Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol

It's a known fact that sequels are almost never as good as the original. But for the Mission Impossible series, this wasn't necessarily the case. The second and third installments each brought more explosive effects and stunts, and more diabolical villains to the mix. However, when I heard that a fourth film was in production, I had my doubts. Even if sequels are better than the original, a franchise that ventures past a trilogy is rarely guaranteed success. But with the great marketing campaign and director Brad Bird (The Incredibles) heading up the project, I remained optimistic. Not only is "Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol" a great addition to the spy genre, but it's the best film of the Mission Impossible series.

IMF Agent Ethan Hunt's (Tom Cruise) latest mission has landed him in a Russian prison, but he doesn't seem to be worried. He knows that agents Jane Carter (Paula Patton) and Benji Dunn (Simon Pegg) will soon break him out and they do, in quite an explosive way. Hunt escapes only to find out that another agent was killed while investigating a man with the codename "Cobalt." Hunt and his team then infiltrate the Kremlin to acquire files on "Cobalt" but are forced to evacuate when an unknown group bombs the building. The Russians then place the blame on the IMF and as a result, the organization is disbanded. However, the three agents are given the chance to "escape" to continue their investigation and now Hunt must go against all of Russia to prevent a madman from starting a nuclear war.

What drives every Mission Impossible film are the brilliant stunts and action sequences and "Ghost Protocol" boasts the most jaw-dropping ones yet. To give an example, the film shot scenes at the tallest building in the world in Dubai. The filmmakers could have just settled for a thrilling sky-dive/fight off the gigantic tower but no, they wanted to have Tom Cruise run up, down, and across the side of the building while the iconic theme song plays...and it's awesome. This installment has frequent and intense hand to hand fighting, chase scenes, and explosions. All around, it's one wild ride.

Also, don't expect "Ghost Protocol" to just be another predictable action flick. While many sequels reuse plot points from earlier films, "Ghost Protocol" features a new, suspenseful story that will keep you guessing what is gonna happen next, just the same as the previous three. A great thing about the plot is that it welcomes those who haven't seen the first three, avoiding conversations and lingering plot points concerning the previous films that would easily confuse a newcomer to the series.

Director Brad Bird's most famous film, "The Incredibles," had many elements of a spy-thriller, so hiring him to direct a film that is part of one of the most iconic spy franchises of all time was an excellent move. And he succeeded not only in amping up the action of stunts, but providing a fresh story, a great set of new characters, and one of the best action blockbusters of the year. I give it three and a half stars out of four.

"Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol" has a running time of two hours and thirteen minutes and is rated PG-13 for sequences of intense action and violence.

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows

Yes! Batman is back! Oh, sorry I'm still freaking out over the newest trailer for "The Dark Knight Rises." Ahem...the Great Detective is back! Robert Downey Jr., Jude Law, and director Guy Ritchie surprised us all two years ago when they brought their take on the "Sherlock Holmes" series to the silver screen. When the film was released, the people were shown a different kind of Holmes that uses his supreme intellect to solve crimes AND take down bad guys in the most creative, jaw dropping ways. There was no doubt that a sequel would eventually be made and now its hit theaters to once again attempt to impress the crowds. Make no mistake, Holmes is back and better than ever...in every way.

"Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows" seems to pick up right where the first left off. The evil Professor James Moriarty (Jared Harris) had begun to strike terror across Europe through a series of bombings and assassinations taking place in different countries. The goal is to create a World War that he can profit from through the selling of advanced weaponry that he and his men have created. Fortunately Holmes (Downey) has picked up on Moriarty's trail but there is a slight problem. His closest friend and partner Dr. Watson (Jude Law) cannot help him on the case because he is preparing to get married. With the upcoming honeymoon which will keep Watson away for several weeks and the public threat that Moriarty has made against Watson and his fiancee, Holmes sees this time of romance as an obstacle and, using his brilliant mind, finds a way to "postpone" it. Now with the help of his partner, Holmes and Watson must race across Europe before Moriarty sends it plunging into war.

What makes "Sherlock Holmes" great is the acting. The leading men are all suburb. Robert Downey Jr. plays the title role with such a great mix of wit, cockiness, and a bit of insanity and is absolutely fantastic. Better yet is the chemistry that he and Jude Law have on screen. The duo's different characters and personalities mesh so well that not only does it create great acting, but lots of humor. Downey also has a great on screen chemistry with Jared Harris who plays Moriarty with the same wit and cockiness as Holmes but also adds a more cunning and menacing side creating an even more powerful character. The two scenes with Holmes and his nemesis having a battle of wits (and fists) were definitely my favorite of the film.

Another highlight of both "Holmes" films is the excellent cinematography. The way that the film is shot is remarkable. Many will remember the scenes from the first films featuring Holmes thinking in his head (in slow-motion) on how to beat his opponent, and then doing just that (back in regular speed). There is much more of this in the new installment and it makes the best action. The many different and diverse camera angles that cover all points of the different action and fight scenes will impress many. Action aside, the film features many beautiful landscapes and set pieces and while I could go on forever with the look of the film, I need to leave some for surprise.

The final aspect of "Holmes" that I'll devote a paragraph to is the music. Hans Zimmer is without a doubt my favorite composer. His music is powerful, energetic, and creative and he did an outstanding job with the first film's score. For the sequel, Zimmer brings back the great main theme and a few other memorable compositions, but has also created a whole new soundtrack of fantastic music that will surly be remembered as some of his best work.

In the end, the makers of "Holmes" took everything from the first film, and improved on it. The action is bigger, the acting is better, the story is even more complex and engaging (which is really saying something). Not many sequels end up besting the first, but "Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows" is a grand exception. I give it three and a half stars out of four.

"Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows" has a running time of two hours and eight minutes and is rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and action, and some drug material.

The Muppets

I had never seen any Muppet TV show before stepping into the theater on Thursday night. I didn't even know much about the Muppets except from what I had seen in a show at Disney World. So, with no past memories of beloved characters and TV episodes I stepped into that theater to see if "The Muppets" would succeed in appealing to the next generation and what was the result? Boy I wish I could have watched the show. "The Muppets" was a sweet surprise that could not have caught me more off guard.

Meet Gary (Jason Segel) and Mary (Amy Adams), two very happy people who are about to take a trip to Los Angeles to celebrate their ten year anniversary...of dating. The only problem is that Gary's younger Muppet brother Walter is tagging along so that he can have his lifelong dream of visiting the Muppet studio come true. Unfortunately the three come to the studio to see it in shambles and to make matters worse, Walter overhears the plans of the evil oilman Tex Richman (Chris Cooper) to demolish the studio in order to drill for oil. Gary, Mary, and Walter desperately seek out Kermit the Frog to tell him the news and after some convincing, Kermit decides to get the old gang back together in order to raise the $10 million required to purchase back the studio. The journey will be filled with laughs, shenanigans, and a few musical numbers, but in the end it may fall in the hands of Walter to give the Muppets the spark they need to succeed.

One of the many surprises that I found in "The Muppets" was that it turned out to be a musical. If I would have paid more attention to the commercials I may have realized this but never-the-less it was a very pleasant addition to an already great film. Each musical number was a splendid mix of laughter and pure happiness. The addictive original tunes, as well as some classic Muppet songs such as "Rainbow Connection" were each unique and well placed although nothing could have caught me more off guard than when Academy Award winner Chris Copper started to rap. It was a grand, mind-blowing moment that demonstrates just how creative and great "The Muppets" is.

But what makes "The Muppets" truly great is that, in a society's pop culture that has been corrupted by crass humor and Jersey Shore, the Muppets have retained their innocence. There's no language or adult content in the film yet it succeeds in being hilarious to both children and parents alike, a feat that many comedies cannot seem to do anymore.

In just 90 minutes I fell in love with the Muppets. I fell in love with their humor, music, and heart. Perhaps the best thing about "The Muppets" is that the film is so happy. From start to finish it warmed my heart with the joy each character brought to the screen and the wonderful messages it teaches. Add that to a great cast with an unimaginable amount of cameos and you have one of the year's best films. I give it four stars out of four.

"The Muppets" has a running time of one hour and forty two minutes and is rated PG for some mild rude humor.

Tower Heist

Ben Stiller and Eddie Murphy...two comedians with built up reputations and, for the most part, a good record of successful films. However, over the last decade, Stiller's reputation has stayed strong but Murphy's has arguably sank. So, when I first saw trailer's for "Tower Heist," I was a little skeptical knowing that Murphy had not been in the best films over the past several years. Do the two actors hold this action/comedy together?

Josh Kovacs (Stiller) has a pretty great life...he's the manager of a high luxury apartment complex and has a strong (business) relationship with the apartments most wealthy customer, Arthur Shaw (Alan Alda). Kovacs' neighbor isn't as lucky. Slide (Murphy) has no job, no life, and is soon carried off by the police department for unknown reasons. But the two very different men will soon cross paths because soon a scandal is exposed revealing that Arthur Shaw is being accused of a Ponzi scheme. If Shaw is proven guilty, all of the workers including Kovacs will loose all of their money which they gave to Shaw to have him invest. Angry at Shaw's deception, Kovacs decides to rob the most secured building in New York and since he has no idea how, he bails Slide out of prison to get him to help. Now the two, along with a few other co-workers will have to put on the most elaborate heist in order to get revenge on the richest man in the New York.

Two words...Eddie Murphy. The man is absolutely hilarious. I can't remember the last live action film where he succeeded in being the great comedian that he can be. All of his lines were comedy gold and though Stiller may be the main character, this is Murphy's film. Granted, Stiller is great at his iconic deadpan comedy and the supporting actors each contribute laughs throughout the film. Overall, the cast has great chemistry in times of both laughter and seriousness.

The Robin Hood esque story line doesn't really bring anything new to the table. A group of guys seek to rob an insanely rich guy for the benefit of the needy whom the "evil" rich man has taken from. The popular story arc along with the many other films in the Heist genre make "Tower Heist" pretty predictable but there was still enough fun and craziness to keep me interested and entertained.

Yeah I may have been able to call the movie scene by scene, but it didn't matter to me. I love movies like "Ocean's 11" and "The Italian Job." Movies like that and like "Tower Heist" are entertaining and creative. Throw in a great cast and the return of Eddie Murphy to quality comedy and you've got a great movie. I give it three stars out of four.

"Tower Heist" has a running time of 104 minutes and is rated PG-13 for language and sexual content.

Real Steel

It seems like all films that have anything to with boxing are entertaining. The "Rocky" series, "Cinderella Man," and "Million Dollar Baby" are just a few examples of boxing films that have hit the screen and been widely received as great movies. Why do people love the boxing genre? Because they have heart, they are about the underdog rising to the top, and when the time comes for the main character to go into the ring...it's very suspenseful. This year, a new twist is being brought to the boxing genre. Now robots are in the ring and it's more violent than ever. Is it possible to have the same emotion that we have for human characters for machines? Maybe...

Charlie Kenton (Hugh Jackman) is running out of time. Running out of time to pay his debts to several "dangerous" people, running out of time to keep up with his rent, and running out of time until he becomes a washed up has-been. To solve his problems, Charlie invests all the money he has into his boxing robot, Ambush. Charlie drives around with his robot looking for fights for the extra cash. The bad thing is, Charlie is a little stubborn and soon his cocky attitude results in the destruction of Ambush, his last way to make money.

When Charlie doesn't believe things can get any worse, he finds out that his ex-wife has died and that his son Max (Dakota Goyo), whom he has never met, is now his to raise. Even though both want nothing to do with each other, they have a common love for robot boxing and this love begins to shape their growing relationship. One night, Max comes across an old abandoned robot in a junkyard. Charlie tells Max that the robot, named Atom, would never have a chance in a fight but Max is determined. To Charlie's surprise, Atom not only wins his fight but is offered more fights by more and more people until he makes it into the big leagues. Now against all odds, Charlie and his son must fight their way to top in a struggle that won't only build their fame, but build their relationship.

So does "Real Steel" feature the same emotion felt in other films of its kind? Yes and no. This time around, the heart and soul of the film doesn't take place inside the ring, it takes places outside the ring. The real story is about a father trying to make up for the years that he abandoned his son. Sadly, the movie could have done a better job in its character development. Things just happen to quickly and without explanation. At the start of the film, Charlie doesn't even act like Max is there and tries to ignore him as often as possible. Then ten minute later, Max is hugging his father and joking around with him. Where did that come from? Make no mistake there are a few well done scenes that illustrate their growing relationship, but there aren't enough of them to make it seem believable.

As for the plot, "Real Steel" doesn't exactly bring anything new to the table (except for robots) since the story is an exact copy of most other boxing films, most of all "Rocky." This being the case, the movie itself was very predictable, but when it's over, the predictability does not ruin the movie was still being fun. And "Real Steel" is very fun. It was already entertaining to watch men beat their opponents up, but when robots do it, the entertainment reaches a whole new level. Not much can beat the sight of a giant robot sending another's head into the junk pile with a major punch.

"Real Steel" is big on the action, but not big enough on the emotion. For some, the sight of robots going at it might be enough to satisfy ones action craze, but if you want to see an inspirational film where you can connect with the characters...go watch "Rocky" again. I give it two stars out of four.

"Real Steel" has a running time of two hours and six minutes and is rated PG-13 for some violence, intense action and brief language.

Dream House

It's October and Halloween is around the corner! As usual, many thriller/horror films will be hitting theaters throughout the month and the first one to be released is the psychological thriller, "Dream House". From the creepy music, the eerie house, and the two little girls featured in the somewhat freaky trailers, "Dream House" looks like a promising thriller that will be sure to blow your mind. But after seeing it, that spark of great story telling never quite hit the dynamite.

Will Atenton (Daniel Craig) has decided to leave the big city of New York to move to a more quiet town so that he can write his new novel in a more peaceful environment. He moves with his wife (Rachel Weisz) and two daughters to a seemingly lovely home, but they begin to take notice of the wary neighbors and the signs in the basement that speak of gruesome murders that took place in their house. With more and more whispers that the mysterious murderer, Peter Ward, is on the loose, Will must find out the truth about what dark events took place in his house and how he can prevent them from happening again.

The biggest problem with "Dream House" began long before the film was released. When the first trailer was released, the film makers thought it would be clever to include a little something special to get people excited. What was that little something special? Nothing much, just the...BIGGEST SPOILER ALERT OF THE FILM! In the rare case that anyone reading this article has not seen the advertisements for this film I will refrain from giving away the spoiler but believe me...it's big. Shortly after the trailer was released, the director of the film told the press that even though a seemingly big spoiler was shown in the advertisement, there would be way more that we weren't expecting. Well the thing is...he's wrong. There is no more. If you see the trailer there is nothing else to surprise you, and it ends up giving the entire film away.

Because of this major advertising flaw, "Dream House" ends up being incredibly predictable (even if you don't know the twist). This leads to the film dragging out from beginning to end and not once does it do a successful job of drawing in the viewer. Adding to its predictability is the fact that "Dream House" simply takes elements from other great thrillers (saying the names could give away the ending) but fails to craft them together in a new and creative way.

As for the overall scare/suspense factor, the film also fails. The trailers play up the eeriness too much making the final result more disappointing. Because of the film's predictability, suspense is absent and the plot is much more humorous than scary, and not in a good way.

I should have know from the poorly thought out marketing campaign that "Dream House" would be a disappointment. But I had faith that the film would throw something even more unexpected in my face to impress me. I was wrong. Predictable, unoriginal, and void of all suspense, "Dream House" lurks in the shadows of the great psychological thrillers of our time. I give it one star out of four.

"Dream House" has a running time of 92 minutes and is rated PG-13 for violence, terror, some sexuality and brief strong language.

Contagion

When I first saw the trailer for this germ-a-phobe apocalyptic mystery film, "Contagion," this was the conversation that I was having in my head: "Oh Gwyneth Paltrow and Matt Damon...and there's Laurence Fishburne with Marion Cotillard. Wow it has Bryan Cranston too? This film has a lot of famous--Jude Law...Kate Winslet...wow!" Yes, wow is the best word to desrcibe my thoughts. In front of me I saw a cast of award winners/nominees who are trying to prevent a worldwide epidemic. Sounds pretty interesting to me. But do the A-lister's star power hold together the film?

"Contagion" begins with Day 2, just twenty-four hours after the unknown virus's birth. Beth Emhoff (Paltrow) isn't feeling too well on the plane ride back from Japan. And neither are the people she has came into contact with. Whether it's a waiter that has taken her glass, or a person who has shaken her hand, whoever has picked up Beth's DNA is getting sick...very sick. Soon after Beth arrives home to her husband Mitch (Damon) and son, she has a seizure, is taken to the hospital, and dies the next morning. Mitch arrives only to find his son dead and is taken into custody in order to quarantine him and diagnose the virus that is spreading through his family and throughout the world.

On the other side of things we have three doctors. Dr. Cheever (Fishburne) is a doctor at the Center for Disease Control and Prevention who is approached by the Department of Homeland Security. They believe that the worldwide disease is a bio weapon designed to put the world in a state of shock on Thanksgiving week. Dr. Cheever sends Dr. Mears (Winslit) to Minneapolis where Mitch lives to investigate the virus and attempt to quarantine the city. The third, Dr. Orantes (Cotillard), travels to Japan to find the source of the virus. Oh yeah and Jude Law plays a journalist who says to "not trust the system".

As you can see, there are a LOT of things going on in this film, and that is one of the flaws. The story is too big. Instead of focusing on a concrete story, the film focuses on several. There are several consequences to this. First, because the film focuses on seven different characters and stories, it is hard to remember all of what is going on and in some cases, the "main characters" can be forgotten. Second, it's like the filmmakers just decided to finish the stories of some characters and leave the fate of others up in the air. Several questions and plot points were never addressed. And the final and greatest problem is that because of the giant storyline, "Contagion" is void of emotion. How can I connect with a character and their story when they only take up one seventh of the film? Answer...I can't.

As with many "crisis is wiping out humanity" movies, "Contagion" starts off with a bang. It's quick, it's intense, and lots of people are dying. For the first hour, I was very into the film...the second hour, not so much. The film's second half drags and the terrible thing is that the ending is nothing special and quite anticlimactic.

The star power "Contagion" packs can't save the film from a bloated plot line and an unemotional ending and characters. And while the film may have tried to push messages of "don't trust the government" and "deforestation is bad", the only effect the film had on me was the slight hesitance to touch my face...and even that won't last long. I give the film one and a half stars out of four.

"Contagion" has a running time of 106 minutes and is rated PG-13 for disturbing content and some language.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes

Apes taking over the planet? That premise is almost as ridiculous as this films extremely long name, "Rise of the Planet of the Apes". However, seeing six more films spawn from the original classic (one being a remake and the latest being a reboot/prequel) its obvious that the idea has not lost its momentum. Does this new prequel have what it takes to continue the story of super smart apes?

Scientist Will Rodman (James Franco) has been searching for a cure for Alzheimer's Disease. His motivation for his research is his father, Charles (John Lithgow), who is struggling with the disease himself. To find this cure, Will tests different vaccines on the chimpanzees he keeps in his lab. The tests turn out to be successful on the chimps as Will sees them become as smart as humans. One of these chimps is named Caesar (Andy Serkis) who inherits this intelligence from his mother. Will raises Caesar in his home, teaches him sign language, and treats him like a son. But fate cannot let Caesar live a human life forever. After a violent incident, Caesar is forced to live in primate facility operated by John Landon (Brian Cox) and his son Dodge (Harry Potter's Tom Felton). Seeing for the first time how his fellow species is treated, Caesar develops a plan to make the rest of the chimps like him and free them all from their prison.

Back when the original "Planet of the Apes" was released in 1968, it was ok that the actors wore costumes to play the apes. But in 2011, that would never work. Good thing modern day film making has the magic known as CGI to make apes look like more than a man in a mask. And when talking about this there is really only one critical question to ask: does the CGI impress the eyes of the viewer...yes it does, moving on.

Another great achievement of modern film is the art of motion capture in which an actor plays his part in a funny suit and then the CGI is added to the scene afterwards. Examples of this can be seen in characters such as Gollum from the "Lord of the Rings" series, King Kong, and the apes in this film (such as Caesar). Another thing in common with these characters is the actor that plays them, Andy Serkis, who has proved that he is one of the best is the motion capture acting business. The wonderful thing about Serkis's performance is that none of it includes dialogue. Instead he portrays a wide range of emotions, such as anger, with just body language. And its not hard to say that Serkis gives the best performance of the cast, making Caesar one of the most interesting characters of all the summer movies this year.

But "Rise" also features a touching narrative, filled with emotional scenes and a heart filled climax. But some of the scenes are not only emotional, but have a very classic feel to them. In fact, the best scene in the film I would consider to be among the top three scenes of all the films this summer because of the sheer iconic feel it has to it (hint...don't mess with a super intelligent ape). The narrative along with the stunning motion capture and Serkin's great performance makes "Rise" a great opportunity for the franchise to live on. I give it three stars out of four.

"Rise of the Planets of the Apes" has a running time of two hours and is rated PG-13 for intense and frightening sequence of action and violence.

Captain America: The First Avenger

Does anyone think that there have been too many super hero films this year? Well if you do...I feel sorry for you, because I love comic book movies. Granted there have been at least four or five other super heroes that have graced the silver screen this year but there is one more who needs his time to shine and he is perhaps the most known of them all. I feel like it's good to note that I felt like it was my patriotic duty to see this film but more importantly, "Captain America: The First Avenger" is the last piece of the puzzle before Marvel releases their mega super hero team-up film, "The Avengers" next May. Does Cap bring anything new to the table?
It's 1942, World War II is in full swing, and young Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) has been rejected for military service once again. It's no surprise that he has been rejected for the hundredth time. Steve is puny, sickly, and has a long list of medical issues. But Steve has no greater desire than to serve his country so he doesn't stop trying.
Soon his efforts are noticed by a scientist named Abraham Erskine (Stanley Tucci) who takes Rogers aside to offer him a chance to be a part of the government's new super soldier program. During training Rogers is looked down upon by everyone including Colonel Chester Phillips (Tommy Lee Jones). But Dr. Erskine believes that Rogers is the best choice because of his heart, compassion, and bravery. The next day Rogers is injected with the super soldier serum and he emerges as a tall, buff, Nazi killing machine who is tasked with taking down Johann Schmidt (Hugo Weaving), the head of Hitler's deep science division HYDRA. Rogers, now named Captain America, must stop Schmidt before he unleashes the ultimate power upon the world.
In the past couple years, the super heroes we have seen have had very different personalities. There has been the million dollar narcissist, the self-absorbed Norse god, and several others with severe anger management issues. That's why its nice to see a more classic kind of hero back on screen. Captain America does not put himself above others, he doesn't insult, back stab, or judge anyone. Instead he's a humble man that loves his country and is willing to sacrifice himself for the greater good. Cap is a hero we haven't seen since perhaps the last "Superman" film and its good to see a hero that parents won't mind their kids looking up to.
Just like May's "Thor" had a much different setting than past Marvel films, so does "Captain America". The World War II setting is a change up but don't worry, Cap doesn't come close to the intensity and graphic content of films like "Saving Private Ryan". Instead Cap's a whole lotta fun featuring lots of fighting and explosions.
But there's a lot of heart in the mix. As with many hero flicks there is emotion, there is romance, and there are lessons to be learned (in this case sacrifice) and here there's lots of it especially during the film's gripping climax (one of the best Marvel has made).
Backing all of this up is the terrific cast. Many know Chris Evans as the other Marvel super hero The Human Torch from the "Fantastic Four" movies and usually he plays the same type of character; the smooth talking ladies man. Not so much in "Captain America". As you've read, Evans was challenged to play a much different character for this film and he succeeds. As for Hugo Weaving, who has given life to villains such as Agent Smith and Megatron he was the perfect choice to play to cruel Nazi nemesis of Captain America (who fans know as The Red Skull). Throw in some good supporting actors like Stanley Tucci, and the humorous Tommy Lee Jones and you have an all star cast.
"Captain America: The First Avenger" has everything going for it, great action, great acting, and a lot of love for the U.S.A. Fans of past Marvel films with have no problem enjoying this film and there's a high chance that those who don't enjoy the comic book craze will have just as much fun. But if there is one thing I know, its that after this movie and what is shown after the credits I, along with the rest of the super hero lovers, can't be more excited about what will happen when Iron Man, The Hulk, Thor, and Captain America come together to fight whatever stands in their way. Bring on "The Avengers"! I give this film three stars out of four.
"Captain America: The First Avenger" has a running time of 121 minutes and is rated PG-13 for intense sequences of sci-fi action and violence.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2

It all ends. From the moment I saw those words on the poster for "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2" I was counting down the days until July 15th which I knew would be a monumental day for cinema...the day that the highest grossing franchise of all time comes to a close. And it went out with a magical bang. So far the newest "Potter" has broken every record there is to break making almost half a billion dollars its first weekend. Is it worth all the hype? YES...in every way imaginable and it is my pleasure to tell you why.
"Deathly Hallows Part 1" ended with Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) finding the Elder Wand, the most powerful wand in the world which is capable of preforming the most advanced forms of magic. Now Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) is in more of a hurry than ever to find the remaining parts of Voldemort's soul called Horcruxes. But things get worse when Voldemort realizes what Harry is searching for. The final stopping point of the trio's search is where it all began...Hogwarts school. Knowing that the final Horcrux rests in the halls of Hogwarts, Harry continues his search while all the teachers, students, and members of the remaining Order of the Phoenix prepare for the final battle against Voldemort and his army of Death Eaters who stand just outside the castle walls. In the Battle of Hogwarts, old faces will be seen, secrets will be told, and the ultimate sacrifice will be made so that the Dark Lord can finally meet his end.
Despite being the shortest entry in the series (clocking in at just over two hours) "Deathly Hallows Part 2" has more action, emotion, chills (the good kind) than any previous "Potter" film. Thinking back, the Battle of Hogwarts took up about three fourths of the movie. But don't worry, it not all mindless action and explosions (Transformers). All of the action has a distinct purpose like to show the bravery of a student against a hoard of enemies, to show the sacrifice that Harry's friends make for him, to show Mrs. Weasley (Julie Walters) dish it out on a certain female Death Eater, or to show that there is still hope. The action is never just there.
But between the duels and suspense are emotional moments. Scenes that have the most power in the series. Scenes that have no music and no dialogue. The prime example of the emotion found in "Hallows" is the moment where we find out the life story of the mysterious Severus Snape (Alan Rickman) which ends up being one of the key points in the entire saga. "Hallows" reaches its audience better than any of its predecessors have, and I'm not just saying that because of the tears I could hear around me.
And then there is the acting. The world has seen Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, and Emma Watson grow up over the past ten years and their acting always grew with their age. Now, at the climax, it's better than ever. Dan was challenged with acting out the most difficult scenes of the series and he pulls off every one. My favorite scene of his doesn't even have any words. He just acts with his body and his eyes and his breathing...and it is powerful. As always the trio is surrounded by an all star British cast including Maggie Smith, Jason Isaacs, Robbie Coltrane, Michael Gambon, and many many others, but who could talk about the "Harry Potter" series without mentioning Alan Rickman. Possibly the best casting choice of the films, Rickman once again pleases as Severus Snape but this time showing a whole new side of the dark professor that people who did not read the books probably were not expecting (but I would never tell you about it in this review).
And then there is a whole other thing to deal with. It's over, the series has come to an end. All the adults who adored the books and films and introduced their children to them are saying goodbye. All the kids like me who have spent the majority of our lives reading the books, watching the films, going to midnight book releases and film premiers...are saying goodbye to a major piece of our childhood. I was in dismay just like the rest of the fandom, until I remembered the words of J.K. Rowling, "Hogwarts will always be here to welcome you home." It all ends, but not our love for Harry. His magical world will always live on to be enjoyed by countless others. This great achievement in cinema deserves every bit of the four stars out of four.
"Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2" has a running time of 130 minutes and is rated PG-13 for some sequences of intense action violence and frightening images.

Green Lantern

The DC comic book universe, home to the great super heroes known as Batman, Superman, and Wonder Woman, has never really been able to match the success of their rival Marvel (home to Spider Man, the X-Men, Iron Man). To many there is a very clear definition of the problem DC has faced in the past decade and that problem is this: if it's not Batman, it's not good. The last Superman film was not successful enough to spawn a sequel, last year's "Jonah Hex" was named by some to be the biggest flop of 2010, and most recently a planned Wonder Woman TV show was cancelled after the first previews.

Now we have "Green Lantern", one of the most recognizable heroes of the DC universe and one of the most popular superheros ever. Ryan Reynolds seemed to be a good fit to take on the role of Hal Jordan and a light of hope once again sparked for DC. Does Green Lantern's light shine bright for an upcoming franchise or will DC have to once again go back to the drawing board.

For millions of years, the Green Lantern Corps, a police force for the entire universe made up of all kinds of aliens, has been protecting galaxies from all types of harm and chaos. The largest threat to ever challenge them was a force called Parallax, an immense being capable of destroying worlds. Though once imprisoned by a Lantern named Abin-Sur, Parallax breaks free and finds the Lantern that imprisoned him for revenge. Fatally injuring Abin-Sur, he escapes on a ship that flies to Earth in order to select the next being in line to be a Lantern.

The human chosen to be the next Lantern is Hal Jordan (Ryan Reynolds), a former captain of the US Air Force and current test pilot. Hal is rash, ignorant, sarcastic, and when he discovers Abin-Sur in his ship on that fateful night he doesn't believe that he is the right person to become a hero. But the ring, the source of all the Green Lantern's power, never makes the wrong choice and Hal will have to train with others in the Green Lantern Core in order to confront Parallax because he may be the only one capable of defeating him.

First off, some of you be wondering why I did not mention the other big names in the film such as Blake Lively or Peter Sarsgaard since they were heavily utilized in the trailers. The reason is simple...they are of no use to the plot whatsoever. These characters have no need to even be in the film except to occupy little plot holes, the film would be no different if they were not in it, and while I would not quite say that it is a waste of Lively's talents, it is definitely a waste of Sarsgaard's.

To my great disappointment, the plot in "Green Lantern" is just downright lazy. It is like the filmmakers do not even care about telling a good story. For Hal Jordan, the character development if you can even call it that is very weak and failed to grip my emotions like the recent "X-Men: First Class." It is also very obvious that "Green Lantern" tries to copy the Tony Stark (Iron Man) personality in Hal Jordan and well...Reynolds is no Robert Downy Jr.

As for Lively and her small role involving the romance with Reynolds...there is not much romance to be seen. The emotion between the two characters is rushed and forced upon the audience in order to continue to more "exciting" scenes.

The last major flaw with the plot (that I will mention) is that the writers leave too much up to the imagination. For example, one scene features Reynolds and Sarsgaard's characters talking about their past and how Reynolds always got the girl blah blah blah. Does the film elaborate on this past? No, we are just supposed to assume that the three main characters have known each other for some time and, similar to the problem with Hal Jordan, these other characters never get developed.

Because of the problems with the plot, "Green Lantern" really feels like a sequel rather than the first in a franchise (something that I don't think I've ever thought about a film before...bad sign). Scenes, conversations, and events happen too quickly. The film is too fast paced. Scenes that could be very emotional and/or entertaining end up rushing by. The film decides to put its focus on cool special effects and action rather than a good story. And the action that it focuses on is not even that impressive compared to last month's "Thor."

Though my allegiance will always be with Marvel, I do hope for success for the films that DC puts out but it just seems that they can never get it right. Unfortunately for the studio that wanted three "Green Lantern" films in three years and a Justice League film (the DC version of the Avengers), those dreams are likely to fade away. I give it one star out of four.

"Green Lantern" has a running time of 114 minutes and is rated PG-13 for intense sequences of sci-fi violence and action.

Super 8

Steven Spielberg is a name revered by Hollywood. Since the 1970s, this mega director/producer/writer has brought classics to the silver screen. His films, "Jaws", the "Indiana Jones" and "Jurassic Park" series, "E.T. The Extra Terrestrial", "Saving Private Ryan", and "Schindler's List" are known around the world. Next we have director director J.J. Abrams who has given us the hit TV show "Lost", and films like "Mission Impossible 3" and the latest "Star Trek." Together, these two film makers have created the alien thriller, "Super 8" whose plot and story have miraculously been kept very secret since the first trailer was released what seemed like years ago. But now we have the answers.

The year is 1979 and a group of kids in Ohio are making a zombie film (YES!). The children in this group include Joe (Joel Courtney) whose mother was killed in a factory accident, Alice (Elle Fanning) the crush of every boy in the group and whose father has a mysterious connection with Joe and his father, and the film director Charles (Riley Griffiths). One night the group heads on to a local train station to shoot a scene for their film but something disastrous happens. As they film Joe sees a truck drive onto the track and head straight for an oncoming train transporting the contents of the U.S. Air force. The result of this incident is a massive train wreck full of explosions, chaos, and the escape of some creature. A creature that will kill and kidnap, a creature that causes power outages and causes dogs to disappear, and a creature that the U.S. Air Force will risk anything to re-capture. But this mystery will not be solved by the air force, or the police of the town, but by the children who take it upon themselves to discover just watch escaped from that train on that night.

It is very clear that Spielberg is involved with "Super 8" because the film has several similarities to other films he has been involved in. When asked about "Super 8" before seeing the film, I said that I thought it was a violent version of "E.T." And after seeing the film I can say that was a pretty accurate assumption. There is the classic sounding music, the many bicycles, and a "creature" that is trying to get home. The other film I was reminded of is "The Goonies." The kids are the heroes in this film, they each have their own uniqueness and humor to them, and quite possibly the most noticeable similarity...the kids curse a lot. All of these elements gave "Super 8" a very classic feel and it was almost like watching an ode to those movies that we all love so much.

But make no mistake, "Super 8" isn't just taking elements from other films, it has a story all of its own. For starters, "Super 8" is much more intense, suspenseful, and even frightening than "E.T." by a long shot. One of the fun things about this film is that is does not show the "creature" close up until very late into the plot. As the movies moves along, more and more glimpses of the "creature" are shown (very similar to "Cloverfield", a film that Abrams produced) building up a lot of suspense and speculation about what the thing is, what it can do, and why it is here. "Super 8" also comes with plenty of thrills that will have you on the edge of your seat and maybe jumping out of it.

But the best thing about "Super 8" is its originality. In a summer of remakes, sequels, and prequels, "Super 8" stands out as something unique and after watching, it stands out as a good movie. Almost everything in Hollywood today is either a continuation of a series or a film that is based on a comic book or novel. When you find a film like "Super 8", a completely original idea that turns into a great film...the result is something truly wonderful. I give it 3 and a half stars out of 4.

"Super 8" has a running time of 112 minutes and is rated PG-13 for sequences of sci-fi action and violence, language, and some drug use.

X-Men First Class

In the year 2000, Marvel brought one of their most famous super hero teams to the big screen. The first "X-Men" film put comic book films on the map and eleven years later super hero movies are what have defined the last decade of cinema. Fans and critics alike were less enthusiastic about the third film in the X-Men Trilogy and even more critical about 2009's spin off film, "X-Men Origins: Wolverine." Now Marvel is going back to the beginning of the franchise that started it all. Does "X-Men: First Class" spark redemption for the world of mutants? Spoiler Alert...YES!


It's the 1960s, the world does not yet know mutants exist, and...Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) is a ladies man? Indeed, we get to see a side of the wise professor (portrayed in the original trilogy by Patrick Stewart) we have not seen before during his years at Oxford with his long-time friend, Raven (Jennifer Laurence) whom X-Men fans know as the shape-shifting mutant Mystique.


Soon the setting and mood changes and we are introduced to the metal moving mutant Erik Lehnsherr (Michael Fassbender). Lehnsherr is traveling across the world hunting down the remaining Nazi's responsible for cruel experiments forced upon him when he was a boy in a concentration camp. The primary target of Lehnsherr is a fellow mutant named Sebastian Shaw (Kevin Bacon) who shot Lehnsherr's mother before his eyes. Many know Lehnsherr better by his mutant alias Magneto.


Now Shaw is plotting for nuclear war by trying to increase the tension between the US and the Soviets, ultimately resulting in the Cuban Missile Crisis. In Lehnsherr's quest was Shaw, he meets Xavier who has agreed to help the C.I.A. track down Shaw before he succeeds in starting a third World War. With a similar goal, the two men agree to work together and form a team of mutants to combat Shaw and his Hellfire Club. But the beliefs and goals of Xavier and Lehnsherr are very different and though they do not know it, the mission they go on will come to draw the battle lines between Xavier's X-Men and Magneto's Brotherhood.


A big reason that the X-Men films are so good is because the films are very character driven. Even the sequel spent adequate time to further develop each of their characters and not just the leads. For "X-Men: First Class" character development is key to the plot. For the film to work, the audience needs to know and care about the two lead characters, Xavier and Lehnsherr. We need to know their past, what they believe, and what they care about because at it's heart "First Class" is a story of how two best friends become enemies. How will we care about this story if we don't understand the characters? Well don't worry, the film's major focus is not action but the characters. And like the original film, "First Class" develops almost all of the characters...not just the big ones. This makes the emotional climax very powerful and meaningful.


Another thumbs up goes to "First Class" for the superb acting by each member of the cast. For a day or so after seeing the film I debated which actor did the better job, McAvoy or Fassbender and I really had a hard time deciding. Each actor brings something different and unique to his character. But, my final decision is this..."X-Men: First Class" is Michael Fassbender's time to shine. The reason is because of the emotion he pours into Eric Lehnsherr. His eyes, his face, his words, his tears, everything about the character is filled with Fassbender's emotion. The film begins and ends with Magneto and he is really the main character of the film; if Fassbender didn't do his job well, "First Class" would not be a great as it is.


Another thing worth mentioning is the similarity "First Class" has with films from the James Bond series. Back when the movie was filming, director Matthew Vaughn (who gave us the super-hero riot "Kick Ass" back in 2009) said that one of his goals for "First Class" was to model it after a James Bond film and after seeing it I can say that he was pretty successful. The music, the suave leads, the abundance of attractive women, the fast-paced action scenes, even the closing credits parallel elements from Bond films.


I would talk about how awesome the action and the special effects are but I will let you discover that for yourself. The big things about "X-Men: First Class" are the acting, plot, and character development. They are what makes this such an outstanding film. "First Class" rivals even the first two X-Men films (some of the best super-hero films to date) for greatness. In fact, I will say that "First Class" is the best film Marvel has dished out in seven years (since "Spider-Man 2" and "X-Men 2" came out). I give it three and a half stars out of four.


"X-Men: First Class" has a running time of 132 minutes and is rated PG-13 for intense sequences of action and violence, some sexual content including brief partial nudity, and language.

Fast Five

First off, have I ever seen a "Fast and Furious" film before? No. Have I ever shown great interest in wanting to see a "Fast and Furious" film? Not necessarily. Why did "Fast Five" spark my interest? Simple..."The Rock" is in it. So all in all is it really fair that I'm reviewing the fifth entry in a franchise that I am not familiar with? Some may say so BUT that is besides the point, a good movie is a good movie. And movies are now needed to be more than just average as the summer movie season is arriving and only the best movies will be successful. Does "Fast Five" do well in ushering in the next summer of major blockbusters? Let's find out!


Dom Toretto (Vin Diesel) is back in jail for the first two minutes of the film. Then his partner, ex-FBI agent Brian O'Conner (Paul Walker) and sister, Mia (Jordana Brewster) just break him out again with their super fast cars. Now on the run in Rio, Brazil, Dom and his gang seek to carry out one last job. The job involving stealing over $100 million from a corrupt businessman so that they can split up the money between themselves in order to run away and never have to perform another crime again (another words, to get "out" of the business).


But Toretto and his team will have to fight more than just the mob of Rio. DSS agent Luke Hobbs (Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson) and his team have tracked down Toretto and will risk anything to bring him and his crew of con-men and women to justice be it the easy way or the much more likely hard way.


What surprised me and what made me really appreciate "Fast Five" was that I was able to come into the franchise very late and not at all be confused with the plot or the characters. I understood everything that was going on and while there may have been one tiny little reference to an event in the past films, it was not crucial to the film and thus did not hinder my understanding of the plot. "Fast Five" allows anyone, fan or new-comer, to watch a film that is all its own, not really building on story lines from the series's predecessors.


Now what is the true reason for going to see "Fast Five"? What draws the audience? It is the high speed car chases, crazy stunts, and intense shoot-outs/fights of course! And believe me, "Fast Five" delivers. Right from the very beginning, the action starts off with a bang and there will be plenty of unbelievable action to fill the appetite of the action cravers. The major beat down between the Rock and Vin Diesel is what I was anticipating the most...it was insane. It is almost hard to believe that the walls did not collapse around them from all the pillars and walls that they smashed and broke through.


But the action, as much of it as there is, does not over shadow the plot. The film maintains a strong focus on story telling and not just mindless action, something that many action sequels (especially when it comes to the fifth in a franchise) simply do not care about. This is why most action sequels suck and why "Fast Five" moves up on the quality scale.


I went in to "Fast Five" wanting action, stunts, and more action and that's just what I got. The other stuff like the strong plot and the welcoming nature for newcomers of the franchise were things I was not expecting but got and that is why I enjoyed "Fast Five" so much. I give it three stars out of four. And by the way..."Thor" is being relased Friday, get ready be struck with awe (yes, pun intended).


"Fast Five" has a running time of 130 minutes and is rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and action, sexual content, and language.

Water for Elephants

Jacob Jankowski's (Robert Pattinson) life turned from everything good to everything bad with the car crash that killed his parents. After Jacob hears the news, he drops out of school and leaves his town after realizing that his father had nothing, not even their house, to leave him. And did I mention that this is happening during the Great Depression? Things look quite bad for Jacob, that is until he decides to hop a train, a circus train he soon finds out. The men in the train car decide to help him find a job when they arrive in town the next day and when the day is up, they will get him a meeting with the boss, August Rosenbluth (Christoph Waltz).
When Jacob tells August that he has a veterinarians degree, August gives him the job of caring for the circus's new star act...an elephant named Rosie. But while taking care of Rosie, Jacob meets and begins to fall in love with the beautiful Marlena (Reese Witherspoon), the wife of August. The rest of "Water for Elephants" tracks Jacob and Marlena's story of love, suspense, and vengeance as they long to reach a better life.
Hooray! Robert Pattinson is not a stiff, awkward mess like he is in those cheesy vampire movies anymore. He is actually acting well in "Water for Elephants." He is fluent, he is emotional, he is tan (but that's besides the point), and he has achieved his best acting since those ten minutes back in "Harry Potter 4." The other standout actor is without a doubt Christoph Waltz. Ever since his role in "Inglorious Basterds" (for which he won an Academy Award) he has become one of my favorite actors and I wait in eager anticipation for him to portray more characters like August. Waltz is a master of portraying cunning "bad guys" who slowly draw out information from others and he made me stay on the edge of my seat during one particular major scene in the film (which I will not discuss due to spoiling the story). As for Reese Witherspoon, there is not much to say. She is a great actress and she preformed her role well, she just does not stand out as much as the other two leads.
The problem with "Water for Elephants" is that the story comes off as a little unbelievable. In the film, Jacob and Marlena barely have any time together before they start loving each other. While, I'm sure this romantic build-up was most likely better set up in the novel on which the movie is based, the film makers could have done a much better job of adding in more scenes that allow for the audience to see the relationship grow instead of it just blossoming overnight.
While "Water for Elephants" may be a little weak in some areas of the storytelling, it is still a very enjoyable film that certainly surprised me with its quality. The actors lead it with power, the suspense grips you, and the romance will touch you. "Water for Elephants" is a film worth seeing. I give it three stars out of four.
"Water for Elephants" has a running time of two hours and is rated PG-13 for moments of intense violence and sexual content.

Arthur

Arthur Bach (Russel Brand) has everything that he could possibly want. He has a seemingly unlimited supply of money, he is able to do whatever he wants wherever he wants, and he even has his own nanny (played by Helen Mirren) who takes care of his every need. Life could not possibly seem to be bad for Arthur. But Arthur does not seem to care much about his public image and frequently goes out drunk throughout New York on many nights and usually ends up on the front page of the newspaper. His mother (Geraldine James) is fed up with her son (especially because his bad choices put the company's image in jeopardy) and when she meets with Arthur she tells him that unless he marries a worker in the family company, Susan Johnson (Jennifer Garner), he will be cut off from the family fortune. The only thing is that Arthur does not like Susan...at all. But if it means keeping his money, Arthur will do anything. That is until he begins to fall in love with a girl named Naomi (Greta Gerwig). With a little help from his nanny, Hobson, Arthur must decide what is more important to him: his love for money, or his love for Naomi. Now I never saw the original "Arthur" back in 1981 and maybe that's why I enjoyed this film much more than people who did see it so no, there will be no comparing/contrasting in the review. When I saw the trailers for "Arthur," I presumed that it was supposed to be a comedy. When I saw the film, although I did laugh several times, it wasn't as amusing as a decent comedy should be. However, I wasn't really upset at this because the film's story was more important to me than the laughs. While the plot of "Arthur" was nothing original and pretty predictable, it is still quite entertaining and charming. It kept me interested, it kept me from being bored, and it kept me caring about the characters. "Arthur" is also backed up by the great duo of Russel Brand and Helen Mirren. Brand is actually a really good actor who has experience in being hilarious thus he did not disappoint. On the other side, Helen Mirren was my favorite actress in the film with her deadpan humor and charm which turned her character into a more strict, sarcastic Marry Poppins. Together the two actors have good and humorous chemistry on screen and the two contribute the most in making the film what it is. "Arthur" may not be better than the original, or maybe it is (I may never know). But, it does have a few laughable moments, charming characters, and a lovable story. I give it two and a half stars out of four. "Arthur" has a running time of 110 minutes and is rated PG-13 for alcohol use throughout, sexual content, language and some drug references.

Source Code

How would you like to be blown up every ten minutes or so nonstop? Sound painful? Well that's what Captain Colter Stevens has to go through in the new action/thriller "Source Code." He is also hit, tazed, and shot all in the confines of a train in which he must find a bomb and its owner before he, along with all those on board, are killed...again. Confused? Let me explain... Actor Jake Gyllenhaal portrays Captain Stevens who wakes up on a train not knowing where he is. His last memory is of his last mission in which he flew a helicopter through enemy fire in Afghanistan. Stevens is now being talked to by a woman whom he doesn't know named Christina (Michelle Monaghan) and things get even weirder when he sees his reflection and sees a face that is not his own. Frightened and confused, Stevens tries to piece together what has happened to him but before he has much time, a bomb goes off and he wakes up in his crashed helicopter. He is then greeted via computer screen by Captain Colleen Goodwin (Vera Farmiga) who tells him that he is currently involved in a project titled Source Code. In this program, a person can relive the last eight minutes of another person's life. In this case, Captain Stevens is tasked with reliving the last eight minutes of school teacher Sean Fentress's life. In these eight minutes, Stevens must find a bomb on the train and find the bomber so that in the present time, the government can find the bomber before he strikes another target. Stevens must keep reliving the final eight minutes of Fentress's life until he can complete his assignment. First off, let me go ahead and say that "Source Code" is without a doubt the best film I have seen this year (even though there has not been much competition). This is only the second film I have seen this year that has a good script. There was nothing cheesy or outlandish about the dialogue and their are no over-the-top elements with the story. The story kept me entertained and wanting more. There were no slow periods because everything was non-stop thanks to the good pacing. And even better, the ending tries to mess with your head, making you question what you think happened, an ending of which I am a big fan of (Inception). But by far, the most important thing about "Source Code" is that it was able to reach me emotionally. This film made me hope that the characters succeed and that the bad guys were caught. It made me like the characters and care about what happens to them. The movie made me truly care about the story and that is something that no other film has done this year and something that films in general fail to accomplish. "Source Code" connects the audience to the film. Jake Gyllenhaal is a great actor and he carries "Source Code" from beginning to end with his acting. His performance, plus a fast-paced story, plus a good script, plus emotion equal 2011's first, best film. I give it three and a half stars out of four. "Source Code" has a running time of 94 minutes and is rated PG-13 for some violence including disturbing images, and for language.

Sucker Punch

When I first read about this movie sometime last year I quickly became very excited. To me, "Sucker Punch" seemed like the most unique, original, and creative film I had read about or seen in awhile. When I saw the first trailer...my excitement rose a hundred levels and each week my anticipation grew larger and larger until I walked into the theater last Friday, saw the film...and cursed Hollywood for their smooth advertising techniques. Sure "Sucker Punch" might look like a top notch action extravaganza on the outside, but on the inside...there couldn't be more wrong with it.

Baby Doll (Emily Browning) has a harsh life. After the death of her mother, her evil stepfather decides to kill Baby Doll and her younger sister so that he can acquire everything in the mother's will. Baby Doll defends herself with a gun but when trying to kill her stepfather, she accidentally kills her sister. After these terrible events, the stepfather sends Baby Doll to the Lennox House for the Mentally Insane. Here he bribes the head of the asylum Blue Jones (Oscar Isaac) to have Baby Doll lobotomised so that the truth can never get out.

In the five days that it takes the Doctor (Jon Hamm) to arrive, Baby Doll retreats into a fantasy world where the asylum is a brothel owned by the mob and she is a newly arrived dancer. When practicing her dancing her mind takes her to imaginary places, the first is Japan where she meets The Wise Man (Scott Glenn). The Wise Man tells Baby Doll that she can escape if she finds five items: a map, fire, a knife, a key, and a fifth secret item that requires "great sacrifice." From there, Baby Doll and her four partners proceed to kick the butts of anything from robot Germans from World War I, to dragons, to massive rock samurais with Gatling guns in hopes that they can escape.

Before I saw the film, I thought that the story looked incredibly original, creative, and just plain awesome. While watching the film my opinion completely changed. While it is original and creative it is also disorganized, random, and confusing. Director Zach Snyder has proven that he is very capable of visually creative and stunning films with his past works like "300" and "Watchmen," but it seems that he is trying to cram many little elements into one film and make it look good. While some may agree that Snyder has succeeded with this in the past, it is a different case for "Sucker Punch." Sadly watching prostitutes fighting imaginary robots and dragons with an old man that says random things at random times that make no sense ends up coming across as stupid.

The second problem with the story is that it is just confusing. There were many things about the plot that I had questions about and by the end of the film, none of them were answered. In fact, there were several major plot points that I did not fully understand until I read over the plot description the next day in an attempt to answer questions I still had. RED FLAG! The film fails to present a clear story that is easy to understand (those that I saw the film with will say the same).

The one redeeming thing about "Sucker Punch" is the action. This is the only part of the film the met and even exceeded my expectations. No matter if the film is good or bad, Zach Snyder can do action and he can do it well. But only twenty minutes tops had the slow-motion explosions and sword fights that I loved the most and the other hour and forty minutes could never hope to hold up the film.

I wanted to enjoy "Sucker Punch." As I sat in the theater I tried to enjoy it as much as I wanted to but I couldn't. The outlandish and confusing story proves that you can't just have a bunch of hot girls, guns, and explosions to make an entertaining movie. I give it one star out of four.

"Sucker Punch" has a running time of 109 minutes and is rated PG-13 for thematic material including sexuality, violence and combat sequences, and for language.

Limitless

What if you could access one hundred percent of your brain, not just twenty? What could one person accomplish with their minds at full potential? Could they become billionaires overnight, or the ultimate target for the not so nice guys? Or both in Eddie Morra's case.

In "Limitless," Bradley Cooper plays an unsuccessful, poor, and, after the first five minutes, single writer Eddie Morra. After missing the deadline for his new book that he has not even begun to write yet, things are looking bad for Eddie...until he meets up with his step brother, Vernon (Johnny Whitworth). Eddie knows that Vernon is a drug dealer and at first doesn't really trust him until he shows Eddie a new drug that has supposedly been FDA approved called NZT-48. According to Vernon, the drug will allow for the taker to utilize all of there brain. So Eddie takes one not expecting much until he feels the effects. NZT-48 makes him smarter, improves his focus, and lets him remember anything from his past like TV show clips or words heard on a radio. With the drug he finishes his book in less than a week and after that invests in the stock market which quickly begins to make him richer and richer. Everything is looking good until he finds his step brother dead in his apartment and he begins to feel the side effects of the pill. Soon his activities go by in flashes and Eddie cannot remember what has just happened and he feels ill if he is not always on the move. Now Eddie must struggle with his dilemma: keep taking the pill and go through the dangerous side effects, or stop and get his old, cruddy life back, and the whole time he can't help but think that there is someone out to get him.

There were a lot of good things about "Limitless." First off is the elaborate story and all the things I was not expecting to be in it. Walking into "Limitless," I thought it was just going to be an average drama...I was wrong. The movie isn't just a drama, its filled with a lot of mystery and action as well. The plot kept me on the edge of my seat and thoroughly entertained me the whole time. Also, I was not expecting for Bradley Cooper's character to go Jason Bourne on bad guys and who doesn't love seeing that? Thankfully NZT-48 enables Eddie to remember Bruce Lee films, TV shows about self-defense, etc. which makes him the ultimate fighter even though he doesn't even know what he's doing. Another plus is that the ending is one of those "you decide what happens" endings...I'm always a fan of those (Inception).

But the plot did have one flaw...pointless characters. There are several characters that just have no importance in the film and when they appear on the screen I find myself asking, "Why are you here? What are you contributing? Why are you wasting screen time?" The prime example of this is Robert DeNiro's character, Carl Van Loon. DeNiro was highly utilized in the advertisements for this film but in the actual movie...he only has about 15 minutes tops of screen time. His character has virtually no point and anything slightly important about him could have been transferred to the other and more important "bad guy" of the film.

"Limitless," its story, and Cooper as its lead all surprised me. I had a much bigger interest and liking for the film that I expected to have and even though some parts of the plot were pointless, I can get over that. "Limitless" is a suspenseful, action drama that will keep you on the edge of your seat the whole trip. I give it 3 stars out of 4.

"Limitless" has a running time of 1 hour and 45 minutes and is rated PG-13 for thematic material involving a drug, violence including disturbing images, sexuality and language.

Red Riding Hood

Well here we go again, another classic fairy tale is being re-imagined for the 21st century silver screen. As some of you may know, my opinion on last weeks "Beastly" (another re-imagined classic tale) was less than spectacular. Does "Red Riding Hood" spark hope for the many more fairy tale remakes to come?

Valerie's (Amanda Seyfried) town has been haunted by the Wolf for years. The people of the town offer a monthly sacrifice to keep the beast out of their homes but even that cannot stop the Wolf from killing Valerie's sister one night. Because of the killing of this girl, the townspeople become more and more enraged with the cursed animal and want to go out and kill it and rid the town of the horrible beast forever. To help the people in their quest, the town priest calls upon Father Soloman (Gary Oldman) who has experience in slaying werewolves and witches. He promises to find the beast and kill it by any means necessary and warns the people that the wolf could be anyone in the town and to be cautious.

But to Valerie, the wolf is the least of her problems. The real problem is her love life. Valarie loves Peter (Shiloh Fernandez), a woodcutter that she has known since childhood, and he loves her. But when Valarie's parents arrange for her to be married to a blacksmith named Henry (Max Irons) in order to pay off a debt that Valerie's family owes Henry's...things get complicated. Now Valarie must decide whether or not to honor her parent's orders while keeping a watchful eye out for the Wolf who could very well be the one that she loves.

Interestingly enough, I found the pros and cons of "Red Riding Hood" very similar to "Beastly." First off, I like the film's plot and the way it manages to take a classic story and find ways to make it new. The film has a good mix of romance, action, and thrill (although romance is the overpowering element of the film). Of course being the teenage guy that I am, I enjoyed all the action that I wasn't really expecting. I was also surprised by the amount mystery that surrounded the movie. The story kept me guessing throughout, "Who is the Wolf?" and yes...the end will surprise you.

But once again, the entertaining story line is tainted by bad acting and a bad script. As some may notice, the poster says, "From the Director of 'Twilight'" and unfortunately the terrible sappiness and cheesy romantic lines seen in the vampire flick echo in "Red Riding Hood." Every time I enjoyed a good scene, a corny one would follow leaving me cringing with disappointment (and a little vomit in my mouth). And the acting just makes it worse. While the leads, Seyfried and Oldman, do the best with what they are given, the supporting actors are just a bunch of people I have never heard of and hopefully will never hear of again.

So another classic fairy tale has crashed and burned under the modern silver screen. Lets hope that this pattern shown by "Beastly" and "Red Riding Hood" doesn't reflect what is coming up this year and next year with the many more fairy tale revamps coming up including adaptions of Sleeping Beauty and three different takes on Snow White. Hopefully the screenwriters for those films can perform a little better than the ones for "Red Riding Hood". I give it 1.5 stars out of 4.

"Red Riding Hood" has a running time of 100 minutes and is rated PG-13 for violence and creature terror, and some sensuality.

Beastly

My first reaction when seeing the trailer for this film was, "NO! Please don't mess with such classic source material as Beauty and the Beast," most easily recognized in the mega-hit Disney film from 1991. Could such love, emotion, and power captured in my favorite animated film be copied in the 21st century rendition? While "Beastly" did exceed my expectations, it can never compare to the greatness shown in the classic fairy tail.

Meet the popular, handsome, and all around total jackass Kyle Kingson (Alex Pettyfer). One could blame Kyle's cruel attitude on his father who has taught him his whole life that "looks" are the key to success. Because of this idea, Kyle is obsessed with his self image and cruelly makes fun of anyone who he deems ugly. An example is a girl named Kendra (Mary-Kate Olsen). One night, during a party, Kyle runs into Kendra and begins to once again make fun of her looks. Kendra then reveals herself to be a witch and casts a spell on Kyle, taking away his good looks and replacing them with gashes and scars. She explains that Kyle has one year to find another who loves him or else he will remain in his new form forever.

Now forsaken by his prideful father, out of school and alone, save for his maid and his blind tutor (Neil Patrick Harris), Kyle searches longingly for a girl that could see past his outside appearance. Lindy Taylor (Vanessa Hudgens), a student that Kyle once knew, becomes caught up in gang violence because of her father and is in need of protection. When Kyle saves her father from two gunmen, he offers to protect Lindy so that the gang cannot harm her. The father agrees and sends Lindy to Kyle's apartment where Kyle desperately hopes that she will be the one who breaks the spell.

The classic story of "Beauty and the Beast" is a unique and timeless one that I love no matter how it is portrayed. In "Beastly" I enjoyed the ways that the makers of the film manage to revamp the classic story to fit into a modern day Manhattan setting. The transitions of the story and the characters from 18th century France to 21st century New York high school fit well, but the sour-spot came from the lackluster script. The laughable dialogue made it hard to watch most of the film without smirking and ruined the more serious scenes.

As far as acting goes, I believe the two leads did as best they could with the bad script they had to read. Pettyfer and Hudgens are both young actors who I believe have potential if they can manage to choose the right films. In this case, what some might call "bad acting" is really caused by the script...not the actor's ability to act. On the other hand, my favorite part of the film was Neil Patrick Harris' character, Kyle's blind tutor who teaches Kyle more about life than schoolwork. Harris manages to steal every single scene he is in with his wit and humor; and his lines and scenes are the best in the film

But the biggest problem with "Beastly?" Where is the heart and the love that people think of when they think of "Beauty and the Beast." The classic story is about how the two main characters actually come to love each other, but in "Beastly," the so called "love" seems more forced than gained as if Kyle just wants to use any girl to get his looks back. For me, the only time I could feel emotion for a character was when, guess who, Neil Patrick Harris was on the screen (once again, he is the best part of the film).

So does "Beastly" live up to other versions of the "tale as old as time?" Sadly...no. Though the plot and characters are enjoyable, this new tale could never hope to have the emotion, heart, and magic that was shown in the Disney classic. I give it 1.5 stars out of 4.

"Beastly" has a running time of 95 minutes and is rated PG-13 for language including crude comments, brief violence and some thematic material.

The Hangover Part 2 Trailer 2011 HD

The Wolfpack is BACK!! This trailer doesn't show much but I'm still very happy to see the return of one of the funniest trios in comedy!

The Eagle

Ancient Rome, golden eagles, wacky tribes, Channing Tatum, and this movie comes out in February? Eh doesn't look promising but hey, maybe some films shouldn't be judged from the outside...on second thought, yes they should. Needless to say, "The Eagle" was a ride that made me feel like I ate one too many chili cheese dogs before taking off.

Marcus Aquila (Tatum), a roman centurion, is living in his father's shadow...a bad shadow. 20 years prior to the start of the film, Marcus' father was the commander of the Ninth legion that was stationed in northern Britain. His father had in his possession The Eagle that symbolizes Rome's honor and power. Without a clear reason why, the Ninth legion disappears along with the Eagle resulting in both the construction of Hadrian's Wall to seal off northern Britain and shame to Marcus' name. When word that the Eagle has been spotted reaches Marcus, he leaps at the opportunity to bring honor back to his family and travels along with his slave Esca (Jamie Bell) to the mysterious lands beyond Hadrian's Wall where the two will stand alone against the tribe that was responsible for the Ninth's disappearance.

Well, it's not hard to see that "The Eagle" doesn't have the most intriguing, original plot that has graced the silver screen in the past...well...forever. Really, Rome's honor is in jeopardy because they lost a golden Eagle? Unfortunately, the rest of the film just goes from unoriginal to downright ridiculous with too many plot twists that failed to keep me interested.

The film's pacing felt both choppy dragged as well. In the first five minutes of the film, it seems as if almost a week goes by as we are rapidly introduced to the characters and to the story. But then, after the first half hour, the films goes from choppy to a painful drag for the remaining 90 minutes. If this had been reversed, allowing a slower pace for character development and plot at the beginning and having the last, slow half move much quicker, this problem may have been solved.

Now onto Channing Tatum who in my opinion is only good for attracting large amounts of females to his movies...so WHY then was he cast in this film? Out of all the actors you pick the "chick flick" guy who can't even act? Bad choice. If one 0f my past reviews I stated that sometimes good actors look bad due to the script...not in this case, plus the script was very corny as well. Just a quick shout out to the actor opposite Tatum, Jamie Bell...good actor, good choice, still doesn't make up for Tatum or the script.

Conclusion? Like I said before, "The Eagle" is like a wild ride that made me feel like I ate too many chili cheese dogs, we all know what happens. And if nothing else I have said has convinced you enough, listen to this...in all the movies I have ever seen in a movie theater, this is the first that caused me to start falling asleep. 1 star out of 4.

"The Eagle" has a running time of 114 minutes and is rated PG-13 for battle sequences and some disturbing images.

The Green Hornet

Are super hero films starting to loose their touch, or are they still just as entertaining as they were last year? Many people have many different opinions but this year could provide the answer to the debate. For me, 2011 is the year of super-hero films with at least five of them being released and what a better way to kick it off ASAP with the new super hero comedy, "The Green Hornet."

James Reid (Tom Wilkinson) spends his days writing about the crime and corruption of Los Angeles in his newspaper, The Daily Sentinel, while his son, Brit (Seth Rogen) parties every night showing no concern for his father's passions and frankly no concern for his father at all. That is until he learns of his father's death. The day after the funeral, Brit fires all of his father's staff except for the maid and a man named Kato (Jay Chou) whom Brit begins to form a friendship with. One night, when both men are a little tipsy, Brit decides to go to the cemetery and cut off the head of his father's statue to get back at his dad one last time. So the two dress in masks and do just that. But on the way back, Brit and Kato come across a mugging and together they intervene and take down a group. After that night, the police declare the two unknown men criminals and Brit uses his influence at his father's paper to give his secret identity, which he deems The Green Hornet, some publicity. But the publicity gives the two more trouble than they wanted when the big crime bosses of the city start to see them as threats.

The first time I saw the trailer for "The Green Hornet" I had a hard time taking it seriously because of two reasons.

One...Seth Rogen. "Really, Seth Rogen is going to be playing a super-hero? He can't be serious." At least that's what I thought at first. I was predicting the film to be cheesy and to have bad acting but being the super-hero lover that I am, I kept an interest in the film. Then I began to see more and more advertisements for "Green Hornet" and my enthusiasm started to go up. Then last Friday I finally saw the movie and I was so surprised at what I saw. Seth Rogen is hysterical and fits the role so well, I take back everything I said beforehand. He IS the Green Hornet (and he can kick butt too).

The second reason I was feeling unenthusiastic was because I thought the story was going to be very unoriginal. From the trailers, the story looked very similar to "Iron Man"...a millionaire playboy who has a change of heart and devotes the rest of his life to helping people as a super-hero. So I got to the theater and...I was right. Unfortunately, while "The Green Hornet" might have good laughs and good action, it doesn't bring anything new to the table, and in a time like this where super-hero films are coming out every few months, the only way to stand out is to be original and exciting (think "Iron Man", "The Dark Knight"). "The Green Hornet" was neither of these things.

So what impression did "The Green Hornet" give? While entertaining and funny, Rogen couldn't deliver anything that truly stands out. But "Hornet" is still a fun ride that I would recommend to any lover of the super-hero genre (and don't see it in 3D). I give it two stars out of 4.

"The Green Hornet" has a running time of 119 minutes and is rated PG-13 for sequences of action violence, language, sensuality and drug content.

Season of the Witch

Oh the wonderful world of advertising...it can make the worst of films look like the most exciting blockbuster. This is exactly the case for Nicolas Cage's new film, "Season of the Witch." Whenever I told someone that I was going to see this movie, almost every answer was the same, "Oh, the trailers for that look really good!" CURSE YOU MARKETING...and your ability to fool the moviegoer. Indeed, the previews did manage to make "Season of the Witch" look quite entertaining, save for seeing Cage in another disappointing role, but I soon found out what the film was really like.
It is the time of the crusades and two knights, Behmen (Cage) and Felson (Ron Perlman) have been ravaging cities and fighting in battles for years. For the most part they enjoy the killing, but when Behmen accidentally kills a woman during the siege of a city, he realizes all of the innocent lives they have taken during the wars and chooses to leave with Felson, making them outlaws. In their travels through England, the two see how the Black Plague has spread over the country. Arriving in one town, the two are identified and taken prisoners. A priest approaches them and takes them to a man named Cardinal D'Ambroise. The Cardinal and the priest believe that the Black Plague is from Hell and is being caused by a witch that they have captive. The Cardinal tells Behmen and Felson that if they escort the witch to a monastery (where she will most likely be killed), he will pardon both men. Of course they agree and set out with the priest and several other men on a journey that will pit them against ghosts, zombie dogs, and other creatures the don't exist like the undead priests infected with the Black Plague.
Now c'mon Cage, I love some of your movies, but I hate a lot more, why are you so inconsistent? The same thing for you Ron Perlman. You had a good thing going with the Hellboy franchise and now you decide to be in this movie? Before I go on, I do think that both of these men are very good actors, in fact its not the acting in "Season of the Witch" that I have a problem with. The problem is the script, which ends up making the two lead actors look bad with its cheesy dialogue. Not only is it corny, but it tries too hard to sound like "The Lord of the Rings" and it doesn't work, especially when curse words are involved. Did people really say, "Oh s--t" back then? I don't think so. Strike one!
Strike two...the plot line is so poorly developed. First of all, the film is only 90 minutes and is an action film so looking at that there is a good chance that the makers of the film won't consider the story very important. Sure enough, the film does a lackluster job of telling a gripping, creative story and tries to throw in unnecessary twists and turns that end up making it even less impressive.
Strike three (I'll try to pick a good one from my long list)...no character development. The script gives no effort whatsoever to connect the audience with its characters. In fact many of the character's names are never even given. Some are just thrown in and (SPOILER ALERT) five minutes later, they are dead (am I sad? NO!).
Three strikes Cage, your latest attempt at the action genre has struck out (again). There is truly nothing to be praised in "Season of the Witch," if anything it is the action. If you need a second opinion just go ahead to rottentomatoes.com to see the little 5% (out of 100%) hanging on by a very thin thread. But, since I wasn't burning in agony throughout the whole film, I guess I can at least give it one star out of four.
"Season of the Witch" has a running time of 98 minutes and is rated PG-13 for thematic elements, violence, and disturbing content.