but one movie is not enough for me to judge an actor by. Clash of the Titans didn’t give me much to work with. Can Sam Worthington pull off an action film, even in a wheelchair or a skirt? Yes and Yes.  ‘Clash’ didn’t give much insight into his ability as an actor, so I guess I’ll have to go see his next film, too. Darn.

Bottom line, this isn’t a drama. Don’t expect a lot of intriguing plot twists. This is a bunch of men taking on mythical and fantastical creatures, period. There are some notable detours from the original storyline, but for the most part this is a redo of a beloved classic with the kind of CGI that we couldn’t have imagined in 1981. Not only would I pay the $10 to see it again, I will eventually own this one.

[gravatar email=”robv@thegeekgeneration.com” align=”left” size=”40″ border=”2″] Editor’s note: Although Timm is our resident Lewis Carroll expert and has posted his review, we accept all points of view at The Geek Generation, so here’s Doug’s review of Alice in Wonderland.

Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass operate with the sort of dream logic that finds one event following another without much in the way of cause. The books are given perfunctory plots involving Alice traveling from an arbitrary Point A to an equally arbitrary Point B. The wisp of a blot is nothing more than a frame from which author Lewis Carroll can hang a  series of nonsensical vignettes filled with wordplay, malapropisms, logical extremes and poems, poems, poems.

The books began as an improvised tale for a trio of young girls, and while Carroll no doubt conceived the basic framework of the story, the intricacies of the language almost certainly came later. The language is what makes the books so special, which makes it frustrating that most filmmakers choose to shunt the language to the side in favor of visual spectacle. Of the adaptations I’ve seen, only the version of Through the Looking Glass starring Kate Beckinsale as Alice has had the good sense to slow down and enjoy the language.

A decade and a half ago, Tim Burton was the guy who’d made Pee-Wee’s Big Adventure, Beetlejuice, Edward Scissorhands, Batman, and Batman Returns and who knew how to use his unique visual style and production design to serve the story he was telling. The latter-day Burton is a parody of his younger self; his movies look like the results of an overeager film student assigned to make something in the style of Tim Burton. The garish colors, loud noises, and PG-13 grotesques are spectacle without any underlying substance.

In Burton’s adaptation, Alice is a willful young Victorian lady with all these crazy ideas about how women can totally do stuff men can and just looking pretty and getting married isn’t really that important. In the film’s framing story, Burton clubs the audience over the head with how wacky and unconventional Alice is in contrast to how stuffy everyone else is.  Dudes, she’s totally a Dharma stuck in a Greg world! Mia Wasikowska, who plays Alice, does a fine job with the material she’s given, but here the character is woefully underwritten. The literary Alice is defined by her curiosity and willingness to accept the reality of everything around her. The film casts Alice as a dour unbeliever who has been cast in the role of reluctant savior.

As an adaptation, this film has to be considered an utter failure. The characters all have the same names and physical characteristics of their literary counterparts, but that’s where the resemblance ends. Screenwriter Linda Woolverton takes a very generic fantasy adventure plot – the evil Red Queen has usurped the good White Queen and only Alice can defeat the dreaded Jabberwocky to make everything right again – and simply assigns characters from the books the roles of various fantasy-adventure archetypes. Her concession to the source material is to artlessly shoehorn quotations from the books in a stab at credibility that misses wildly.

This isn’t to say that the film is completely without its virtues. The performances across the board are a lot of fun – Johnny Depp plays the Mad Hatter with his signature loopy charm, Helena Bonham Carter’s gleefully scenery-chewing turn as the Red Queen is a delight, and Crispin Glover brings his usual twitchy creepiness to the role of Stain. The only sub-par performance is turned in by the usually reliable Anne Hathaway, who for some reason holds her hands and sways her body as though she was dancing throughout every one of her scenes.

Additionally, as much as I complain about style over substance in Burton’s recent work and Alice adaptations in general, the movie really is a treat to look at (especially in IMAX 3-D). There’s no reason that the images Burton created couldn’t serve a more straightforward adaptation of the source material, but apparently that undertaking would have been too mundane.

When considered as a fantasy-adventure film, Alice in Wonderland is inoffensive enough, which is why I didn’t grade it as low as some of my remarks might imply. The film doesn’t add anything new, and a lot of the situations and character dynamics are the sort of cliches that elicit eye rolls rather than anger. At the height of his powers, Burton could have turned in a first-rate straightforward Alice adaptation. What we’re left with is pretty pictures and dull storytelling.

[xrr rating=6/10]

Charles Dodgson once said, “Be sure the safest rule is that we should not dare to live in any scene in which we dare not die.” Today I broke that rule when I decided to enter the movie theater in order to see a movie I have been foaming at the mouth to view since I first heard of its release in October of 2008; on this very day, March 6, 2010, more than two years later, I watched Tim Burton’s newest nightmare: Alice in Wonderland. If I were to have died sitting next to my wife during the 1 and 3/4 hour catastrophe, I would have been ashamed, therefore violating the prior stated rule–Charles Dodgson’s rule: AKA Lewis Carroll’s rule. In fact, I was so ashamed of the remake, I was embarrassed for Carroll and for all the people who even have their names subscribed to the work. In fact, I hope it goes the way of the Spider-Man series and gets completely remade, only a few years later; Disney, Tim Burton, Johnny Depp, and especially Linda Woolverton…YOU FAILED!

The movie starts with a little girl who discusses her dreams of a land filled with whimsical fantasy, nonsense, and madness (yes, the real Wonderland). These lines, I would assume, were meant to get the audience to start becoming excited to visit Carroll’s dreamland, but soon after the scene ends and jumps to where the movie truly begins–in the back of a carriage as an adult Alice is being brought to a large engagement party–her own engagement party. Alice gets to the party and introduces the audience to characters who are amazingly similar to characters in the story. Alice meets two almost twin sisters who provide minimal comic relief and try and complete each others’ sentences (they would be the equivalent of Tweedledee and Tweedledum). And she also meets her supposedly soon to be mother-in-law: the equivalent of the Queen of Hearts. These characters were obnoxious at best, but I can say that I did enjoy the allusions they made to Carroll’s original text. The almost twins couldn’t keep a secret, and the almost mother-in-law and Alice made reference to painting the roses red after the mother-in-law was upset they were white.

In continuing with the film, Alice is told to meet Hamis, a disgusting son of a noble, at a gazebo. Alice is told by the Tweedle-like twins of his plan to ask for her hand. Eventually, after slow and boring interactions, Alice makes her way to the gazebo and Hamis proposes to her. With all eyes on her, Alice knows she is expected to say yes  but can’t seem to get the words out. Out of the corner of her eye, she sees the White Rabbit in his signature coat with his watch and she runs after him, leaving Hamish and the crowd in awe. Alice then follows the rabbit and falls down the rabbit hole in order to find him.

After falling down the hole and landing in the room of doors, this movie finally seemed like the book, and I started to prematurely blubber in anticipation for the world I would see beyond the doors. Alice goes through her signature “Eat Me/Drink Me” scene and gets into the mystical Wonderland. (And this folks is the only scene where true Alice fans will enjoy the movie, because it is the only scene like the book.)

As I sat there rocking with anticipation, I was let down in a matter of seconds once I saw Burton’s drab backgrounds ungracefully grace the screen. To be honest, I didn’t feel like I was in Wonderland, I felt like I was in Willy Wonka’s chocolate factory, but in fact I was in Underland<–Did you follow that? Anyway, Alice enters not knowing exactly where she is–although just a few moments before she was complaining to her mother of dreaming about Wonderland–and she meets, or should I say re-meets, the classic book characters we know and love: the White Rabbit, the Tweedles, the Flowers, the Door Mouse, and the Caterpillar. All of the characters looked pretty impressive, but then they start talking about Alice and a prophesy and the Jabberwocky, and that is where the movie almost lost me. While conversing, a huge fluffy, cuddly, cute, and amazingly FEROCIOUS? creature enters the scene destroying everything in its path. I was told it was the Frumious Bandersnatch–and that is where the movie lost me.

Now, I know I have been verbose until now, but this will be my last paragraph of boring synopsis. The movie takes Alice back to Wonderland–now called Underland–and pairs her with the Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp) and requires her to fight the Jabberwocky. If you have read the poem of the “Jabberwocky”, found in Carroll’s sequel Through the Looking-Glass and What Alice Found There, then you will know the rest of the story. There are a couple of points that occurred through the rest of the movie that I could provide analysis for, but it’s more because I am a complete literature geek, and more of an Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland geek, rather than a casual fan (so comment below if you want me to get into it*).

Anyway, as far as the acting goes, the characters: Mia Wasikowska (Alice), Johnny Depp (Hatter), and Anne Hathaway (White Queen) were anything but Wonderful (maybe I could say they were Underful?). They provided lackluster and boring performances. Mia Wasikowska was amazingly unconvincing as Alice (perhaps because Alice shouldn’t be a grown-up) and her Burton gray complexion didn’t help. The only thing Mad about Depp’s hatter was his horrendous makeup and orange hair. Other than that, he was quite normal–much to my dismay. Anne Hathaway had some weird Jack Sparrow thing going on with her arms throughout the whole story, and just didn’t have me convinced she could be a Noble Queen in a movie remake, let alone on a real chess board (as is the case in Carroll’s sequel: Through the Looking-Glass…).

Perhaps the only characters I can say I liked throughout the whole movie were Helena Bonham Carter’s queen and the Cheshire Cat. Carter had the perfect Queen of Hearts attitude and delivered her “Off with his head” line with authority. Her enlarged head made for quite the spectacle, and I loved her heart lipstick, very original. I also loved the Cheshire Cat. Although he looked remarkably like the Bandersnatch (evolutionary cousins maybe?), he held onto his eerie charm that Carroll created in his books and that Disney echoed in their 1951 release.

In all, you can see that I wasn’t impressed. But, you must remember this is coming from a writer who is not only an English teacher, but an Alice fanatic–so much so I have a half sleeve of the original book pictures tattooed up my right arm. With all of the problems I had with this movie, I will admit that I will still probably own it when it comes out on DVD. I will also  show it to my students after I teach the text, and I will buy plenty of its merchandise in order to plaster my classrooms with it. I guess when it comes down to it, although the storyline, screenplay, and acting sucked,  the characters (not the scenery) provide a good visual reference to think about WHEN READING THE BOOK. When Lewis Carroll wrote his sequel to Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland he was kind enough to title it something new so that his readers could expect something different; he titled it Through the Looking-Glass and What Alice Found There. As I am writing this, I sit here wishing that Woolverton would have had the courtesy to do the same so that I could have expected to see something different than the original masterpiece. Remember folks, the book is ALWAYS better than the movie; this is proof.

*(Fun Fact): I have to say this movie is the biggest let down of my life (as far as movies go, yes, even more so than Star Wars: Episode III). But, I would like to point out one piece of information to the casual viewer before you see the film: it was interesting to see that in the opening scenes Alice is indeed a little girl who is well cared for and loved by her father whose name happens to be Charles. Now for the colloquial fan this may mean nothing, but the fact is this: the real Alice Liddell, whom the story Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland was written for, was loved by Lewis Carroll whose real name is Charles (just an interesting little tidbit). In fact, this may be the only good attribute that Woolverton included in her screenplay.

[xrr rating=4/10]

[gravatar email=”robv@thegeekgeneration.com” align=”left” size=”40″ border=”2″] Editor’s note: While I’ve already posted my review of Hot Tub Time Machine, we have many writers who contribute to The Geek Generation and each is allowed their own opinion and voice. For that reason you may often see reviews of the same item from different people. This is one of those times. Let the battle of differing opinions begin!!

Article by Justin Allen

Writing for The Geek Generation finally paid off tonight as a group of us writers attended a special screening of Hot Tub Time Machine, a comedy about four men’s misadventures as their weekend getaway takes them far away from their troubles…about 25 years away…and creates a whole new set of problems. Like Snakes On A Plane, with a title like Hot Tub Time Machine, you know what you’re going to get. As long as you keep that in mind, you may just enjoy yourself.

Three estranged friends and a nephew find themselves on a weekend ski trip to rekindle their friendship after one of them ends up in the hospital after a night of drinking almost puts him in the morgue. Going back to the ski resort where they used to party as teenagers seems like the perfect fix for injecting some life into their miserable lives. When their suite’s outdoor hot tub malfunctions and transports them back to 1986, they have to relive their epic Winterfest ’86 weekend all over again, being careful to relive each moment exactly as it happened so as not to change the space-time continuum. They don’t have to worry about running into their old selves, as they ARE their old selves, complete with their old wardrobe and hairstyles. They believe they have to still lose the same fights they lost before, sleep with the same chicks they slept with before, all to preserve a future they don’t necessarily like, so they start taking liberties with their pasts. Some hilarity ensues, some does not, as is the case with most of this movie. Without giving the ending away (which I actually really liked), choices are made, friendships are reforged, and hot tub time travel will never be the same.

If the script seems amateurish, it’s because it is: Josh Heald, John Morris, and Sean Anders have never written more than a couple of amateurish comedies together (Sex Drive, She’s Out of My League), and if the overall production feels weak, it’s because it is: Steve Pink’s directed one movie before, the college slacker comedy Accepted. Never heard of it? Don’t feel bad: I had to look it up, too. The only credibility this movie has is John Cusack. While Rob Corddry (Old School, I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry), Craig Robinson (TV’s The Office), and Clark Duke (TV’s Greek) have all had marginal success, Cusack is certainly the star. I’m amazed he’s even in this movie, as it seems a far cry from his great work in Grosse Pointe Blank and High Fidelity. The real bright spot of this movie actually comes from the most unlikely of places. At first, present day Crispin Glover’s role as a one-armed bellhop had me awkwardly laughing as he struggled with the guests’ bags; but his 1986 character has both, and so the time and manner with which he loses his arm becomes a driving force of comedy throughout the film.

If you’ve seen the red band trailer for Hot Tub Time Machine, you’ve seen the best and funniest moments of the movie. Most of it was flat, and overly vulgar for the sake of being vulgar. To the writers: you can’t cover up wit with vulgarity, and this movie tends to rely too heavily on the latter.

To quote what seems to be a common description for things nowadays:  “Hot Tub Time Machine? It is what it is.”

[xrr rating=5/10]

While The Hangover has been credited with bringing back the R-rated comedy to the mainstream, it’s got nothing on Hot Tub Time Machine. The premise itself feels like a big part of the joke in a movie that clearly doesn’t take itself too seriously. This message is delivered loud and clear when Craig Robinson supplies us with a reminder of the film title in a fourth-wall-breaking moment.

If you’re not familiar with the premise, it basically goes like this: A few guy friends who are unhappy with their adult lives decide to revisit a ski lodge where they had some of the best times of their lives. Their first night there, they all get drunk in a hot tub and pass out. When they awaken, they find themselves inhabiting the bodies of their past selves in the 1980’s, given the chance to replay events as they’d happened or make some changes and risk the potential butterfly effect.

As we travel back in time with the boys, we’re taken on a nostalgic trip through the 80’s. The old fashions and technology are featured prominently and will be easily recognizable to anyone who was fortunate enough to grow up in such a strange decade. I certainly had several moments of, “Oh yeah, I had one of those!” It’s not just the look though, as childhood movie-goers will notice several nods to popular 80’s classics such as The Karate Kid and Back to the Future.

While the story is maybe more coherent than the premise would suggest and the overall message of getting a second chance shines through, the true strengths of the movie are the performances given by its leading cast. I feel like I’ve seen John Cusack in nothing but indie movies lately, so it was nice to see him here as the glue that holds everyone together. The majority of laughs come courtesy of the surrounding cast of Rob Corddry, Craig Robinson, and Clark Duke. Each has their own unique comedic delivery which adds infinite layers of humor to an already stellar script. I would feel remiss if I also didn’t mention the cameo of one of my favorite celebs on Twitter, Diora Baird. My only complaint with the movie is that she was in it for such a short time.

I can’t seem to remember the last time that I laughed out loud so much in a movie theater without it being just the infectious laughter that one could generally pick up and roll with. I imagine I would be having the same reaction had I been sitting at home watching the movie by myself. Hot Tub Time Machine is hilarious, plain and simple. I feel I can only properly sum up exactly what it is and how great it is by borrowing the words from Craig Robinson himself in a promo video for the movie: “Hot Tub Time Machine is rated-R for pretty much every reason you want a movie called Hot Tub Time Machine to be rated-R.” Yes it is, Craig, yes it is.

Bottom Line: The true return of the classic R-rated comedy.

[xrr rating=10/10]

Beginning with Kundun and concluding with The Departed, Martin Scorsese waged a decade-long campaign of film making that relentlessly conveyed the same message over and over again: “Please, for the love of God, will someone just give me an Oscar already?!” With his appetite for Academy recognition presumably assuaged by the success of The Departed, Scorsese waited another four years to helm another feature film.

Shutter Island isn’t obvious Oscar bait the way films like Gangs of New York and The Aviator were, nor does it have the look and feel of a quintessential Scorsese movie like Mean Streets, Raging Bull, or Goodfellas. If the movie can be said to have a clear Scorsese signature, it is the presence of star Leonardo DiCaprio, who has replaced DeNiro as Scorsese’s latter-day muse. Starting with Gangs of New York, Scorsese has done everything to transform the pretty-boy matinee idol from Titanic into a raw, explosive screen presence, and DiCaprio has matched him every step of the way. He is on-screen throughout the movie’s two-and-a-half hour running time, so the burden of carrying the film truly lies with the star.

The film doesn’t waste any time throwing you into the heart of the film’s mystery. It begins on a boat in Boston Harbor, with DiCaprio and his new partner (Mark Ruffalo) on their way to investigate a patient’s escape from the insane asylum located on the eponymous island. From the moment they set foot on the island, it is clear that the danger is greater and the practices more idiosyncratic than other mental health facilities. DiCaprio grills doctors, nurses, orderlies, and patients – all the time certain that the whole truth is being kept from him.

DiCaprio is more than just another post-World War II gumshoe.   Flashbacks to his experiences liberating Dachau and dreams of his late wife give insight into the factors that shaped the relentless sense of justice that drives him. As the story unfolds, DiCaprio reveals more personal motivations for his interest in the investigation, suggesting that the island conceals a hidden agenda.

The movie treads the “nothing is what it seems” trail throughout. While the previews implied a supernatural explanation that never manifests, the movie does deliver a series of dream sequences and hallucinations that amp up the chills. Fortunately, as twisty as the movie becomes at times, the overarching investigation gives the audience a pretty strong through line to hold onto, so no one should get lost following the story.

Like a lot of movies in the post-Shyamalan era, Shutter Island relies on a big twist at the end. I won’t say the twist is a total shocker, and if you go in to the movie looking for a twist, it’s probably one you’d consider. I’d have to go back to see this movie again (and I probably won’t) to see if the twist really works or not, but when it drops at the end, I didn’t feel like it betrayed anything that went before.

As a craftsman, Scorsese is still able to get the most out of his script and his performers. Between his age and health concerns, I don’t know if we’re looking at another decade of his filmmaking, but it’s nice to see him back to just making movies instead of looking for validation.

[xrr rating=8/10]

The first thing any fan of the Fallout franchise will notice is the incredibly similar art style to that of their beloved video games. The dusty and desolate atmosphere, the destroyed remains of major highways, and the mishmashing of various items together seem as if they’re pulled right from Fallout‘s concept art portfolio. The film also features a mysterious lone wanderer, something every Fallout game has used as its lead protagonist. That being said, while this movie might replicate the feel of that game series, its goal is something different.

Denzel Washington stars in this film as Eli, a mysterious wanderer who is transporting an important book that, according to most film synopsis’s, “holds the secrets to saving humankind.” After seeing the film, I find this summary along with what’s suggested by most trailers to be somewhat misleading, depending on your point of view. As movie reviews should never contain spoilers, I won’t tell you exactly what the book is, but if you’ve seen the promotional posters plastered with the phrases RELIGION IS POWER, DELIVER US, and BELIEVE IN HOPE, I’m sure you can figure it out. And no, Fallout fans, it’s not an assembly manual for building a G.E.C.K., something I would think would be far more useful in the world they live in.

The film is part post-apocalyptic drama, part action, and part western. The action scenes are done very well and spaced far enough apart to make them exciting. Washington is great as Eli; Mila Kunis and Gary Oldman represent their characters as they should, so I have no complaints with the acting.

The places where the film falls apart are the inconsistencies. There is a twist at the end of the film that is already stirring debates. I too questioned the validity of what it was presenting and how much sense it made. I even checked the screenplay to verify that I was properly interpreting what the Hughes brothers were showing me. I haven’t watched the film since confirming the twist, but by memory I can’t say that it was properly portrayed. In fact, I can remember evidence in the film that goes against what it presented in the twist. Even though it was all planned out beforehand, when it happens it feels like one of those times when they have inserted a twist just for the sake of having one or for lack of creativity.

Despite some consistency issues, I can’t say I didn’t enjoy watching the movie. I like seeing Denzel Washington in something other than his normal roles. I’d like to see him push himself into more unfamiliar territory in the future. At the very least, Fallout fans can look at this as a step in the right direction toward getting the movie they’ve been dying to see for years.

Bottom Line: You’ll enjoy watching it for its “western-like” appeal, but be prepared for a WTF moment.

[xrr rating=7/10]

Ryan Bingham (Clooney) works for a company where his job is to fly around the country and fire people on behalf of their cowardly employers who can’t do it themselves. He has very few attachments and lives virtually out of his suitcase. He even gives motivational speeches on avoiding commitment using the metaphor of an empty backpack. Bingham’s life changes when young college grad Natalie Keener (Kendrick) comes into the company and implements a new travel-less method to get the job done, essentially grounding him and his peers. Not wanting to be tied down, Bingham takes Keener out on one last trip in an attempt to prove to her that his way is the right way to get it done.

Up in the Air is a wonderful movie about making connections and decisions about how you want to live your life. This is seen primarily through Bingham’s satisfying, solitary lifestyle and his relationship with fellow traveler Alex Goran (Farmiga). The point is also hit home by portraying the opposite end of the spectrum with the curious and goal-oriented character portrayed fantastically by Anna Kendrick. Fortunately, this movie shows her true acting potential beyond the opportunity she received with her minor role in the Twilight series. A fairly new face in Hollywood, I expect to see great things from her in the future. She also has a great chemistry with Clooney, who’s character goes beyond the confines of his usual calm and charming exterior. While those elements are still present, he portrays a vulnerability his characters seldom possess. The choice of profession for Clooney’s character was certainly a wise one as well. The metaphor of severing a long-standing connection such as one’s attachment and familiarity to their career only emphasizes the underlying messages.

Jason Reitman continues an impressive run as both a director and screenwriter. His previous two directorial entries include Juno and Thank You for Smoking, the latter of which was also a screenplay of his. He succeeds in both aspects again as Up in the Air is captured in a very realistic and stylized manner. There are several quick-moving, concise, and almost voyeuristic montages which Reitman uses to sum up events and keep the movie flowing in a very organic manner. The subject matter is also extremely relevant as we live in an economically challenged society. To quote Roger Ebert’s opinion of Reitman, “He makes smart, edgy mainstream films. That’s harder than making smart, edgy indies.” I couldn’t agree more and can’t wait to see more.

Bottom Line: A wonderful movie that will leave you thinking about what you really want out of life.

[xrr rating=10/10]

What really moves the story and gives aesthetic breath to Ink is its powerful and well composed musical score. It helps you feel the situations and characters, proving why a good soundtrack is so important to any film wanting to achieve dramatic impact. The blurry visual effects I figured were an unconscious “look” to the movie, but I soon realized it felt the director was using this as symbolism to the idea of blurring reality from dreams. There are times where you don’t know what is a dream and what is real, yet every scene is an important piece to the puzzle. The acting was surprisingly quite good, especially Søren Kelly (also known as Chris Kelly) that plays the role of John, the father.

There are some things I did not like or wish they did differently in Ink, such as the frequently dubbed voice-overs they do that come out awkward in a few scenes. There’s this one character that is a blind musician with very cool powers but here and there is awkward with some of the stuff he says. I guess comic relief comes dressed as annoying. The first 30 minutes of the movie seem a bit cheesy at times because of this, but because the rest of the film captured me under its spell this becomes insignificant.

If you can put aside the fact that Ink was made with a low budget and expect that some scenes aren’t top notch Hollywood special effects, then I highly suggest you watch it. And after you watch it, you might just feel like I do and wish they had a larger budget to make something that has a better plot, story, and creative engine behind it than 95% of the crap Hollywood spews out for millions of dollars more.

[xrr rating=10/10]

[amazon-product alink=”0000FF” bordercolor=”000000″ height=”240″]B002LFPBOM[/amazon-product]

Although Jason Lee is listed as one of the “starring” individuals, his overall presence in the movie would lead me to believe he was either a) reluctant to do the sequel, b) the studio is finding a way to minimize his involvement, or c) there was a scheduling conflict. With the first movie being so heavily focused on the relationship between Dave Seville (Lee) and the Chipmunks, I was very disappointed to see the character pretty much removed from the main plot line. He exists in the film for maybe 10 minutes total.

To make matters worse, the caretaker role to the Chipmunks now goes to Toby Seville (Chuck‘s Zachary Levi), a relative of Dave who reluctantly takes on the responsibility. The part wasn’t necessarily acted poorly. The problem is that it’s not Dave and the character isn’t very likable. I’m not sure if his awkwardness and laziness were supposed to be charming, but when a romantic sub-plot develops for Toby, I wasn’t really routing for him to get the girl.

The other big problem with the movie is that it couldn’t decide what it wanted to be. The Chipmunks were trying to deal with starting school, “battling” two different villains in the return of Ian Hawke (David Cross) and a high school jock, trying to win a big sing-off for the school, learning more about family values, and winning over the Chipettes. If the film had narrowed its scope a bit by choosing one, maybe two main conflicts to tackle, it would have been more successful in telling a meaningful story and creating a more climactic finish.

Those issues aside, the Chipmunks (and Chipettes) remain their adorable selves. Alvin is still making mischief, Simon is still being the d0-gooder, and Theodore couldn’t be cuter. The writers definitely got out their book of famous movie quotes for this one. Alvin even goes as far as quoting Silence of the Lambs. Just try to imagine how they “squeaked” this one in (yeah, I did that). That’s about as much as the adult-oriented humor comes into play.

The kids will no doubt love this one. There are plenty of catchy songs sung by both the Chipmunks and Chipettes, loads of physical comedy, and even a fart joke or two. Despite its flaws, it still manages to be a fun movie to watch. With all the great song covers that were done, I’m still missing one song in particular. If we get to see a third Alvin & the Chipmunks movie, I’m hoping they’ll bring back this classic*:

*Note: Apparently there’s a new Alvin & the Chipmunks album out aside from the new movie soundtrack that features a remix of this, but it’s nothing like I’d hoped it’d be. I still want to see it performed in the next movie.

Bottom Line: A fun movie for the kids to check out, but it falls just short for the adults. Missing the traditional Chipmunks feel.

[xrr rating=5/10]

After a quick rundown review of Guy Ritchie’s films, I can honestly say that I, a) haven’t seen most of them, and b) wasn’t thrilled too much by the one’s I had seen. Sherlock Holmes is a welcome addition to a previously lackluster set of movies. Ritchie does a great job of putting all the necessary pieces together. We are presented with great action scenes, an engaging story, and fantastic performances.

The biggest stand-out in this movie is the performance put on by Robert Downey Jr. as Sherlock Holmes. Downey portrays Holmes’s frustration with humans in general to a tee, but does so in such an endearing manor that the audience can’t help but be charmed by him. This performance wouldn’t be complete without the addition of Jude Law, as Holmes isn’t complete without his Watson. Dr. Watson adds a humanity to Holmes in the way he is almost a father figure or coddling brother to the detective, despite Holmes’s ability to coerce him to do nearly anything he desires. The other humanizing element is Irene Adler (McAdams), who has a very Batman/Catwoman relationship with Sherlock Holmes. A criminal who is one of the few to outsmart the detective in the past, she continues to remain someone who Holmes has feelings for.

The premise isn’t anything that hasn’t been done before in one way or another, as the villain Lord Blackwood (Strong) grips London in a fear of his supernatural powers, while the non-believer Holmes attempts to unravel the mystery of his abilities through use of sheer logic and science. While it may have existed in other forms before, the unexpectedly welcome element of the supernatural brings an appropriate twist to the story.

The most successful aspect of the movie are the action scenes, especially the innovation of the pre-fight mechanic. To illustrate just how logical and brilliant Holmes is, we get a glimpse into his mind as he voices over the thought process he uses to take down an attacker, as if it were a game of chess in which he plans out all of his moves before the first is ever made. Following the slow-motion, detailed rundown, Holmes precedes to unfold the devastating set of maneuvers.

If anything could be considered a downside, the film felt about 20 minutes too long, and yet if you asked me which parts needed to be pulled I don’t think I would have an answer for you. The other missing aspect was that it seemed to lack some sort of punch . I can’t quite put my finger on exactly what it is that was missing, but given all of the successful elements, it still could have come off stronger.

Bottom line: Sherlock Holmes is an entertaining and fun film. As always, RDJ delivers a performance as only he can in what has to be Guy Ritchie’s biggest success.

[xrr rating=8/10]

Avatar is the story of a bunch of blue, animalistic, hippy aliens running around a forest planet whining about having their trees cut down. Actually, no, it’s much more than that. Jake Sully (Worthington) is a crippled marine who is called in to take the place of his deceased twin brother to control a Na’vi/human hybrid Avatar. The Na’vi are a blue-skinned, primitive alien race living on the planet Pandora, which beneath its crust hides an incredibly valuable mineral. The Avatars are sent in to gain the trust of the native Na’vi so that they will peacefully leave home and allow the mineral to be extracted by the humans. It’s no shock when conflicts arise between the humans and Na’vi, leading to a full-scale battle.

The most captivating parts of the film are those that involve Sully’s infiltration, training, and acceptance among the Na’vi. Despite their radically different appearance, it’s very easy for the audience to connect with him and the budding relationship with Neytiri (Saldana). This wouldn’t have been the case had the visual effects not been so incredible. Emotions are conveyed seamlessly through the faces of the Na’vi. After observing them for long enough, it’s easy to forget that they are computer generated. The environments are expansive and breathtaking. The first time you see the waterfalls cascading off of the floating mountains is an image that will stick in your mind.

I was fortunate enough to catch the film in 3D, not IMAX, but still 3D. There have been many 3D films put out over the past couple years, but this is truly the first that I can say has used it as a tool and not a gimmick. There’s no excessive use of objects flying straight at you simply to show off that the movie can do it. The 3D is used to fully immerse you inside the beautiful world that is Pandora. Branches fly by as you race through the jungle. The sense of height is truly established as you look over the edge of a tree that is miles above the ground. Every other movie that is planning on being released in 3D needs to take a look at this film first so that they’ll know how to do it the right way.

As far as the plot goes, it can be argued that it’s not the most original thing in the world. You could easily say they borrowed a concept from here or from there, but honestly, when the movie’s over, you just don’t care because it’s done so well. You can confidently say that they borrowed concepts and used them in their own unique way. This movie runs about 2.5 hours, but the pacing is so good, the characters are so captivating, and the story is so wonderful that if you asked me how long it was, I would have told you about an hour and 45 minutes.

Bottom line: Avatar is not only a feast for the eyes, but also an engaging story in a unique world. Well done James Cameron…well done.

WAY too friggin long…
Why did this movie have to be 2 1/2 hours long? I have no clue.

Meaningless, confusing action sequences
Who taught Michael Bay pacing? Clearly nobody did. The battles at the beginning of the film are just as meaningful as the battles at the end. They’re not building toward anything. There was simply no climax. It was just “Argh…smash two robots together.” And really, it kinda looked like that over and over again. Half the time you couldn’t tell which robot was doing what to what other robot. This was the result of two things, horrible editing that had jump cuts lasting all of a second, and…

Horrible character design
I’ll be the first person to defend certain decisions when it comes to redesigning characters from the source material. While I would have liked to see more iconic costumes in the X-Men movies, I understood why they went the direction they did. In the first Transformers movie, I accepted some things and let others slide because it wasn’t TOO horrible. Let’s take a look.

Optimus Prime: He’s pretty much all there. The classic red and blue, the iconic helmet. The flames are a bit unnecessary, but OK, they got most of it. I like it. He’s gonna have the same voice from the cartoon too?? Well then I’m sold!! Let’s move on…

Bumblebee: He’s still pretty much metal and yellow. Not bad. Wait, he’s not gonna be a VW Bug? That’s where his name comes from!! I don’t know about this…

Starscream: Hmmmm…he’s just all metal…no distinguishing color. I hope they don’t do that with any of the other robots or it’s gonna be tough to pick him out. At least he has a shape just like a jet. I can’t see them putting in another one of those. No high-pitched annoying voice?? But that’s what makes Starscream the whiny bitch he is! I’m getting a little aggravated now…

Megatron: OK…WTF?!?! These two things have nothing in common!! It looks like they mashed up tin foil and said, “Alright, good enough.” He doesn’t look like Megatron, he doesn’t sound like Megatron…and he’s gonna turn into a jet-like space-shippy thing?? I understand not doing the gun, but at least in some forms they had Megatron turn into a tank. (Fortunately he did briefly in the sequel) That’d make more sense, but ANOTHER jet?? He’s got no color either. How do you tell him and Starscream apart in the middle of robot combat when you only see them on screen for mere seconds at a time. Oh…that’s right…you doooooooooooon’t.

Blatant racism
Who’s idea was “the twins”? I can’t say it better than this excerpt from an article on IGN:

In the film, the ‘bots have gold teeth, talk about “popping a cap in [a character’s] ass,” and say they don’t read. In my review, I called Mudflap and Skids “the Amos ‘n’ Andy of the Autobots and two of the most offensive characters in recent cinematic history. What were the filmmakers thinking? The ‘it’s just a movie’ defense doesn’t fly on this one, folks; whereas George Lucas had wiggle room to defend himself with Jar Jar Binks, there is none here for Bay and company to fall back on. It’s just too blatant to be deemed anything but obvious and in poor taste. Mudflap and Skids will pull anyone with a half a brain right out of the movie, and they taint the overall viewing experience and prove to be an embarrassment for all involved.” – IGN.com article “Bay Defends Transformers Twins“

Sad, pathetic attempts at humor
How many times are we going to cut to Sam’s parents being goofy? Is that robot humping her leg? Why would it do that, it’s a robot? Wait a second, did I just see robot testicles?? OK, I’m out…officially…done.

The fembot
Hot actress, no doubt. But…if the Transformers could disguise themselves as humans all along, why wouldn’t they all do that?? Sure would make it easier to get around undetected.

The damsel in distress
I’m pretty sure that at some point or another, just about every male character was leading Megan Fox by the hand as they were running from danger. Can she not run fast enough by herself? This gets confusing as they seem to want to make her like a now-typical badass female lead at times, but yet at others whenever trouble comes along someone has to grab her hand and lead her from danger.

I can honestly say that halfway through this movie I was bored beyond belief. I refuse, however, to walk out of movies in the off chance that they improve by the end. This one did NOT, so I had only one thing I could pay attention to to keep myself entertained for the rest of this train wreck…

Surprise, surprise…