True Grit

Nowadays it seems that the classic western film is more hard to come by. An upside to this is that whenever a western comes around it is usually pretty good (for example, "3:10 to Yuma"). The same goes for the Coen brother's newest adaption of Charles Portis' novel, "True Grit." The film of the same name brings together an award-winning team of Jeff Bridges, Matt Damon, Josh Brolin, and the Coen brothers to bring us a western that won't soon be forgotten.


Mattie Ross (Hailee Steinfeld) narrates the film as she tells of her quest to avenge her father, who was murdered by a man named Tom Chaney (Brolin) when she was 14. When Mattie goes to collect her father's body, she also looks for a US Marshal who she can hire to hunt down Chaney. She chooses a man named Rooster Cogburn who was described to her as the most merciless of the Marshals. However when she approaches Cogburn he rejects the offer.


Mattie isn't the only one searching for Chaney. Later that day she meets La Boeuf (Damon), a Texas Ranger who is hunting Chaney after he killed a senator in Texas. La Boeuf proposes that they both team up with Cogburn to get Chaney but Mattie quickly refuses and continues to plead for Cogburn's help. Eventually Cogburn agrees to help her and tells her to meet him at his house the next morning (a lie so that he can leave without her knowing, keeping her out of harms way). The fact the Cogburns already left doesn't stop Mattie from catching up to him where she finds that he has teamed up with La Boeuf. From there the three ride into Choctaw country in search of retribution.


The first thing I noticed while watching "True Grit" is that it is nowhere near as dark as I expected it to be. The trailers for the film make it out to be dark and grisly. Looking at what the Coen brother's have directed in the past (specifically "No Country For Old Men") I expected the movie to be just the same. However when I saw it I realized that "True Grit" has more laughs than most comedies that were released this year. At the same time, the majority of the film consists of people being shot, killed, having fingers and teeth chopped off and pulled out, you get the point...it's intense. But the Coen brothers manage to mix the intense moments with the humorous ones, which many times does not work out well. Luckily for "True Grit," it does.


Jeff Bridges, Matt Damon, Josh Brolin...of course this movie will have great acting that's what I thought...and I was right. To me, Jeff Bridges already has the right look and persona to play a merciless US Marshall/cowboy and the role of Rooster Cogburn was perfect for him. But the standout actor wasn't these three men mentioned, it is Hailee Steinfeld. This is the young actresses first film to my knowledge and she is outstanding playing her cunning and very intelligent character. She has already been nominated and has won awards for "True Grit" and I believe that this is the beginning of a very successful career.



Now I bet everyone reading this is waiting for me to answer the question, "Is Jeff Bridges better than John Wayne?" Well...I don't know. I never saw the original (you can gasp in horror) and after seeing the film I'm actually glad I didn't (gasp louder). Why? Because I didn't have to waste my time in the theater comparing the two versions of "True Grit" and tell myself that, "Jeff Bridges is no John Wayne!" What I can tell you is that the new "True Grit" is a spectacular film, one of the best of the year, with a great story, great acting, great everything. Maybe one day I'll see the original but when that happens I will probably end up comparing John Wayne to Jeff Bridges (mega-gasp) but hey, he was before my time after all. I give "True Grit" 4 stars out of 4.



"True Grit" has a running time of 110 minutes and is rated PG-13 for intense sequences of western violence including disturbing images.

True Grit review coming in the next few days!

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader

It would be fair to say that in 2005, "The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe" was one of the most memorable films (it's currently the 35th highest grossing film of all time). However, after the first installment in what is now a trilogy, the "Narnia" films seemed to lose their power. Though "Prince Caspian" (the 2nd in the franchise released in 2008) was somewhat well received, it did not gain the popularity that its predecessor had and to add to that it was a terrible adaption from the book. Things didn't look good for Aslan and his magical creatures when Disney decided to drop the series due to economic problems but Walden Media pressed on and has produced a third film. Has the franchise redeemed itself or is Narnia continuing to digress into a lost cause? To be honest, after I left the theater I wasn't quite sure.

The two youngest children of the Pevensie family, Edmund (Skandar Keynes) and Lucy (Georgie Henley) are staying with their selfish and quite annoying cousin, Eustace (Will Poulter). Very quickly, the three children look to a painting of a ship in the ocean on the wall. Lucy remarks that the ship reminds her of a ship from Narnia which Eustace calls a stupid fantasy world that only exists in their heads. When Edmund and Eustace get in an argument, the painting starts to release water into the room until the room overflows. When the three emerge to the surface, they are back in Narnia and are rescued by King Caspian (Ben Barnes) and his crew on his ship, The Dawn Treader. Three years have passed in Narnia since Caspian overthrew his evil uncle in the second film and since then Caspian has brought peace to Narnia. Now the King is sailing to find the seven lords that served his father before his uncle took over.

However, the quest soon takes a more perilous turn when Caspian and the children discover a green mist that captures Narnians and take them to a place called Dark Island. To destroy this island, the seven swords of the lords Caspian is looking for must be laid at Aslan's table. During their journey the four must learn to overcome their inner struggles and resist the temptation that the mist presents to them or else they too will become corrupted with the evil.

As I briefly mentioned earlier, I wasn't sure what to think of "Dawn Treader" at first. My first impression was one of disappointment from the expectations that I had. The first two "Narnia" films (especially the 2nd one) contain good amounts of entertaining action and climactic battle sequences. This above all else is what I was looking forward to in this movie. Unfortunately for me, there was nothing like this in "Dawn Treader." While there are several entertaining, visually stunning fight scenes, there is nothing compared to the epic climax found in the first film so I was a little bummed out.

Now my second impression of the film, after I disregarded my expectations, was a good one as I realized that "Dawn Treader" accomplishes what its predecessor "Prince Caspian" could not--it contains a good, well though out story and that seems to be the film's main focus. Personally, not much could make me happier when watching a sequel. One of my biggest requirements for a good sequel is for it to maintain a strong focus on the plot and not to just skip to tons of action which many sequels fail to do. And considering that this is actually the third film in the series, I am especially impressed that the film focuses on the story more than the action.

Now even though the film had a good story that doesn't mean it was successful in completely drawing me in. Something that I have began to notice with third, fourth, etc. installments in a movie franchise is that the film needs to do something to draw me back into the series. I already know the characters, I already know the setting, and if the film can't bring anything new to the table, I will be bored. Thus, the problem with "Dawn Treader."

When I first heard that Walden Media would try to make a third Narnia, I was both surprised and skeptical thinking that there was little chance that the series could make a comeback. Sadly, without the epic battles that the first two included, I'm not sure the series can survive. I doubt that a strong story, not to mention a sub-par script and mediocre acting can keep movie goers coming to the theater. Was "Dawn Treader" a bad movie? No, but it doesn't make me desire more sequels. I give it two stars out of four.

"The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader" has a running time of 115 minutes and is rated PG for some frightening images and sequences of fantasy action.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1

It's been almost ten years since the world of Harry Potter was first introduced to the silver screen and since then it has transformed into a world-wide phenomena. Author J.K. Rowling's epic masterpiece, which already had a massive fan-base before the films, has produced what will be eight films, musicals, a new music genre, award-winning YouTube videos, a college sport, its own theme park, and so much more. "Harry Potter", the highest grossing film franchise of all time, has accomplished things that no other film could ever accompilsh and now the series is ending with a bang in it's two part finale, "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows."



First off, whatever happiness, hope, and cheer that one can find in previous installments of this series is now totally absent. Lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) is quickly taking over not just the wizarding world but the rest of the world as well. Wizards and muggles (the term for a non-wizard) are being murdered in large numbers every day, the Ministry is now corrupt, and there is no one that Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) and his two faithful friends Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson) can trust. With no one to help them, the trio must search for the five remaining fragments of Voldemort's soul, called Horcruxes, so that Harry can kill the dark lord once and for all. During this journey, the three must survive countless attacks, evade numerous scouts under Voldemort's control, and even infiltrate the Ministry of Magic (the government of the wizarding world) for Harry to achieve his goal, "For neither can live while the other survives."



Like I said before, what really sets this film apart from it's others is the amount of darkness and seriousness that none of the other "Potter" films have had. First off, the film does live up to its name, "Deathly Hallows." Several big supporting characters meet there doom in the film and if that isn't enough, one scene in the film shows the trio listening to the radio listening to names of people that have been killed. The radio spits out about 20-30 names and also states that, "The list is short today." We hear many others names listed in other snippets of the film. Also, several key places like the Ministry of Magic and Diagon Alley aren't the happy magical places that we have scene in previous films either. The Ministry itself strongly resembles Nazi Germany. When the trio enters the Ministry, the come across a statue depicting muggles and half-bloods in their "proper place" both being crushed and holding up wizards. To Voldemort, only the "pure-bloods" deserve to live and all others are hunted down and persecuted by his Death-Eaters.



The world has changed for the worse since Harry was a young boy but amongst the dark nature of the film, "Deathly Hallows" still maintains a fair amount of comedy, primarily at the start of the film, which the series is always known for having. Though at times I thought comedy was something the film could have used less off, its was still good to lighten the mood now and then.



The three big bright spots for "Deathly Hallows Part 1" are the cinematography, acting, and music. Never before has the camera work been so beautiful in a Harry Potter film. In "Deathly Hallows" the trio travel all over the country in numerous locations and environments and we are provided with truly breathtaking views of the various country sides and other angles and shots turn out great in the film. It is truly Oscar worthy camera work. Next is the acting which was key for this film as most of it is just the three young actors alone. Thankfully, the three proved that they are capable of very good acting and can carry on the film by themselves. My only regret is that other big names in this film like Alan Rickman, Jason Isaacs, and Helena Bonham Carter, had little screen time. Finally, is the music. This is the first "Potter" film for composer Alexandre Desplat and he has brought the best music to the series since John Williams. His music fit perfectly with all parts of the film. When the movie was happy, the music was happy, when the movie was sad, the music was sad and so on. I can't wait to hear what he has in store for part 2 of "Deathly Hallows," most of which will center around the massive final battle which the score will without a doubt be epic.



The single problem with "Deathly Hallows" is the pacing. The middle of the film suffers from being slow and drawn out but as a fan of the books, I know that the book is actually the same way, in that the middle is also slow, so really this was not a major problem for me. Thankfully, the film picks up in it's last hour and ends with a bang.



Lastly we come to the issue of the split. Did I like the split? Did I not like the split? The answer is...yes and yes. I absolutely love that Warner Brothers decided to make the final installment into two films. The best thing about this is that it allows for much more of the book to be included in the film and as it turns out "Deathly Hallows" is without a doubt the most faithful book-to-film adaption yet. The downside to the split is simply the fact that waiting until next July seems impossible for thanks to the most dramatic cliff-hanger I've ever seen.



Not to be too dramatic but seriously, no series has so brilliantly spelled out EPIC since "The Lord of the Rings" and after seeing "Deathly Hallows Part 1" (so good I saw it twice in 48 hours) I can't wait to see the conclusion of what Warner Brothers has correctly described as the most epic motion picture event of the generation! I give it three and a half stars out of 4.



"Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1" has a running time of 146 minutes and is rated PG-13 for some sequences of intense action violence, frightening images and brief sensuality.

Skyline

Within the first ten minutes of the new alien/sci-fi film "Skyline" I knew it was going to be a train wreck. Sadly this new action hodge-podge of ideas from other films started off weak, got weaker, and ended very weak. Because of this, this review will be short and not so sweet.

At the start of the film we are introduced to four characters named Jarrod (Eric Balfour), Elaine (Scottie Thompson), Candice (Brittany Daniel), and Terry (Donald Faison). Jarrod and Terry are meeting together in Los Angels to celebrate over a business deal. What business are they involved in? Beats me. In fact I was rather confused at what was happening at the beginning of "Skyline" due to the poor job the filmmakers do of explaining the story. Anyway, shortly after the party the aliens hit and everything goes down the drain. Hundreds of people are being abducted into the numerous space ships. The aliens achieve this by shining a bright blue light that, if looked at, will take control of the humans and pull them into their ships. Well the four characters begin a fight to survive and try to make it out of Los Angeles alive and remember...don't look at the light!

The biggest problem with "Skyline" is the plot. Like I said before, the film does not properly set up its characters and the story well enough before jumping into the action. Because of this I was utterly confused throughout the film. Also, the movie leaves many questions unanswered. The biggest question unanswered is, "Where are the aliens from?" The aliens appear from nowhere and, though the film is marketed as a alien film, come across as random, totally interrupting events going on at the start of the film. The final problem with the plot is that I felt like "Skyline" was simply a mash-up of other sci-fi films. Elements from films like "Independence Day," "Cloverfeild," and "District 9" were all over this movie...branding it totally unoriginal.

The few other things to say about the film include the fact that it had sub-par acting from a practically unknown cast, the dialogue was forgettable, and the ending was very disappointing. That is truly all I can find to say about "Skyline," a film that has nothing pleasing about it. I give it half a star out of four.

"Skyline" has a running time of 1 hour and 40 minutes and is rated PG-13 for sequences of intense sci-fi action violence, some language, and brief sexual content.

Red

For some (like me), the action film is one of the most enjoyable kinds of films around. They include intense fist fights, car chases, guns firing everywhere--you get the point. But for this film, besides Bruce Willis, the usual action stars aren't the typical suspects.This time viewers get to see John Malkovich, Morgan Freeman, and Helen Mirren kick some tail; a very entertaining concept especially being that Freeman and Mirren are both over 65. In the D.C. comic book adaption "Red," we follow four retired C.I.A. agents that have been labeled R.E.D. (Retired Extremely Dangerous) that are called back into business when the C.I.A. is told to take them out and you better not even think about calling any of them "old."


"Red" starts off a little slow as we meet the first retired agent, and main character, Frank Moses (Willis). Moses lives a quiet life by himself. Everyday he follows the same, boring routine but what he does enjoy is talking to a customer service agent named Sarah (Mary-Louise Parker) with whom Frank wants to start a relationship. Sure this first 7-10 minutes or so moves slowly but a good film needs to establish a knowledge of the character before jumping into the action which starts right after that 7-10 minutes. Moses' quiet life ends quickly one night when a hit squad attacks his home in the middle of the night. Being the C.I.A. tough guy that Moses is, he easily and brutally takes down this hit squad with ease. Knowing that they traced his phone, Moses sets out to get Sarah in order to keep her safe. To help fight off the C.I.A. and discover why they are after him, Moses must seek out his old team to help him out.


"Red" contains a good mix of different characters with different personalities. The first which we meet is named Joe (Freeman), Moses' old mentor who lives in a retirement home. Think this guy is too old to beat-up on the bad guys? Think again, though Freeman is in his mid-70's, he can still pack a punch. The next man is Marvin (Malkovich) a paranoid ex-agent who despises phones, satellites, and anything in "the system" that he think will turn on humanity. Malkovich's character provides many of the humorous lines and the comedic elements of the film. The last of Moses' allies is Victoria (Mirren) who misses her old life as a wetwork agent and knows how to fire a massive machine gun. Together these four form a very enjoyable team and even though they are all different, they can all kill anyone they want, however they want, which brings us to the main attraction of "Red."


THE ACTION! Ah yes, sometimes that's all a film needs to get the approval of most movie-goers. This isn't the kind of light action with sword-fights and punches that you sit and watch with no big reaction--this is the kind of action where the theater lets out "OOOO's" and "OH MAN's" in unison when Bruce Wills hit a man in the head...with a GRENADE LAUNCHER! And that's not all... we have intense car chases in which the man walks out of a speeding cop car to shoot down his pursuer, we have John Malkovich taking down an RPG missile with a pistol, and so much more that I don't want to spoil.


And then we have the bad guys like Agent Cooper (Karl Urban) and his team of C.I.A. agents, many of which get taken down by the four retirees which greatly resembles classic action film villains: menacing, relentless, and willing to stop at nothing to accomplish his or her goal. Of course with the villains come several twists and turns in the plot line but really, so do most action films. In fact in many ways, "Red" reminds me of the classic action film with it's high octane action, plot twists, menacing villains, and of course Bruce Willis. Having this "classic" feel made the movie very enjoyable for me as it's the "classic" action films that are the most enjoyable.


With the mix of action, characters, and comedy, "Red" succeeds in being a very enjoyable thrill ride but when it's all said and done...the most enjoyable thing about "Red" is watching people like Helen Mirren and Morgan Freeman, people who, most commonly because of their age, no one would expect to be in an action movie, beat up on everyone else. I give it 3 stars out of 4.


"Red" has a running time of 111 minutes and is rated PG-13 for intense sequences of action violence and brief strong language.

The Social Network

It's hard to believe that it has only been six years since the creation of Facebook, the worldwide social network that I feel like I have been using for years. Though its also hard to believe that its taken this long for a film to made about the website's creation. Well I say its about time we see the "true" story of how Mark Zuckerberg created Facebook and viewers will most definitely be taken by surprise at the many unfortunate events that take place during Zukerberg's journey in, "The Social Network."

Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg) is one of the smartest guys at Harvard (the smartest I've seen at least). It's clear from the beginning that this man is gifted in computer programing when he hacks into Harvard's database and retrieves pictures of the girls in the school to create a site called FaceMash where male students choose which of two girls is more attractive. This website ends up attracting so many hits in one night that it causes Harvard's Network to crash. Oh and by the way, he did all of this while he was drunk.

Now Mark is hated by the female population at Harvard and has been put on six months of academic probation. However the website that Mark created gains the attention of two male students named Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss (Armie Hammer and Josh Pence though Hammer's face and voice are superimposed on Pence's character). These two come to Mark with the idea of creating a new website for Harvard students. Mark agrees to help the twins, but then goes to his friend Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield) and the two talk about a seemingly similar idea that they call "The Facebook." From there we see the many trials, lawsuits, and betrayals that occur throughout the birth of this new social network.

"The Social Network" isn't an inside look at Facebook's history like some might think, but rather a moving personal look at the lives of very interesting characters. The film dives into the main characters' lives in such a deep and powerful way showing the viewer the different sides, layers, and personalities of people such as the founders Zuckerberg and Saverin.

Going into the film I was not expecting to see a drama full of character development and I wasn't expecting to learn so many things I never knew about Facebook's background and creators (though there is debate on how much of the film is made up and how much is true). For example, I never knew that Sean Parker (played by Justin Timberlake), the creator of Napster, had a very strong influence and impact on Zuckerberg during the early years of Facebook.

I was also oblivious to the amount of betrayal, back-stabbing, lawsuits, etc. were involved in the whole story. When looking at the main element of the film Facebook, which centers around friends liking pictures and statuses, and connecting with people around you, I realized that the elements concerning its creation are the total opposite (betrayal, making enemies).

Of course the film wouldn't have been great if it hadn't had the fantastic performances given by its actors and actresses. "The Social Network" presented two male leads (Eisenberg and Garfield) that I haven't really seen before and they both gave powerful performances and I'm positive that this film with jump start each of their careers (Garfield's even set to be the next Spider-Man).

When I watched "The Social Network," I saw a film about a man who wanted to create a place where people could always connect with their friends, talk with each-other, and look at other people's lives through pictures and status messages when really, he didn't have friends and relationship outside of the computer. This concept along with others like choosing between friends and money, come together to create a moving, dramatic masterpiece that will change the way you think about the world's most popular social network. I give it four stars out of four.

"The Social Network" has a running time of 121 minutes and is rated PG-13 for sexual content, drug and alcohol use and language.

Halloween Horror Nights

For the past 20 years Universal Studios has honored the Horror genre with their outstanding Halloween extravaganza that is Halloween Horror Nights. This is the first year I have attended the event and I must say that it was truly incredible. Since I am writing two articles (one in 1st person one in 3rd) for the newspaper, I decided to put them both on the site.

• My Personal Experience of HHN 20-

For several years now I have longed to visit Universal Studios Florida's annual Halloween event that is Halloween Horror Nights (HHN) and this year, the event's 20th anniversary, I finally got the chance. Soon after I entered the gates I knew things were going to get intense fast. The first thing I noticed was a band of zombie marines wielding chainsaws; they stood still until the captain gave them the word to attack and then all of the un-dead raced through the streets chasing and frightening all those who were near. Seeing this I there was one word that went through my mind...sweet! From their I proceeded to experience all the haunted houses, scare-zones, and shows that are scattered throughout the park.

In HHN's haunted houses, I felt like I was immersed in a horror film. Each house used all my senses (besides taste) to try to convince me that I was trapped in a real nightmare. The sight of anyone from a prisoner in an insane asylum to a demented little girl, the smell of the dirt in underground catacombs, the sounds of gunshots, chainsaws and screeches of scareactors, and the feeling of having to push hanging severed heads away to get to the next room (while being chased by a demon), all contribute to the stunning atmosphere. Universal also succeeds in the props, costumes, sets, and overall design of their houses. The best example of this was in the house titled, "Hades: Gates of Doom" which I consider both the best and scariest house. Based on creatures of Greek Mythology, "Hades" showed me different areas of the Underworld in which snarling creatures like minotaurs and Medusa are waiting to make those walking by scream. This house boasted large and detailed set pieces, stunning costumes, and plenty of scares. The other two houses I enjoyed were "Havoc: Dogs of War" in which the side effects of a super solider program cause the "Dogs of War" to become raging killing machines, and "ZombieGeddon" where you go to the Zombie Awareness Program to learn how to kill Zombies...until the un-dead take over. How do the haunted houses do a great job of scaring its visitors? For me it was because the mazes did a good job of distracting me. Two good examples of this are all the visual effects and misdirection. First, some houses have a combination of lighting techniques. Whether its dark inside, lights are flashing, or the very effective strobe lights are shining, these effects make it difficult for me to analyze my surroundings until BOOM, someone or something was in my face. The other factor was the misdirection which is simply when someone pops out at the person in front of you and, when you look at them, someone from the opposite direction gets you.

Out in the streets I walked through the different scare zones, each with a different theme, in which scareactors roam the streets searching for victims to scare. For me, these zones weren't nearly as scary as the haunted houses and were more about the atmosphere and pictures opportunities. In the "Fear Revealed" scare zone (my favorite) I came face-to-face with this years icon, Fear himself as well as the minor icons Jack the Clown, the Caretaker, the Storyteller, the Director, and the Usher. Not much else to talk about with the scare zones.

The last thing to talk about are the two very entertaining live shows at this year's HHN. The first and best show is "Bill and Ted's Excellent Halloween Adventure." In this show I found myself cracking up as I saw the show make fun of 2010's films, TV shows, music, and other pop-culture. Iron Man 2, Toy Story, Justin Bieber, Lindsay Lohan, and Jersey Shore are just a taste of what the show makes fun of. The second show was a magic/illusion show put on by "one of the countries most outrageous illusionists," Brian Brushwood. He stuck a needle in below his eye and it came out his mouth...enough said.

Overall I was astounded by the everything I saw at this year's HHN. The houses, shows, costumes, scare zones, etc. was truly amazing and at times almost convinced me that it was real. This is an outstanding event where being scared is not an option, but a guarantee. I would recommend it to anyone that is looking to experience the heart and soul of Halloween.

-Fear has Arrived!

For the past 19 years, something has been lurking in the shadows, something has been watching every scream that has been echoed through the years. His minions, a clown (who he refers to as Chaos) , a caretaker (Death), a storyteller (Legend), a director (Sacrifice), and an usher (Vengeance). He has been waiting for 19 years and now, on the 20th year, he will make himself known to take ultimate control. He...is...FEAR.

This year at Universal Studios Florida's Halloween Horror Nights, Fear has arrived to create "a new age of darkness" and to present the most intense environment ever experienced at Halloween Horror Nights. This year during select nights of September and October, people will be able to witness the 8 haunted houses and 6 scare zones that Fear has created.

Whether it's being stuck inside an insane asylum full of vengeful inmates, or running through the gates of the Underworld, Fear has provided a variety of original houses that will surly terrify all those who enter. The houses are beautifully designed all the costumes are very detailed making the experience all the more real.

And for those who think staying out of the haunted houses will keep them safe, Fear begs to differ. This year's HHN features 6 different scare zones spread throughout the park that will make sure that no one is left out from the scares. These areas are good for those who may want to take a break from the haunted houses but still want a place to go to for atmosphere and lighter scares.

One thing that Fear doesn't seem to have complete control over just yet are the two outrageous live shows. The first and best is the annual "Bill and Ted's Excellent Halloween Adventure" show that makes fun of 2010's pop culture including movies, TV shows, and music. The 2nd show is a magic and illusions show put on by "one of the countries most outrageous illusionists", Brian Brushwood.

Do keep in mind when planning to attend this event that HHN is not for the faint if heart, for those who don't like being scared, and especially not for children. Universal themselves even say on the HHN website that this event is not recommended for those under the age of 13. When inside the gates people are at the mercy of the scareactors and they will show no mercy for anyone no matter their age. However, for those who enjoy the spirit of Halloween, no event could be better to attend. Fear has taken control, and the final key to his plan is YOU!

Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World

Comic-book films have become quite popular in this past decade with some examples being "Spider-Man", "X-Men", "Iron Man", and "Batman." But at the start of 2009, we started to see what I call "the next generation" of comic book movies ("The Book of Eli," "Watchmen," "Kick Ass"). The films I speak of are more unique, much different, and they show us heroes aren't the perfect people that some movies make them out to be. "Scott Pilgrim vs. the World," which stars the both funny and geeky Michael Cera is a good example.

Meet Scott Pilgrim (Cera), the 22 year old who is in a band named the Sex Bob-ombs (ode to Super Mario Bros) that isn't getting anywhere, is dating a 17 year old high school girl, and has to share a mattress with his gay roommate who most of the time has company. All around Scott doesn't have the best life...that is until he meets the magenta haired girl of his dreams. Say good-bye to the 17 year old and say hello to Ramona Flowers (Mary Elizabeth Winstead). When her and Scott begin to hang out, she seems to be pretty up tight about who she is and her past. That's because Ramona happens to have seven evil exes and soon Scott realizes that in order for him to date Ramona, he must defeat all of them. Most of the exes have some sort of power, while Scott just has his love for Ramona, but that just might be all he needs to win his battle (plus he has some awesome karate skills)

Being a lover of video games, my favorite thing in "Scott Pilgrim" and what makes it even more unique than probably any comic book film I've seen (almost all of them) is that it is made to look like you are watching a video game. This is demonstrated in popular music from video games, health bars on characters, extra lives, and even a pee bar when Scott uses the restroom. A fun example was at the start of the film where, instead of the traditional Universal Studios introduction, the intro moved and sounded as if it were in a Donkey-Kong game back from the 80's.

Along with the many video game references, my other favorite thing about "Scott Pilgrim" is the fight scenes. Like in video games, each fight begins with the camera panning out on each character and a "VS." shown in between them. "FIGHT! " is shown and each character dives into wonderful choreography of martial arts, sword fights, or just a classic fist fight. Of course the fights would not be complete without the many pows, crashs, and bams that are shown literally every time someone gets hit. Don't worry, "Scott Pilgrim" is not a bloody film; instead the bad guys explode into coins that give Scott bonus points.

Now don't think "Scott Pilgrim" is all about video games and fighting. The film also has plenty of laughs caused by the humorous Michael Cera who can never seem to get out of his usual funny/nerdy roles that he is famous for. It's almost seemed like anything he said made the crowd laugh but that can be attributed to his good timing and line delivery.

The single problem I found with "Scott Pilgrim" is that it is at times hard to follow because of it's very fast paced. Scenes flew by very quickly and I found it hard to process all that I was watching, The good thing was that this was only a problem at the start of the film. Besides that, the combination of video-game connections, comic-book style, action, laughs, and romance made "Scott Pilgrim" a very unique film that sets the standard for the new kind comic-book movie.
"Scott Pilgrim vs. the World" has a running time of 112 minutes and is rated PG-13 for stylized violence, sexual content, language and drug references.

The Other Guys

By now it is a known fact that when director and writer Adam McKay teams up with Will Farrell, a good comedy is about to be created. Together the two have brought us films like "Talladega Nights", "Anchorman", and "Step Brothers." Now the two have teamed up again, with the help of Mark Wahlberg, to bring us another memorable comedy about two very different cops who might be in way over their heads in, "The Other Guys."

When it comes to the N.Y.P.D., their are two cops who everyone wants to be and that is Highsmith and Danson (played by Samuel L. Jackson and Dwayne Johnson respectively). When it comes to fighting crime, there is no one who can do a better job than these two and when it comes to fighting crime, no one would ever expect Allen Gamble and Terry Hoitz (Ferrell and Wahlberg) to succeed. Hoitz has a bad reputation from when he shot a baseball player during the World Series and Gamble...well he's just made fun of all the time. Soon the time comes when these two partners have the chance to take on their own case and have a chance at being taken seriously like Hoghsmith and Danson, but to do that they are going to have to learn to get along with themselves first.

In "The Other Guys" we are presented with two very different characters with very different personalities. On one side we have Ferrell's character who is very calm and is happy to do what he does which is sitting at his desk everyday doing paperwork. On the other side we have Wahlberg's character who is very anxious to get out of the office and do something exciting instead of sitting at his desk. He gets very angry with his partner who insists on not leaving and strives to redeem himself for the time he shot that baseball player. With the combination of Wahlberg's anger and seriousness and Ferrell's monotone humor and stupidity, the two make an enjoyable and amusing pair.

There is no doubt that "The Other Guys" is a very humorous film. The two leads do a great job of working together to create many laughs for the audience. With Ferrell as the classic dork/funnyman and Wahlberg as the straight man, both bring their personalities together that equal out to create a memorable team. Wahlberg, who is more known for roles in dramas and action films, works great as the straight man with his good timing, facial expressions, and funny reactions to anything stupid Farrell might say or do. Farrell would probably have to work harder to not be funny as his infamous monotone line delivery and stupidity he brings to many of his roles makes him one of the best in the comedic business.

"The Other Guys" is filled with laughs and gives us a brilliant comedy that no doubt surpasses early March's "Cop Out" (another cop comedy) and last week's "Dinner for Schmucks" making it one of the funniest films this year. I give it three stars out of four.

"The Other Guys" has a running time of 107 minutes and is rated PG-13 for crude and sexual content, language, violence and some drug material.

The Avengers (2012) Teaser Trailer HD 720p

Dinner for Schmucks in a Nutshell

You know those comedies that come out every so often that, though very stupid, are hilarious? Some examples are "Napoleon Dynamite", "Nacho Libre", and the best of all..."Dumb and Dummer." Well "Dinner for Schmucks definitely fits in to that category. With the mix of Steve Carell's crazy character, his many mice-art collections, and an IRS worker who thinks he has the power of mind control, this movie conatins some of the weirdest, most random things that could all be together in a film. But, sometimes that's just what a good comedy needs.

When Tim (Paul Rudd) needs a promotion, his boss says that the only way he can get it is if he comes to a dinner. Now this is no ordinary dinner because each guest must bring someone that all the other guests can make fun of. For example: a lady who can talk to dead animals or someone that thinks his wife is a ventriloquist doll. Well when Tim meets Barry, who collects stuffed mice and puts them together in different scenes like "The Last Supper," Tim believes he has found his fool. But when he starts to spend a little more time with Barry, a friendship starts to grow and Tim might realize he was wrong about his new pal.

Bottom line...this film made me laugh almost the entire two hours. Slapstick comedy, funny lines, or just downright "so stupid it's funny" elements were scattered throughout the movie and it's probably one of the funniest films I've seen this year.

Charlie St. Cloud

By now most people in America have heard of the teen-heartthrob, Zac Efron. Since 2006, where he sang his way into fame with the immensely popular High School Musical series, Efron has been making his transition from the television screen to the silver screen and now in 2010 it is clear he is trying to be taken seriously as an actor from last years drama, "Me and Orson Wells" and the new, "Charlie St. Cloud."

If you have seen the trailers for this film you will already be expecting that it has the potential to be utterly depressing and this plot description isn't going to change your mind. The film starts with Charlie and Sam on the final stretch of a sail boat race in which the two win resulting in Charlie earning a scholarship to Stanford University. At the start of summer, Charlie makes a promise to his little brother saying that he will practice baseball with him everyday at sunset until he leaves for college. That night, Charlie and Sam are driving down the road when a drunk driver hits them into the intersection where a semi-truck collides with the car killing Sam. But for Charlie, Sam isn't dead, in fact when Charlie travels to the spot they practiced baseball, Sam is standing right in front of him. Sam reminds Charlie of the promise he made and they begin to practice everyday.

Five sad years later, Charlie has given up his scholarship and has been working at the graveyard near he and his brother's practice spot. Since he believes his brother is still alive, he occasionally talks to other dead friends as well. Every single day for the past five years Charlie has played baseball with Sam and can never seem to accept the truth that his brother is gone. Until he comes across a girl from his high school. Tess (Amanda Crew) also sailed in the race Charlie won and has continued to sail for the past five years. When Charlie sees Tess again he starts to feel like he might actually want to pursue her. But then a choice is given to Charlie...be bound to his dead brother, or be with Tess and finally learn to let go.

"Charlie St. Cloud" has two major flaws; it lacks depth and emotion. That's probably the flaw that the film doesn't want to have being that it is an EMOTIONAL drama. "Charlie St. Cloud" is one of those films designed to make you cry, I had no such feeling. The film did not do an impressive job of making me feel bad and sympathetic for Charlie. This is most likely because the film makers don't take the time to dive into Charlie's character to explain his emotions towards his problems (something of which I'm sure the book does a better job). Because of this, instead of feeling for Charlie, I found myself saying, "Wow, just get on with your life and let go." I went into "Charlie St. Cloud" hoping for an interesting story with intense character development and heart but I was let down.

The second flaw as a mentioned before is the lack of depth. The film fails to answer important questions like, why does Charlie choose to stay, why does he not want to move on, etc. Instead the film focuses more on the plot and moving the story along than on the meat and heart of the storyline.

Now everything about "Charlie St. Cloud" isn't bad. The premise itself is an interesting one along with some shocking plot twists. Thankfully Efron is a good actor because if this wasn't the case, the film would be a complete letdown. Efron has shown us in his past three films (including this one) that he is a talented actor that can pull off several different role types (musical, comedic, and dramatic). He is the biggest factor that keeps "Charlie St. Cloud" alive.

Efron is definitely trying to show the world that he can do more than just musicals (since his first four films were just that) but now its just a factor of choosing the right films in which to act. "Charlie St. Cloud" is not one of those films and though Efron gives it his all, the lack of depth and emotion in the script held him back from what could have been a terrific and even Oscar worthy performance. I give it one and a half stars out of four.

"Charlie St. Cloud" has a running time of 100 minutes and is rated PG-13 for language including some sexual references, an intense accident scene and some sensuality.

The Sorcerer's Apprentice

Who would have thought that you could create a two hour film based off of a five minute animated musical short? Sure enough, big-producer Jerry Bruckheimer has teamed up with Nick Cage to create a magical story very loosely based off 1940's "The Sorcerer's Apprentice", a short included in "Disney's Fantasia" that stared our favorite magical mouse. But does this new adventure capture the magic that Mickey did 70 years ago? Sadly that goal is next to impossible to achieve.

It's 740 A.D. and the wizard Merlin has trained three apprentices, Balthazar Blake (Cage), Veronica (Monica Bellucci), and the back-stabbing Maxim Horvath (Alfred Molina). Horvath betrays Merlin and his two apprentices and sides with the evil sorceress, Morgana le Fay (Alice Krige). A battle ensues between the five characters ultimately resulting in Merlin's death and Balthazar trapping Morgana in the Grimhold, which resembles a nesting doll. Before his death, Merlin gives Balthazar his dragon ring and instructs Baltahzar to seek out his successor who will be known as the Prime Merlinian because only that person could kill Morgana once and for all.

Balthazar searches for centuries for the Prime Merlinian. Along the way he defeats foes trying to release Morgana and eventually defeats Horvath, trapping them all in the doll. Finally Balthazar finds his magician and his name is Dave (Jay Baruchel) who is a physics wiz at New York University. Balthazar tells his story to Dave and the boy agrees to train with him and help defeat Morgana. But things will get complicated because Horvath escapes from his prison and he plans on bringing a few friends to help bring down the two heroes.

There are two things that "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" relys on and they are visual effects and action scenes. The CGI was impressive whether it was a dragon tearing up Chinatown or a steel eagle from the Chrysler Building coming to life, everything looked good. Next to that the movie was pretty much a non-stop action roller coaster that ranged from wizards hurling spells at each other to car chases through the streets of Manhattan. However, there must be more than just good visuals and action to make a film decent, the disappointing "Transformer 2" proved that statement.

Now about the connection to this film and the cartoon on which it is based. There is really no similarities between the two with the exception of one scene where Dave tries to uses mops and brooms to clean his apartment (while the music from "Fantasia" is played) which is an ode to the animated short. Besides that it puzzles me why the makers of the film bothered to say that it is based off the cartoon and not just say it is its own film. But as it turns out, that one scene was probably my favorite in the film.

The main problem with "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" is this, at this time in cinema history where "Harry Potter" rules the magic/wizard genre, no film can quite live up to the originality and greatness of the "Harry Potter" films. "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" did not bring anything new or original to the table and ends up being just another visually impressing popcorn film that will very quickly be forgotten. I give it one and a half stars out of four.

"The Sorcerer's Apprentice" has a running time of 110 minutes and is rated PG for fantasy action violence, some mild rude humor and brief language.

Inception

By now it is a known fact that director and writer Christopher Nolan (most known for the two newest "Batman" films) is very good at what he does...making great movies! Since 1998 Nolan has released a new film every two years(with the exception being Batman Begins being released in 2005) and now it is 2010 and the time has come to witness his next project. There is no doubt that Nolan's reputation precedes him greatly in this new mind-blowing and mind-boggling film, "Inception."

Cobb (Leonardo Dicaprio) and Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) are very good at what they do and believe me what they do is a long shot from a walk in the park. Cobb and Arthur have mastered the technology to enter other people's minds and partake in their dreams. In this profession, they create a dream for the victim and then enter said victim's dream and try to find information for themselves or for the clients that hired them. Quickly after the film gets started, Cobb and Arthur are approached by a man named Saito (Ken Watanabe) who has been observing the two men's skills. Saito has a job for Cobb and Andrew and it includes something that is considered impossible. The thing which I speak of is known as inception which is where those who invade the dream attempt to place an idea in the victim's mind. Saito owns a buisness that is threatened by a rival buisness. The head of said business is about to hand over the company to his son, Robert Fischer Jr. (Cillian Murphy). What Saito wants is to plant the idea in Robert to break away from his father's company and start his own buisness thus dismanteling his father's empire. Saito not only offers money but tells Cobb that he will grant him a way to finally go home, something that Cobb has wanted for a long time. Why can't Cobb go home? That's one of the many mysteries.

The two, even though Cobb made the decision without Arthur's input, take the job and assemble a team of other's who are skilled in the art of invading dreams. The team includes Ariadne (Ellen Page) who is responsible for constructing the dreams that the team goes into, Eames (Tom Hardy) who has the skill of taking of the shape of those known by the victim of the dream in order to more easily convince the victim of telling secrets, and Yusuf (Dileep Rao) who makes liquids that enable people to sleep longer and/or become more relaxed. This team attempts to target Robert Fischer Jr. with the goal of convincing him to break away from his father's business.

When looking at "Inception" it is much like looking at pieces of a puzzle. There are many pieces of the puzzle that include the acting, the script, the cinematography, the music, the story, the originality, the visual effects, etc. The bottom line is, "Inception" has all of the puzzle pieces and they all fit together perfectly. Now let's look at each piece.

Starting with the acting, it is very noticeable in the trailers that "Inception" is filled with A-listers and I don't mean just the popular A-listers (Megan Fox) I mean the A-listers who are both popular and can actually act (not Megan Fox.) The acting for all cast members is impressive, the best performance coming from the very talented Leo Dicaprio who has shown outstanding acting in both of his films the year (the first being "Shutter Island").

The next big factor of "Inception" is the plot. Every now and then there are movies that you see that after watching you say, "Wow! I have never seen anything like that!" (think The Matrix or The Lord of the Rings). Inception is the perfect example of that kind of film. The story is so interesting, so gripping, and so original, I was struck with awe at how brilliant the film was because of this. Now one thing I feared when going into this film was that I would be confused and lost a lot. WRONG! Thanks to the brilliance of Christopher Nolan, the story, the whole concept of going into dreams, and all points of the story are clearly explained leaving no questions.

As for the rest of the puzzle pieces, there is a big list but some of the key ones include the cinematography, CGI, and score. Like most Nolan films, the camera-work is outstanding. The lighting and clearness gave the film a beautiful picture. Since "Inception" dealt with dream sequences, there were many different angles that the camera's were placed in and all in all, the way those scenes turn out is visually impressive.

The cinematography combined with the CGI was a great mix. Slow-motion is a much-used effect in "Inception" but thankfully it wasn't overused like it is in many action films (Mission Impossible 2). One scene features the team falling backwards into a lake while strapped into a van. In this scene, the way everyone moves, the way the camera looks, the way the van crashes into the water, everything just works perfectly. This scene is just a fraction of what "Inception" has to offer.

One of my favorite things to look for in a movie is a great score and I couldn't have been more excited when I saw that Academy Award winning composer Hans Zimmer (composer of "Pirates of the Caribbean", the "Batman" films, and "Sherlock Holmes") was attached to this film. Zimmer is very good at composing intense scores and he does it once again in "Inception." The music fits perfectly with all of the intensity, suspense, and emotion of the film.

I could go on and on about how fantastic this masterpiece is. "Inception" was a brilliant puzzle made up of important pieces that fit together and it is, what Mary Poppins would say, "Practically perfect in every way!" Inception is a great film and quite possibly one of the best films I have ever seen. I give it four stars out of four.

"Inception" has a running time of two hours and twenty eight minutes and is rated PG-13 for sequences of violence and action throughout.

The Last Airbender

When it comes to Nickelodeon movies, my expectations are never very high (in fact most of the time I have the "oh great" attitude) because most films distributed by this studio are not very entertaining. To add to that, when I saw M. Night Shyamalan's name I went deeper into my low expectations because his past few films have not been great either. So as you can tell, my expectations for the action/fantasy film, "The Last Airbender" (based on the mega-hit TV show, "Avatar: The Last Airbender") were not high to begin with. Let's see if my mood improved.

Meet Aang(Noah Ringer). This twelve year old boy learns that his destiny is to be the next Avatar (not James Cameron's blue aliens). Avatars have been around for centuries and they keep peace throughout the world. The world is divided into four nations: the Earth, Air, Water, and Fire nations. Some people in each of these nations are known as Benders who can control the elements of their own nation. Example: Benders of the Water nation can control water/ice. The special thing about Aang is that he has the power to control all four elements. Unfortunately Aang is caught in a fierce snowstorm and his Avatar powers seal him in a snow sphere of suspended animation.


One hundred years have passed since his disappearance and during this time the lord of the Fire nation, Lord Ozia (Cliff Curtis) has started a war against the rest of the world killing off and imprisoning all Benders. Soon Aang, now the only hope to saving the world from the Fire nation, is found by two teens, named Katara (Nicola Peltz) and Sokka (Jackson Rathbone). The two set out with Aang to help him learn how to master the four elements and take on the Fire Nation. On the journey the three will have to fight numerous battles with people of the Fire Nation and the exiled son of the Fire Lord, Prince Zuko (Slumdog Millionaire's Dev Patel) and in the end, Aang will have to master his powers to fight off an army of the fire nation and their fleet. And the biggest mystery of all will be answered...did M. Night Shyamalan finally redeem himself and make a decent film?!

These days when it comes to action films, it is more rare to see martial arts which is, in my opinion, one of the most entertaining forms of action. Luckily for me, "The Last Airbender's" action focuses around the martial arts. The cool thing about it is that they combine the martial arts with the elements that the Benders control (almost the the Karate Kid with superpowers). This kept the action entertaining and was what it seemed like the makers of the film focused on.

However, there are other things that the film should have focused on but did not. To start it off, "The Last Airbender's" goal was to cram the TV show's first season into one hour and forty five minutes. Now from hearing the reactions from those who watched the show, it seems like the film did a good job of including the key parts of the first season. But since they tried to cram so much into the movie, there were some important things left forgotten. As I've said before, the best formula for a wannabe fantasy/hero trilogy is to devote the first film to the characters and not the action (much like what the "X-Men" and "Fantastic Four" franchises did). "The Last Airbender" did the exact opposite.

The films plot line suffers from being unclear and open. By open I mean that there is no firm plot line and that the "plot" is just whatever the main characters happen to be doing at one time or another. If someone asked me for the plot I would have to reply like this: "In "The Last Airbender", Aang goes to do this, then this, then he realizes this, but forgets do this, then he fights in a huge battle, and then he does this." It's too choppy and scattered to be a good plot.

Both of the above "cons" of the film demonstrate that certain TV shows should not be adapted into films. TV shows have 10-13 episodes each season to develop their characters. TV shows have a set plot in every single episode of every season. "The Last Airbender" doesn't have these advantages and so it ends up being an unorganized film with fun martial arts and sub-par acting. I give it one and a half stars out of four.

"The Last Airbender" has a running time of 103 minutes and is rated PG for fantasy action violence.

Knight and Day

Oh Tom Cruise. It seems like you can never stay away from spy films. After three Mission Impossibles (and a fourth very likely to be coming next year) and even Valkyrie which has a undercover, spy-ish feel to it, it seems like Tom Cruise has a passion for the genre. Sure enough, Cruise is back in this action/romantic comedy in his newest spy film, "Knight and Day."

June Havens (Cameron Diaz) is just trying to get back to her family so she can go to her sister's wedding. Too bad she keeps running into little setbacks like several "accidental" bumps into Roy Miller (Cruise), a smooth talking secret agent, and not to mention a plane crash after Roy kills all the people on the plane. Now that June is wondering who this crazy man is, Roy decides that they need to stick together until Roy sorts out his problem. What is the problem? Roy claims that he has a new kind of battery called the Zephyr that is capable of powering whole cities. He tells June that when the battery was first created, Agent Fitzgerald (Peter Sarsgaard) wanted to take the battery for himself and when Roy declined, Fitzgerald framed Roy. However, one day when intelligence agents pick up June, they tell her that Roy is a rogue agent that is unstable and wants to sell the battery to a Spanish gang. Taking both stories to mind, June procedes to follow Roy on his mission to clear his name and will have to find out which story is true.

What carries "Knight and Day" is the on-screen performances and chemistry of Cruise and Diaz. I wouldn't have picked a better twosome to play the roles. The way both of them deliver their comedic lines is great. Cruise pours both charm and comedy into his character which looks to be a crazy secret agent who doesn't seem to be afraid of any risks and dangerous situations. On the opposite side is Diaz whose character matches Cruise's character with a bit of wackiness of her own. Both performances help give the film a good comedic twist.

Unfortunately, "Knight and Day" is bound by the fact that it is pure formula. This is definitely not the first time we have seen the story of a secret agent trying to clear his name. In fact, one of the well known examples of when that kind of premise was considered more original (at least in my memory) was another Tom Cruise film, "Mission Impossible." Yes, because of this the film fails to be original and is too predictable.

To be honest, I can't really find that much to say about "Knight and Day" because after looking at the unoriginal plot and common laughs, the film isn't that complex. In all it's just a simple popcorn film. The best way to describe "Knight and Day"? An accurate description is an unoriginal romantic comedy with entertaining chase sequences and good acting from its leads. Besides that, nothing really sticks out as being unique and the film takes its place with many other summer popcorn films of its kind. I give it two stars out of four.

"Knight and Day" has a running time of 110 minutes and is rated PG-13 for sequences of action violence throughout, and brief strong language.

Jonah Hex

Most know that when it comes to comic book films there are two studios who tend to do the competing. These two studios are Marvel and DC. Most also know the much more successful studio when it comes to their films...Marvel. Yes for some reason most DC films (the only major exception being "The Dark Knight") tend to not be as successful as Marvel films. Well here we are again, DC is trying to create a successful comic book film with the help of A-listers Josh Brolin and John Malkovich (if you thought I was going to say Megan Fox...no comment). Unfortunately, "Jonah Hex", a western-esque film about vengeance, fails to capture the heart and brilliance that "The Dark Knight" and "Superman" captured.

At the start of the film, (set shortly after the civil war) we are introduced to Jonah Hex (Brolin) who is being tied up outside his home by the antagonist, Quentin Turnbull (Malkovich). Soon after, he burns Jonah's house with his wife and son inside. After this sight, Turnbull brands Jonah with his initials to remind him of the man that took everything from him. This whole scene sets the DARK tone that will be present for the rest of the film. Why did Turnbull want revenge on Jonah? A quick line at the beginning of the film states that Jonah killed Turnbull's son but unfortunately, the film does a bad job of explaining the whole situation. Anyway, Turnbull is said to be dead and Jonah is now a vengeful bounty hunter that has a price on his own head. However, the U.S. government learns that Turnbull is alive and out to destroy the U.S. Jonah is recruited to help bring down Turnbull and a quest for vengeance and murder is started. Congratulations, that was a summary of about 45 minutes of an 80 minute film (saved you all nine bucks at the theater).

Even the plot summary seems a little confusing and full of twists doesn't it? Well, I'll start off by saying that one of the first problems with "Jonah Hex" is that unfortunately the film does a bad job of explaining the several back stories it tries to tell. As if the several plot twists are not enough, the storytelling and plot of the whole film is scattered and confusing. More problems include that there are some elements that simply should have been kept out of the film. For example, Megan Fox's character, Jonah's slight love interest, has probably less than ten minutes of screen time. So why was she in the film? Most likely to get people to see it...that's the only reason. The character has no value whatsoever.

Unlike most comic-book films, there is not one happy or redemptive thing about "Jonah Hex." The whole movie consists of murder, hate, anger, and at no point does the protagonist question his motives. SPOILER ALERT!!! Even if the film claims to have a happy ending, I couldn't feel happy because what it boils down to is that Jonah, whether he gets his revenge or not, will always carry his hate with him and never have a decent life. Hands down, "Jonah Hex" is the darkest film since "The Dark Knight."

"Jonah Hex" has entertaining action sequences. There. That's pretty much the only positive thing I have to say about the film. Sadly, the action couldn't hide the other flaws in this film. "Jonah Hex", mostly due to the fact that it is a comic book film, suffers from over the top plot twists, unneeded elements, and to top it all off, half of the time I couldn't even understand what the actors were saying. Once again DC has proven that they can't consistently keep up with Marvel and their plethora of comic book films. I give it one star out of four.

"Jonah Hex" has a running time of 80 minutes and is rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and action, disturbing images and sexual content.

The A-Team

"I love it when a plan comes together." In this case, I love it when four good actors, an action savvy director, and an 80's TV show come together to create an action fueled thrill ride. Complete with original tag lines, scenarios from the show, and creative action sequences, this adaption of the old TV show, "The A-Team," is a must see for any action lover.

The film opens as we see Hannibal (Liam Neeson) being held captive by corrupt Mexican officers. When the men leave to meet with their leader, Hannibal escapes and pursues them. Along the way he meets B.A. Baracus (Quinton "Rampage" Jackson) who decides to help Hannibal when he realizes that they were in the same, elite group of army rangers. The two procede to catch up the the officers who are in the middle of questioning Face (Bradley Cooper) who is involved in Hannibal's plan. B.A. crashes in the area, rescues Face, and then the three rush to the nearest hospital (while being pursued) to find their last member, Murdock (Sharlto Copley) who gets them all into a helicopter and flies away triggering an action scene that gave me chills for the next five minutes.

Then, "eight years and eighty successful missions later," we find the team stationed in Iraq, now considered a very popular top notch team. Hannibal gains information that a case full of U.S. treasury plates are in the possession of terrorists. So he and his "A-Team" set out to retrieve the plates. The mission is successful but when they return, Hannibal's commanding officer is murdered and the evidence goes missing. As a result of this, the four men are tried and sent to prison since no one could prove that they were acting on behalf of the United States. Of course prison couldn't hold the four men and soon enough they all escape and go on another mission to track down the man who framed them and get back their reputations.

Last month I read an article on "The A-Team" in an Entertainment Weekly. The director of the film, Joe Carnahan, stated in the article that in the film there would be an action scene so cool that if you didn't like it, you didn't like movies. A very big statement I know and while I'm not quite sure which scene he was referring to, I can think of at least three scenes that can fit the bill. "The A-Team" was filled with all kinds of action which included the team flying helicopters, planes, and get ready for this...TANKS! Right now you're probably saying the same thing B.A. said..."WHAT? You can't fly a tank fool!" And who better to engage in this action than the four leads of the film: Liam Neeson and Sharlto Copley have proved themselves to be great action stars from their films "Taken" and "District 9" respectively. "Rampage" Jackson who fights for a living, and Bradley Cooper showed that he is more than capable of being an action star. In my opinion, a better team of actors couldn't have been chosen. Classic scenarios from the show like B.A. and Murdock's arguments and B.A.'s fear of flying are very much present in this film which give the movie a comedic twist.

Sadly, the film suffers from being a little too fast-paced which keeps the film from having a strong plot line and room for character development. It seems that the makers of the film went on the basis that the viewers would automatically know the characters thus the four main protagonists were given no introduction. When looking at the plot line, I felt the same. It was almost like watching the TV show with better acting, action, and special effects.

"I love it when a good plan comes together." Thankfully, Hannibal's "good plans" give us a whole lot of high octane action and comedy that in the end, makes me forget about the weak story and lack of character development. Two and a half stars out of four.

"The A-Team" has a running time of 117 minutes and is rated PG-13 for intense sequences of action and violence throughout, language and smoking.

Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time

For as long as I can remember, video game adaptations have been categorized as, well...BAD! It seems that a curse has been placed on video game adaptations because whether its a movie about, aliens, assassins, or treasure hunters, the movie versions are hardly ever well received. When the media heard that the immensely popular "Prince of Persia" series was getting its own chance at silver screen fame, people started wondering if the curse could be broken. And when we learned the the films would consist of producer Jerry Bruckheimer("Pirates of the Caribbean" trilogy), director Mike Newell ("Harry Potter 4") and actor Jake Gyllenhaal at the lead, things were starting to look good for the newest video game adaption. Sure enough, it seems that this new Arabian Nights tale has taken the genre of video game films in a new and better direction.

The Persian empire is under the rule of King Sharaman who has two sons, Tus and Garsiv but one day the king brings in another son off the streets whose name is Dastan(Jake Gyllenhaal). The king sees good in young Dastan's heart when Dastan saves a boy in the market from cruel soldiers and so he makes him a prince. After the first five minutes, we see the three brothers all grown up and on the way to attack the city of Alamut because they believe that they are selling weapons to enemies of Persia. During this raid, Dastan finds a mystical dagger of which no one except the princess of the city, Tamina (Gemma Arterton), knows the true powers.

When the army successfully overtakes the city, the king travels to celebrate with his three sons. Dastan is given a robe to present the king as a celebratory gift of their victory but when the kings puts it on, he is soon killed by poison that was soaked into the robe. Suspected by the people as the murderer, Dastan flees with Tamina and go on a quest to clear his name. Soon after they flee, Dastan realizes that the dagger he found is capable of taking back time and told by Tamina that he must protect the dagger at all costs.

The best thing about "Prince of Persia" is that it has top notch stunts and action sequences, the best I've seen in a long time. One of the top things that made the video games so popular were the acrobatic abilities of the prince. He could swing off of poles, do back flips across walls, and my personal favorite...running on walls. So naturally, the film had to include this factor and for me it was the most enjoyable part of the film because when you include the classic sword fights and then throw in acrobatic stunts throughout...it goes together very well (it is almost like "Pirates of the Caribbean" on steroids).

One thing that sets this film aside from other video game adaptions is the good, well thought story. Most video game films have poor story lines because they are strictly based off of the video games themselves. In this film, they take elements from the game but then re-craft the story into a more original plot line, much like what producer Jerry Bruckheimer did with "Pirates of the Caribbean." This is the way to go because it allows for a more creative approach to the film and it's story.

All in all, "Prince of Persia" has almost every element that one could want: great action, great stunts, romance, suspense, a good script, etc. I think it is now clear that all video game films do not have to be terrible. The "curse" has been broken. Three stars out of four.

"Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time" has a running time of 116 minutes and is rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and action.

Shrek Forever After

In 2001, a new kind of fairy-tale film was brought to the world. A film where all of the fairy tale creatures like the Gingerbread man, Pinocchio, the Three Little Pigs, and many more came together in a heart-warming story about an ogre named Shrek. For almost ten years the world has been captured by the adventures of Shrek, Fiona, and Donkey. The films have spread into theme parks, video games, and even it's own musical production, making it a large part of the animated genre. Sadly, all good things must come to an end eventually and there is one more adventure for Shrek to embark on before the story-book closes. Will true love prevail once more? You'll have to find out in this final chapter that is "Shrek Forever After."
As most of the "Shrek" films begin, we start with a story book reading of a recap of the story of Princess Fiona (Cameron Diaz). This time however, we are told a new story about something that happened before Shrek rescued the princess from her tower. The king and queen of Far Far Away (Fiona's parents) worry that Fiona will never be rescued so they go to make a deal with Rumpelstiltskin (Walt Dohrn) to try to break her curse. Rumple will help only if he gets the kingdom for himself. Right before the king signs the deal, a messenger comes in and tell the king the Fiona has been rescued. For this reason, Rumple hates Shrek (Mike Myers) for foiling his plans.
Back at the swamp, Shrek and his family are living a happy life with their children and their friends Donkey (Eddie Murphy) and Puss in Boots (Antonio Banderas). However, Shrek is starting to miss his old "Ogre" life when he could lay in mud-pits and scare away nearby villagers. Shrek says he would give anything for one day of his old life and who would answer this call than the devious Rumpelstiltskin. Rumple tells Shrek that he can have a day of his "old life" back if Shrek gives him a day of his childhood. Shrek signs the contract but is immediately thrown into a land where no one knows him, he family is gone, and Rumple is king of Far Far Away. Why did this happen? Rumple deviously told Shrek that he required one day of his childhood and so the day that was taken was the day that Shrek was born. Now, with no one at his side, Shrek must embark on another quest to break this curse that was put on him and the land.
First let me give a sort of timeline of the "Shrek" franchise. The first "Shrek" was considered the best as first installments usually are. The second was almost on par with the first "Shrek" in my opinion and introduced several new characters like the King and Queen of Far Far Away, Prince Charming, and most importantly, our favorite scene stealer, Puss in Boots. The third film, titled "Shrek the Third," is where things started to go downhill. Since the film kept the same setting (Far Far Away) and antagonist, many aspects of the film were unoriginal. The humor was not as abundant as the previous two films and while I still enjoyed the film, it was nowhere near as impressive as the first two. Now we have "Shrek Forever After." Many would think that this film is just a movie for making extra money, but I thought of it more as a chance of redemption. Going into this film I only had one requirement...this film needs to be better than the third one and end the series on a good note. Fortunately for me, my quota was met. If you were disappointed with the third, this one is a good improvement.
The "Shrek" series is one of my favorite in the animated genre (in fact the first film is to this day the only film to beat out Pixar for the best animated picture award at the Oscars). Why do I, along with so many others, love the story? I believe the biggest factor is the way it combines all the characters we read about in those bed-time stories. Little Red Riding Hood, the Fairy Godmother, the Pied Piper, the Gingerbread man (one of my favorite characters), and so many more have been introduced to us throughout the series. Also present are the many concepts of several fairy tales like the "after midnight" dilemma and the most fundamental thing of the Shrek story, true love's kiss. These concepts and characters are what makes the series so unique. The third "Shrek" seemed to lack these things and above all, it lacked the magic that we were used to. Thankfully, "Shrek Forever After" has brought the magic back.
Some important things that the Shrek series has boasted before are a well written script and a simply beautiful score (one that I believe surpasses any animated film). The score is once again marvelous in "Shrek 4" and the script is even an improvement in some areas. In terms of the message, it is a step up from the traditional "true love prevails" plot shown before. This "Shrek" demonstrates the importance of family and the value of life. It shows how much one persons life can bless and affect so many other people's lives even when they think their life doesn't matter. It is much like the "It's a Wonderful Life" story line.
The problem with "Shrek Forever After?" If you've seen the other films, this one may seem slightly repetitive and very fast paced. After three films, it just seems like I already know the characters and in a way, I felt like I was watching a long TV show. My attitude at the beginning of the film was this: "Ok, I know these characters and the film is starting and feeling the same way as all the others." There's only so much you can do with a set of characters until it gets old and repetitive and this is how I felt with the movie.
"Shrek Forever After" is an improvement from it's predecessor and that was enough for me to enjoy it. The saga as a whole has done great things for the world of fairy tale creatures and while I have enjoyed all of them, I do agree that the studio needs to stick with the films other name, "Shrek: The FINAL Chapter." The film has presented a fun-filled adventure that serves as a entertaining end to the big green ogre's tale. 2 and a half stars out of 4
"Shrek Forever After" has a running time of 93 minutes and is rated PG for mild action, some rude humor and brief language.

Iron Man 2

In 2008, director Jon Favreou introduced us to a new kind of super-hero film. He showed us a comic book movie with comedy, action, drama, and most of all, a movie with a larger sense of reality. With the help of Robert Downey Jr.'s superb acting, "Iron Man" was born. Today in 2010, the same people who brought us the iron masterpiece have returned in this action packed sequel, "Iron Man 2".

We are first introduced to Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke) whose father is on his deathbed. Ivan and his father believe that Tony Stark's father stole his idea for the technology that eventually led to the creation of the Iron Man suit. Shortly after the death of his father, Ivan begins to construct a weapon/suit much like Iron Man's suit and starts his quest for revenge. Meanwhile, in the U.S., billionaire-icon-super-hero Tony Stark (Downey) is having the time of his life. Now known as Iron Man by all, Tony uses his heroic side to promote his company which results in the return of the Stark Expo, a convention where state-of-the-art inventions are exhibited. During this uprise in the company's popularity, Tony appoints his longtime assistant Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) as the new CEO, a new assistant named Natalie Rushman (Scarlett Johansson) is appointed (which sparks an interest in Stark's personal side), and the billionaire also develops a rather large ego.

Ivan Vanko soon attacks Tony at a racetrack in Moscow and gains the attention of a rival of Tony Stark, Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell). These two men form a plot to take down Stark's enterprise and finally get a spot on top. However, Ivan has some plans of his own.

In the newest Marvel comic films, the goal is to start to connect the characters in each film to each other. For example, at the end of the credits of the first "Iron Man," we see Sam L. Jackson portray the famous Nick Fury who heads an organization known as S.H.E.I.L.D. (for the non-comic book readers, S.H.E.I.L.D. is like the super-hero C.I.A and police). The purpose of these tie-ins? Well, in 2012, Marvel plans to release "The Avengers" which is a super-hero team made up of Iron Man, The Hulk, Thor, and Captain America. So if you thought the movie wasted actors like Sam L. Jackson and Scarlett Johhansson, relax...they are serving a bigger purpose.

Speaking of new characters, like in most sequels, "Iron Man 2" introduces us to several new characters. The most important new characters, are the S.H.E.I.L.D. agents. They consist of Nick Fury(Jackson), Stark's new assistant Natalie, A.K.A The Black Widow, and Agent Coulson (Clark Gregg) who was seen in the first film. These three watch over Tony and provide him with important tools to aid him throughout the film. Terrence Howard, who played Stark's best friend James Rhodes in the first film, has been replaced with Don Cheadle. Rhodes' character in this movie also introduces us to a new suit of Tony Stark's armor known as War Machine, which Rhodes dawns to eventually become Starke's sidekick.

"Iron Man 2" boasts an extraordinary cast who all give great performances. When it comes to Robert Downey Jr., it seems like he was born to play Tony Stark. His facial expressions, the way he delivers his lines, and everything else comes together to form the best Starke that simply cannot be recreated by any other actor. The film's antagonist, Ivan, is played by Mickey Rourke who did a great job as well. Rourke didn't have many lines, but his performance came out in his body language. While watching him, I could feel the emotions (mostly anger) that his character was feeling which made him all the more menacing. All the other actors and actresses show that the film has an A list cast which not only refers to their recent popularity, but their excellent acting.

In the first "Iron Man", the film had to focus on introducing the characters and getting to know them more than showing tons of action, which was what made the first film great. However, now we know the characters and the action can come out.. and oh boy it did. "Iron Man 2" was loaded with high octane, explosive action. I mean come on, what could be better than Iron Man jumping out of a plane, flying through the firework lit sky to AC/DC's "Shoot to Thrill?" Whether it was Iron Man fighting Ivan, Iron Man fighting War Machine, or Natalie fighting Ivan's henchman ( which had probably the best fighting choreography in the entire movie), many of the characters got their action time on screen and it was fun. I won't give details but one of the action scenes in this film was so insane that the entire theater I was in started to cheer, yell, and applaud. Another good thing about the action was that even though there was tons of it, it didn't push away the plot line and character development which is what most sequels do. In "Iron Man 2" we continue to see into Tony Stark's character and the many issues, both good and bad, he has to deal with. This particular element is what makes these films so good.

Now what makes the "Iron Man" films stand out in popularity from other comic-book films? Well, somehow the makers of the film manage to find the perfect combination of comedy, action, drama, creative story, and character development into the films. As I stated before, what makes "Iron Man" a great franchise is that it cares about its characters and wants the viewers to get to know them and care about them as well. Also, I think a big factor pertaining to the the success of the first "Iron Man" is that the film contains a larger sense of reality than previous comic book films. These films don't have the perfect super-hero who never gets drunk, or never does anything wrong. Tony Stark faces problems that many people face like drinking and social pressure, thus it is easier to relate to him and enjoy his character. The films show that super-heroes can't be perfect.

"Iron Man 2" is a near-perfect super hero film that shows us all the action, laughs, and superb acting that anyone could ask for. When comparing it to its predecessor, I find it hard to say which one is better because they are pretty different in several ways and that both are just great films. "Iron Man 2" can take its place among my favorite films of the genre. By the way, especially if you are a comic book fan, stay after the credits for an overwhelmingly suspenseful cliffhanger. I give the film three stars out of four.

"Iron Man 2" has a running time of two hours and five minutes and is rated PG-13 for sequences of intense sci-fi action and violence, and some language.