The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

A quick side-note before I begin my review. You may know that "The Hobbit" is the first film ever to be shot using 48 FPS. This means that the picture is supposed to be very clear, have high-definition, and be visually stunning. You may also know that the reaction to this 48 FPS has been very 50-50. Some say it makes the film look incredibly real, others say it gives you a headache. I did not see the film in 48 FPS since the nearest theater to support it is in Tampa, thus you will see no mention of it after this paragraph. 

For many fans of the epic "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, many feared that the chance of Tolkien's prequel, "The Hobbit," becoming a film was slowly decreasing with time. The film had been put into production a few different times only to be cancelled. At one point in time, the film even had director Guillermo Del Toro set to tackle the film, but he too backed out due to scheduling conflict. But finally fans got what they wanted, probably even more in fact. In 2010, it was announced the Peter Jackson would be returning to direct the two-part "Hobbit" film (a few months ago it was announced that "Hobbit" would be made into a trilogy). Now, nine years after the final LOTR film, "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" has finally made it to the silver screen, but can Jackson recreate the wonderful,
beautiful, and epic scope of the original trilogy?

Those who have read the books (and you will certainly not be lost if you have not done so) know that the events of "The Hobbit" take place 60 years prior to the LOTR films. It is before Sauron has risen back to power, before Middle Earth is plunged into war, and before Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) has acquired the Ring of Power. Bilbo has not gone off on any adventures and he is in no mood to do so.

But when the day comes when Gandalf the Grey (Ian McKellen) stands outside his door, Bilbo is thrust into a dangerous quest with thirteen dwarves led by Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage). The dwarves seek to reclaim their home that rests inside the Lonely Mountain (which I swear looks just like the Paramount Pictures mountain) from the powerful dragon, Smaug. On this quest Bilbo will face trolls, goblins, and a certain familiar face whose every few words are "My precious" and he will travel through beautiful elven cities and vast mountain ruins, but by the end of his journey he will never be the same.

Now the first thing that everyone is going to do is compare this film to the LOTR films, which is not entirely fair. Tolkien wrote "The Hobbit" to be a kid's book, therefore is does not have the same amount of darkness and intensity that the previous trilogy was heavy on. Instead, "The Hobbit" is more whimsical and even humorous. Many of the dwarves provide comic relief throughout and even some of the more menacing creatures such as the trolls and Gollum (Andy Serkis) will make the audience laugh.  Plus, believe it or not, there are actually several songs placed throughout the film.

However, while Tolkien may have written "The Hobbit" for a younger audience, this film is still full of sword slinging and decapitations. The film as a whole may be for light-hearted, but there are still a few intense scenes that are not for young viewers. So is it fair to compare "Hobbit" to LOTR? I suppose so, although "The Hobbit" will never be able to have the same epic feel to it that LOTR has, there are some things that this new film improves on.

One of these improvements is the CGI...in a way. The special effects were both an upside and downside to this movie. On the good side, the imagery and CGI landscapes were absolutely stunning. The beginning of the film shows us the inside of The Lonely Mountain where the dwarf king once lived before Smaug destroyed it. The city inside the mountain is a wonderful creation, and so is the elven city of Rivendell. The downside to the CGI is that every creature was created by it. In the LOTR films, the Goblins, Orcs, etc. that were close to the camera were played by actors and extras with costumes and make-up. In "The Hobbit," they are all CGI and while a few of the characters look good, most look really bad.

Of course the action and landscapes would be nothing much without the actors leading the way, and Ian McKellen shines once again as the gentle yet powerful Gandalf. McKellen fills the film with many more wise words and profound encouragements, but what is even more exciting is that you probably get to see him fight more in "The Hobbit" than in any of the past three films combined. It was also fun to see Hugo Weaving, Cate Blanchett, and Christopher Lee back in their familiar roles. And of course Andy Serkis can add another successful performance to his list of motion-capture roles. His younger and much happier Gollum helps create one of the best scenes in the film.

But what about Martin Freeman? The man that has been chosen to play the main character, Bilbo Baggins? Well, to be honest, near the end of the film I leaned over to the person with me and asked, "Is it me or has Bilbo barely spoken at all in the last two and a half hours?" The person next to me was thinking the same thing. There are a lot of good moments with Bilbo in the very beginning and the very end (plus his scene with Gollum) and in those scenes I feel like Freeman does very well with the character. But overall I do not think I got enough of the character to really judge his performance, but I have two more films to do that.

After nine years, I was very excited to jump back into Middle Earth, especially since I had never gotten the chance to see any of the LOTR films in the theater. The action is great, the story is exciting, the characters are lovable, and the magical world is created by mostly successful CGI. I for one cannot wait to see "The Hobbit" again and I eagerly anticipate the sequel next year. I give it three and a half stars out of four.

"The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" has a running time of two hours and fifty minutes and is rated PG-13 for extended sequences of intense fantasy action violence and frightening images.

Skyfall

Ladies and gentlemen...James Bond is back and truly better than ever! It has been a long four years since the lackluster "Quantum of Solace" was released, but after MGM's financial crisis was overcome, Academy Award winning director Sam Mendez (American Beauty) began his work on the British icon's newest outing. There are many reasons why "Skyfall" succeeds as a great Bond film, and I want to elaborate on the most important without slipping into crazy, fanboy banter...but I'm not making any promises.

As the always enjoyable M (Judi Dench) points out, our enemies are no longer countries and no longer have names, instead they are in the shadows waiting to strike. These words illustrate the newest threat that 007 (Daniel Craig) must deal with--cyberterrorism. How can you fight a villain who can hack a computer or blow up a building with the touch of a button? This is what Bond must do when a list containing the identities of all undercover agents is stolen and slowly released to the public (resulting in many deaths and compromised missions). But as always, Bond will find a way, and he does it with all the cars, women, and shaken martinis that makes him the suave agent we know today.

Not many films are able to immediately establish itself in the first few minutes of the film. With that being said, "Skyfall" has achieved the impossible in that it sets the tone and quality of the film in the very first shot, the first second, of the film! I can't be anymore specific for it would rob you of this experience, but starting with this beautiful first second of the two and a half hour film, "Skyfall" is loaded with elements that make it a classic Bond film. There are old characters reintroduced, classic assets that 007 takes advantage of, and incredible music that takes you back to the very first films of the series.

But the brilliant thing is that, even though the film tries (and succeeds) at being very nostalgic, it also succeeds in moving the series forward in new directions. "Skyfall" will be remembered as a Bond film that gives the franchise a darker feel. There is more intensity, more thrill, and a shockingly more threatening villain (more on him later) than the series has seen in a long time. The film praises the old but also promotes the new, and the mix is quite satisfying.

Now on to the two leads. When Daniel Craig stepped into Bond's shoes in 2006's "Casino Royale," he made quite the impression. Not only did he have just as much charm as the best Bonds of the past, but he brought such great intensity and coldness to the icon, not being afraid to kill his targets and do anything necessary to succeed. Now, in his third go around, Craig has fully embraced this character and given a fantastic performance. He is everything the world expects James Bond to be and more, making him the best actor to play the character yet.

But Bond would be nothing without the dastardly enemies he faces. And there has never been a Bond villain quite like Silva, played by the brilliant Javier Bardem. Bardem won an Academy Award for playing another creepy villain in "No Country For Old Men" so it only makes sense that he'd end up in a Bond film eventually. Staying in line with the film's goal in using what works and building on it, Silva has the same evil plans and same cruel nature that most other Bond villains have. But it's what Bardem brings to his character that makes him stand out, and that is the creepiness factor. Not only is Silva creepy, unpredictable, and makes eerie sensual advances on Bond, but he is downright insane. And it is interesting to watch his slow dive into greater insanity as the film progresses. "Skyfall" most greatly benefits from the two outstanding performances given by its two leading men.

The last thing that I must praise is the visual beauty of "Skyfall" in both special effects and location. First off, the opening credits to the film were so well done and visually stunning, especially alongside Adele's enchanting theme song (also named "Skyfall"). And after the credits there are several beautiful scenes shot in cities such as Istanbul and Shanghai, and the peaceful (for a moment) hills of Scotland  And the chase scenes, stunts, and wonderfully choreographed fights have never looked better. Oh, and there is a classic Hollywood explosion that just made me so happy to see...just saying.  

2012 marks the 50th anniversary of James Bond, and there could be no better present for the fans than "Skyfall." This film has everything, a great hero, a menacing villain, beautiful music, humor and wit, great action, and a plot that is more thrilling than most films we see. Most franchises will be lucky if their third movie is still decent at all, but after twenty three James Bond films, Sam Mendez has possibly given us the best Bond yet. I give it four stars out of four.

"Skyfall" has a running time of two hours and twenty three minutes and is rated PG-13 for intense violent sequences throughout, some sexuality, language and smoking.

Wreck It Ralph

Here are two things that I love a lot: animated movies and video games. To me, animated movies have the great gift of telling incredible, friendly, and deeply compelling stories for all ages that many live action films just can't pull off. So when I saw the first trailer for "Wreck It Ralph" I got really excited. In the trailer I saw a super fun story arc based around vintage arcade games such as Pac Man, Sonic The Hedgehog, and Turbo Time. Not only was the story based around video games, but the characters are  video game icons who have actual lives inside their games. With Disney at the helm, I was sure that this would be a hit, and I wasn't wrong.

Wreck It Ralph (voiced by John C. Reilly) has been doing the same thing in his game for years. He breaks a building only to be thrown off the roof when Fix It Felix Jr. (Jack McBrayer) comes and saves the day. So after years and years of being laughed at and hated on...Ralph decides that he doesn't want to be the bad guy anymore. But when he decides to run away from his game to finally be  a good guy, everything goes crazy as the other characters go on a wild goose chase to find him across the different video games of the arcade. And if they can't find him in time, then the whole game will be shut down.

The greatest asset to "Wreck It Ralph" is the superb creativity that the writers and directors poured into this film, starting with a clever setting. Here is how the movie works, the different video game characters come out and play their roles (almost like putting on a show) for each kid that plays the game. Then at night, when the arcade closes they all head to Game Central Station (located in the electric socket) where they can interact with the different characters; it's almost like "Toy Story" with video games.

Then there are the different games that the characters wonder though that bring vastly unique environments along with them. This was one of my favorite parts about the movie, the digital set design of these games. The majority of the film takes places in a game called Sugar Rush (think of a racing game inside the board game).

It is in this game that the film's cleverness really comes out, primarily in the inhabitants. For example, the spectators of the races are large groups of jolly ranchers and jaw breakers, the "police force" is made up of walking doughnuts, and the centerpiece of the "game map" is a mountain of bottled diet coke that erupts every time a mento drops into it.

But the animation is also a shining point for "Wreck It Ralph." A smaller portion of the film takes place in a game called Hero's Duty (a futuristic take on the popular "Call of Duty" franchise).There is a moment in this part of the movie where thousands of robotic bugs are swarming through the air and attack the weapon-laden soldiers as the fire back in defense. The angles go back and forth, zoom in and out, and go all around the action. It was done so well that it at times could pass for a live action CGI sequence. Plus there is an awesome character that is basically a carbon copy of Jane Lynch, wisecracks, crazy metaphors, and all...oh yeah and the character is voiced by none other than Jane Lynch.

I also loved how they animated the characters in Ralph's game to move in quick, clunky, robotic movements to resemble the movements of old 8-bit characters such as Dig-Dug and Mario.
I was so impressed with everything about "Wreck It Ralph," it exceeded my expectations. And make no mistake this movie is for everyone. If you aren't a video game player (which is a strong possibility) this will still be very entertaining for you, it won't be confusing and there won't be tons of jokes that totally fly over your head. "Wreck It Ralph" is for kids, adults, gamers, and non-gamers, and it is the best animated film to grace the silver screen in the last couple years (and as a bonus, there is a beautiful short film preceding it). I give it four stars out of four.

"Wreck It Ralph" has a running time of 92 minutes and is rated PG for some rude humor and mild action/violence.

Taken 2

Four years ago, the action/thriller "Taken" became a worldwide hit and showed that world that Liam Neeson can be a death dealing action star, the same as Matt Damon did with the "Bourne" series. So naturally, as Hollywood always does when lots of money can be made, a sequel to "Taken" was created with a catchy, original title..."Taken 2."

Now I know what you're thinking, "Is the girl just going to get taken again?" Well, you'll have to see for yourself, and it will be worth seeing too. "Taken 2" is not just the same-old plot recycled from the last film (although there is lots of similar elements obviously) and it will be sure to entertain and action or Liam Neeson fans.

Bryan Mills (Neeson) killed a lot of people to get his daughter back in the first movie, and the relatives of those people are not very happy. The film opens with the family members of these men attending a funeral as Murad Krasniqi (Rade Serbedzija) vows for vengeance upon Mills and his family.

Krasniqi and his brothers/sons get their shot at Mills while he is traveling in Istanbul with his daughter (Maggie Grace) and ex-wife (Famke Janssen). What started as a birthday surprise for his daughter quickly turns into another nightmare as Mills has to once again use his "certain set of skills" to save both his daughter and her mother from the wrath of those who seek to make him suffer.

The plot, much like the first film, is a simple one. All is well until someone is taken resulting in a killing spree/rescue mission with lots of guns and fists. I can say this, this pattern is just as entertaining as it was four years ago. Suspense is still a plenty and entertainment is not lost in the sequel. The good thing about the plot is that the film makers didn't want to make the exact same film over again. Instead they said, "What did we not work with in the first film that we can work with in this one?"

For example, instead of having the daughter just happen to be taken again, it's the family of baddies from the first film out for revenge. Instead of just making the film about a man saving his daughter, let's create a stronger emotional dynamic between the husband, ex-wife, and daughter. Also, let's see what would happen if the dad gets taken and the daughter has to try to find him (with his help of course). All of these plot elements help give the film a plot of it's own, even though the very base of the story line is the same.

And the action is in an even greater supply this time around. Car chases, gun fights, and slick hand-to-hand combat fill the movie with adrenaline in a very Jason Bourne-esque way (and that's a good thing). But the cinematography in "Taken 2" has improved in terms of action sequences. In the first film the filming was very clean-cut and had a flow to it. But I believe to make action scenes real and gritty, a different style is needed. In this new film the shots and camera angles are quick, choppy, and up close to the actors (again very Jason Bourne-esque) and it definitely improved the action style from the first film. And whoever is Liam Neeson's fight choreographer is incredible, because watching him beat down guy after guy is just incredibly satisfying.

Will you see similarities between "Taken" and "Taken 2"? Yes, several in fact. But there is more than just old ideas being brought into this new film, and enough of it to continue to keep the viewer interested. Add that to everything that made the first film such a great action movie and what more can you ask for? Liam Neeson has once again provided a great piece of action movie eye-candy that will be sure to please. I give it three stars out of four.

"Taken 2" has a running time of 90 minutes and is rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and action and some sensuality.

The Bourne Legacy

"The Bourne Legacy" is probably one of the most appropriate titles to a film in recent history, especially when you consider the true legacy that the "Bourne" films have created. First, the original trilogy is one of the best known spy-thrillers around. In addition to this, the films have successfully done what 99% of trilogies fail to do...create sequels that are both critically and financially more successful than the predecessors.

After "The Bourne Ultimatum" was released in back in 2007, many thought that the series would end after a third very entertaining finale. Yet, five years later the series is back on the silver screen, with a couple of very obvious changes.

So how does "The Bourne Legacy" fit into the universe created by Matt Damon's famous character? Does newcomer Jeremy Renner succeed in filling in for Damon and does the film overall live up to its name? These are all questions people will be asking and I am happy to answer them for you.

It's very easy to guess around what the plot revolves from the title and, well, it's pretty straightforward. The film is indeed about Jason Bourne's legacy and more specifically, how his actions are effecting the rest of the special ops forces. Now we know about Treadstone and Operation Blackbriar from the previous films but there is yet another black-ops division that we have not been introduced to...until now.

Aaron Cross (Renner) is an agent in a program called Operation Outcome. The point of this group is kept a mystery for the majority of the film but one thing becomes clear very quickly and it won't be good for Cross. Thanks to Jason Bourne's exposing of top secret government information, the CIA brings in Eric Byer (Edward Norton) to help find a solution to the problem. His answer is simple, wipe out the program completely which includes burning files, ceasing operations, and of course, killing all the agents like Aaron Cross.

With the entire CIA on the hunt, Cross finds an ally in Dr. Marta Shearing (Rachel Weisz) who he believes can answer some questions about Operation Outcome that have been kept a secret from him. Together they depart on a dangerous trip across countries where they can trust no one and have only one goal in mind...to survive.

Right off the bat you know that you are watching a "Bourne" film from the music, the shooting style, and the familiar faces from past films. I really appreciated how the filmmakers made sure to remind the viewers that this is a continuation of a previous story rather than a total reboot of a franchise. I also liked how this film takes place at the same time as "The Bourne Ultimatum" adding even more to the feeling that we are still in Jason Bourne's world.

But this feeling also has a down side to it which is the sad reality that Matt Damon's title character is nowhere to be found in this new installment. Granted, people knew from the first trailer that Matt Damon would not be returning to the series but there is still some disappointment to be felt when the film is finished. Part of the problem was that I did not feel the same emotional connection with Aaron Cross as I did with Jason Bourne. Bourne was a man who had completely lost his memory, had no idea why everyone was trying to kill him, and had his girlfriend shot just when we thought there would be a happy ending. Cross on the other hand just comes across as another secret agent who is good at kicking butt.

Now with the said, Jeremy Renner does a great job in this role. Earlier this summer, Renner proved that he was capable of dishing out some damage as Hawkeye in "The Avengers" and he brings that same action-movie charisma to "The Bourne Legacy." One moment he is ruthless and deadly, and the next he is friendly and easy-going. There are many sides to Cross that Jeremy Renner shows and overall, he gave it his best effort to carry this big franchise on his shoulders.

On the other side of the plot, Edward Norton does a great job as the villain hunting Cross down. As a character that is calm and collected, yet not afraid to lay down the law, he pulls off quite the menacing antagonist.

Of course, no "Bourne"is complete without the series' signature action. My favorite is the close quarters hand-to-hand combat that is once again shot beautifully, with the cameras practically inside the action, and made me gasp in excitement with every take down. And don't forget about the chase scenes! Like every other film in the series, "Legacy" features a big chase sequence through highways and alley, on foot and on wheels, and the whole thing features some great stunt work.

Looking back on "The Bourne Legacy," it includes all of the same elements of all the other films. It has the same music, many of the same actors, the same great fight and chase scenes, and the same twists and turns that keep you on the edge of your seat. The only thing that is truly different is the lead actor, and I am ok with that. Renner does a good enough job of capturing the audience into this new tale, and with the filmmakers making you feel right at home in this familiar universe, I think it's safe to say the the legacy of Jason Bourne will live on (but please let Jason Bourne and Aaron Cross team up for a sequel)! I give it three stars out of four.

"The Bourne Legacy has a running time of 135 minutes and is rated PG-13 for violence and action sequences.

The Dark Knight Rises

   When someone asks me what is most important in a movie, there is only one answer I give. It is not the CGI or the action, the amount of laughs or the amount of tears, instead it is the story. A film can have no heart and soul without a captivating, intriguing, and well-written story. Take the Transformers franchise as an example: three films with great, explosive action and remarkable CGI… but no story that really makes it shine. This is why the Transformers films, along with countless others, will never reach the status of Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy.

   
   Nolan has given us an unforgettable story. A story about a man who is burdened with a responsibility that at times is terrible to bear. It is a story about a man who has put others above himself in a city that many said was beyond redeeming. And most of all it is a story of a man who is willing to be what his city needs him to be, whether it’s a hero whom is adored or a menace who is hunted. The story of Batman is unlike many others.

   
   And not only has Nolan given us one great story but three, in the form of three movies that remarkably keep outdoing their predecessors. In this epic conclusion to the Dark Knight’s story, Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) has been sitting in his mansion for eight years after taking the blame for Harvey Dent’s crimes and murders. But a new threat has come to the city of Gotham who is the biggest threat to the city yet. Bane (Tom Hardy), a masked, muscle-bound mercenary who is out for blood will test the Batman’s strength and conscience like never before, and with the entire police force eager to put the Dark Knight behind bars, Wayne will not have the help that he usually does.

   
   My plot outline is shorter than usual in respect to the director, Christopher Nolan, who is one of the few directors that is still secretive about his films. He does not release an onslaught of movie clips and is careful to not reveal that many plot points. This adds such great suspense to every one of his movies and it is one of the reasons that Nolan’s films are some of my favorites.

   In “The Dark Knight Rises” you don’t know what’s going to happen next, and the twists and turns will keep you engaged throughout the film (which is pretty long).

   
   Something that has always made this Batman trilogy stand out is the A-List cast and the stellar performances. No one will ever forget the outstanding Health Ledger in his turn as the Joker who became the first actor to win an Oscar for a role in a comic book movie.

   
   Christian Bale has once again thrown himself into the role of Bruce Wayne. Bale has successfully played two characters in one, a millionaire playboy and an aggressive super-hero. I cannot imagine anyone surpassing Bale’s Wayne.

   
   And Tom Hardy’s Bane carries the film on his ripped shoulders for most of the film with his abundant screen time, and he is by far the most evil villain for Batman to face. He considers everyone expendable and yet, the film develops his character into someone that people can relate too and sympathize with…maybe.

  
  But it is Anne Hathaway who is the major scene-stealer as the delightful Selina Kyle. I was not looking forward to another Catwoman on the silver screen but Hathaway blew away my low expectations and was one of my favorite characters in this film.

   
   Action lovers be prepared. There is plenty of high octane action sequences in this nearly three hour movies and it all ends with a chill inducing showdown between the Gotham police and Bane’s mercenaries that will leave an impression with all the movie goers.

  
    But forget the action scenes and the outstanding performances, the heart of “The Dark Knight Rises” is, you guessed it, the story. For three films Nolan has created an incredible trilogy that in the end manages to come full circle with the first movie in a way that is truly genius. And the end…the end is spectacular. When someone asks me what my favorite film is, my usual answer is “The Dark Knight.” From now on, my answer will simply be “The Dark Knight Trilogy.” I give this film four stars out of four.

   
   “The Dark Knight rises has a running time of 164 minutes and is rated PG-1 3 for intense sequences of violence and action, some sensuality and language.

            

The Amazing Spider-Man

The perks of traveling abroad: eating delicious food, observing the different cultures, and sometimes getting to see movies before they are released in the U.S. Well, turns out that on my trip to Vienna I found that "The Amazing Spider-Man" had already been released...SCORE! So I strolled down to the nearest English cinema in anticipation of the latest blockbuster that Marvel Studios has to offer, and all my expectations were blown away. 

In this reboot of the famous super-hero, we are taken to the early years of Peter Parker who is watching his father and mother leave him forever. Why they are leaving and where they are going he does not know, and unfortunately a plane crash seems to lock those answers away forever. Flash forward to an older Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) who is now in high school. An average day for Peter consists of getting bullied by Flash Thompson and falling for his crush Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone), but he is still trying to unravel the mystery of his father. 

Soon enough, he discovers a briefcase in the basement of his Aunt and Uncle's home in which he finds documents that lead him to OSCORP, the company where his father previously worked alongside Dr. Curtis Connors (Rhys Ifans). Together the two men planned to create a compound that would "cure the world of weakness." For Dr. Connors, he would use this serum to regrow his arm which he lost years ago. But when Peter comes into contact with Dr. Connors and gives him the right formula, Dr. Connors takes it upon himself to perform human trials and...the side effects are quite monstrous. 

You know the rest: boy gets bitten by spider, is given amazing super powers, and has to save New York from a mad scientist that looks like a mini Godzilla. It sounds awesome, and it is awesome. 

In a time where movie reboots are quite common, "The Amazing Spider-Man" really sticks out. Similar to last year's "X-Men: First Class," this film manages to recreate a previously seen universe in an exciting new way, resulting in a final product that ends up being better than its predecessors. And there were several things that helped contribute to this. 

The big factor is the outstanding performances by the cast, especially Andrew Garfield. Some, including myself thought Garfield had some big shoes to fill after Toby Maguire's original trilogy. However, after seeing this new film, not only does Garfield step up to the plate with confidence, but he nails the role in a way that Maguire never did. Two things stood out in his acting. First, he brings the sarcastic wit of Spidey that was nowhere to be found in the original series. This film represents a more classic Spider-Man that people are used to if they read the comics. But more importantly, Garfield has emotion and he brings it out where the audience can feel it and connect with it. He pulls off some of the key, emotionally charged scenes in the movie will true talent. 

And the leading man is not the only one who makes this film shine. Emma Stone brings her usual charm and talent to the role of Gwen Stacy, showing that Mary Jane isn't the only girl that can steal the web-head's heart. And Rhys Ifans, even though I thought that the Lizard as a villain could never be taken seriously on screen, gives us a cunning, frightening, and evil antagonist that put my skepticism to rest. 

Another element that "The Amazing Spider-Man" boasts is some entertaining action and beautiful CGI. Action lovers will be pleased to know that there is plenty of punches, kicks, and webs shot out in this remake. In fact, the action in this movie puts the original trilogy to shame. Not only is the choreography brilliant, but the camera work (combined with CGI) creates such a fluent picture that is so crisp and clear, that every action scene was like a piece of art. A noteworthy effect was when the camera would sometimes switch to first person when Spider-Man was swinging or climbing around. It looks real and it looks really cool, especially when you first see the iconic costume. 

But Spider-Man is never just about the action. It is a story of romance, self-sacrifice, and most importantly, responsibility. The best super-hero films are the ones with heart, and "The Amazing Spider-Man" has plenty of it. It is the heart and soul of the film that made me want to tear up when Uncle Ben dies, it's the heart and soul that made me cheer for Spider-Man, and it's the heart and should that made me love this movie so much more than the previous installments. I give it three and a half stars out of four.

" The Amazing Spider-Man" has a running time of two hours and seventeen minutes and is rated PG-13 for sequences of action and violence.

Monsters University - Teaser Trailer (HD)

Taken 2 - International Trailer

Rock of Ages

Not only do I love musicals, but I also have a strong passion for 80's rock n' roll. Because of these two passions, the new rock-heavy musical "Rock of Ages" (an adaptation of the Tony award winning Broadway show) seemed like a match made in heaven for me. Throw in Tom Cruise looking like Axl Rose and belting tunes such as "Pour Some Sugar On Me" and I was on board. Well Sunday night I finally got to view-and sing through-"Rock of Ages" and, for the most part, it was nothin' but a good time (forgive the first of my several song puns).

The Bourbon Room seems to be a pretty popular place on the Sunset Strip. The film opens with Sherrie Christian (Julianne Hough) arriving in Los Angeles looking for a job which she quickly finds thanks to Drew Boley ( Diego Boneta) who works at the Bourbon Room. Of course Drew must first ask his two bosses, Dennis Dupree and Lonny Barnett (brilliantly played by Alec Baldwin and Russell Brand respectively) but after a brief argument they give her the job. And they will need all the help the can get with their big concert coming up. The performer headlining is the infamous Stacee Jaxx (Cruise) and the club's existence could ride on how well everything goes. Plus the mayor's wife Patricia Whitmore (Catherine Zeta-Jones) is protesting on the Strip to shut down the Bourbon Room and eradicate all of the "sex, drugs, and rock n' roll." Yes there is a lot of things happening with the Bourbon Room, and how are the characters going to deal with it? Simple...don't stop believin'...in rock n' roll.

Stop reading this review now is you don't care for bands such as Guns n' Roses, Def Leppard, Twisted Sister, and Journey, because if so you are going to HATE this movie. However, if you do like this genre then get ready for a big sing-a-long. The musical numbers seem to never slow down with more than twenty songs packed into the two hour film (some of them are mash-ups). You will get to see every actor sing, even Baldwin and Paul Giamatti, and I guarantee that you won't be able to sit through the whole thing without singing a word or two...I couldn't.

But as prominent as the music is in the movie, Tom Cruise is the star. Hilarious, surprising, incredible, and so many other words can describe his performance. Cruise got into the heart and soul of his character. Add that to his great voice and rock persona and I will say that this is one of his best performances of his career. I had an even greater appreciation for it when I learned that he really does sing all of the songs.

The movie benefits from a slew of great acting. Baldwin and Brand are a hilarious duo with their crazy hair and deadpan humour, and I couldn't gaze at Giamatti's gigantic mustache for five seconds without chuckling (his acting was great too as always). But a supporting cast can't carry a film on their own, the two leads also do a fine job of belting it out and really getting into character. Plus, they all have great comedic talent, the movie made me laugh countless times even if it was at the hairdos.

But "Rock of Ages" is weighed down by some problems, primarily it's dreadful middle act. The film has a great beginning and end but a very slow and boring middle that is plagued with wondering plot points, pointless characters, and way too many "rock ballads." The other negative element is the insane amount of sexual content. Yes I know that this is a movie about 80's rock stars but still, the film really does push the envelope of it's PG-13 rating with it's innuendo, choreography, and "romance" and more times than not it was quite cringe worthy.

Sure "Rock of Ages" is pretty cheesy as well but really, would you expect anything else from a film of this kind? I can promise this, if you go into the film ready to view two-hours of sometimes cheesy dialogue, crazy hair/outfits, and LOTS of music you will have a great time with this movie. If not, then this will be two hours of nails on a chalkboard. But I was in the first group. I went into this saying, I wanna rock, and I did. I give this film three stars out of four.

"Rock of Ages" has a running time of two hours and three minutes and is rated PG-13 for sexual content, suggestive dancing, some heavy drinking, and language.

Snow White and the Huntsman

Lips red as blood, hair dark as night...and you know the rest. And yes this is not the first film based on the classic "Snow White" fairy tale to come to the silver screen in the last year (the last three months to be more precise). However, it was very obvious from the first trailer that the makers behind "Snow White and the Huntsman" did not want this movie to be the traditional, happy fairytale. In fact, one of the taglines for the film states, "This is no fairytale." With a really evil queen, scary monsters, and some epic looking battle scenes filling up the trailers, I had high hopes for this new "Snow White" epic...HAD being the key word here.

It's obvious from the very beginning that Queen Ravenna (Charlize Theron) is bad to the bone. First off, she has been sucking the life out of women for years to preserve her youth and magical powers. Second, after killing her newly wed husband, who happens to be the King, she imprisons her step daughter Snow White (Kristen Stewart) in the dungeon for fifteen years. At the end of this long period of time, the Magic Mirror informs the Queen that Snow White's beauty is capable of ending the magical powers of the Queen and that if she consumes Snow White's heart, she will live forever with unlimited power. So naturally, she tries to have her killed. But this Snow White won't go down without a fight, and that fight leads her right into the Dark Forest. 

Enter the Huntsman (Chris Hemsworth), whom the Queen employs to track down and bring Snow White back. But of course if that happened there would not be that much axe swinging action. Yes, the Huntsman is persuaded onto the side of Snow White and together they start a plan that will dethrone the Evil Queen forever...and yes there may be dwarfs involved. 

So does "Snow White and the Huntsman" live up to it's promise to be a darker, more intense fairy tale? Absolutely. Everything about the film feels as if the Grimm brothers themselves made the movie. It's violent, eerie, and has some pretty freaky monsters in the dark forest. The Queen is the main reason that this movie sells its promise. Theron is fantastic at being bad and most of the time I was more interested in what was happening with her than what was happening with Snow White. 

The film also delivers plenty of action. Chris Hemsworth brings his rage over from his other role (Thor from "The Avengers") to end the life of many a henchmen by his axe and dagger. Some cool CGI effects add to it, along with some incredible make-up work used to make the Queen look younger/older.  All of this contributes to a refreshingly dark atmosphere that we don't usually see in fairy tales. 

And yet a key ingredient is missing. An ingredient that, whether you want it to be a traditional fairy tale or not, should always be in a Snow White film...romance. Where is the romance? I'll tell you where, not in this movie! I try to stay away from spoilers in my reviews but I can't help it this time...so if you don't want to be spoiled, skip to the next paragraph. (SPOILER ALERT) Sure this movie has all the classic elements of a Snow White story, such as her eating a poisoned apple and her needing "true love's kiss" to wake her up. And she does get the kiss (I won't say who) but guess what? The two NEVER fall in love. In fact, the film never makes mention of their feelings for each other for the rest of the movie, not even in the very end. For this reason, the true magic was ruined for me. 

I applaud "Snow White and the Huntsman" for truly living up to their intentions. They have created a dark, action packed tale that will likely impress many moviegoers. But unfortunately, they have tried so hard to make this movie not like a fairy tale that they have failed to include one of the greatest assets to ANY film...love. The movie is void of all compassion, romance, and love, and because of this, the film as a whole is about as magical as the crow on the Evil Queen's chair. I give it two stars out of four.

"Snow White and the Huntsman" has a running time of 127 minutes and is rated PG-13 for intense sequences of action and violence, and brief sensuality. 

Battleship

I'll answer these questions right off the bat...no, this movie is not "Transformers 4" and yes, people did actually make a movie based on the old board game named "Battleship." It seems that anything can be made into a movie nowadays and while some ideas turn out to be better than they appear, I was extremely skeptical of this sci-fi blockbuster. But as always, I walked into "Battleship" with an open mind and in the end...well, I'm really not sure.
Before I plow through the details, know that "Battleship" has a very simple plot. Alex Hopper (Taylor Kitsch) likes a girl, the girl has a very menacing father who is in the Navy (Liam Neeson), so Hopper must prove his worth in RIMPAC naval exercises where countries come to compete in games on land and sea (kind of like the Olympics for the Navy). There is just one tiny, intergalactic problem: the games are soon interrupted by an overused and often butchered form of story-telling...or you could just say...aliens. Hopper's ship along with two others become trapped in a force field with three opposing alien ships and if his crew can not find a way to destroy this great threat, then the aliens will contact their planet and bring in reinforcements to enslave the planet.
Now there are a lot of great things to like about "Battleship." First off, the way that they incorporated the board game into the film was genius and it made for some great entertainment and explosive action. The action of course is the main focus of the film along with some impressive CGI. The filmmakers handled the action with great care, really making me feel the suspense so that when something blew up, I was excited at the results (I may have shouted out in excitement once or twice). But the climax of the film was the best part. In a last ditch effort, Hopper and his surviving team climb aboard an old battleship to make a last stand. They are aided by retired veterans who add a lot of comedic quips to the young ones and overall this was a very nice ode to the Navy.
And while I would not call the acting in this movie "great," it was much better than I anticipated. When I first saw the trailer I laughed when I saw Rihanna's face on the screen, but I was very surprised at her acting and she often had some good/humorous dialogue. Of course Liam Neeson is enjoyable as always, borrowing a little from his character in "Taken" to play a no funny business Navy Admiral. As for Kitsch, I have never been a big fan of his acting since he did not do the character of Gambit justice in "X-Men Origins: Wolverine"(granted none of the actors did much in that film) but he is suited for action movies and if he sticks to that, he'll have a good career.
OK, here is the bad thing about the movie, the thing that washes out all of the good stuff and leaves only disappointment...the script. Cheesy, cliche, laughable, terrible. All of these things can describe the horribly written screenplay. Granted there were a few funny bits but more often than not the film was trying to be funny but fell flat on its face. There was even one moment when, after a line was delivered, I leaned forward to put my face in my hands, in agony of what I had just heard (do I hear a Razzie nomination?)
Also, regarding my quip about this not being "Transformers 4", it practically is. "Battleship" has the EXACT same formula as the Transformers series. The beginning tries to be funny but then it gets serious, there is a very attractive female love interest (except this time she's not dumb), it involves people fighting big alien robots, and so on. I don't know if this is a good or a bad thing, I guess it's up to the viewer.
I am very conflicted with where I stand on "Battleship." I think to myself, there was great action, special effects, suspense, and a killer soundtrack (AC/DC). On the other hand...the script was cringe worthy. In the end I say this, if you ever watch "Battleship" keep the film muted the entire time, you will not have a hard time understanding it and it will turn out to be a great film. If you prefer it with sound, prepare to see exciting explosions ruined to terrible one-liners. I give this film two stars out of four.
"Battleship" has a running time of 131 minutes and is rated PG-13 for intense sequences of action, violence, and destruction, and for language.

Marvel's The Avengers

Way back in 2008 when Agent Coulson (Clark Gregg) appeared in the first "Iron Man" and spoke the words, "Just call us S.H.E.I.L.D." all Marvel fan boys knew what was coming. They were actually going to do it. Marvel was going to attempt to bring some of the world's biggest and greatest super heroes onto one screen to form "The Avengers." Many thought it impossible, while others thought that it would result in a cheesy action flick, but I for one remained optimistic. After four long years of anticipation I have finally gazed upon the glory of Marvel's latest blockbuster...and it is worth the wait.
Yes, if you haven't seen a Marvel film in the past few years you will probably be a little confused with the plot. The film centers around the Tesseract (the blue cube from "Captain America") and how Thor's (Chris Hemsworth) evil brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) wants it to enslave the world. Now the head of the Strategic Homeland Intervention Enforcement and Logistics Division (S.H.I.E.L.D.), Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson), must quickly put together the world's greatest heroes to fight this villain and his alien army that he summons.
The roster features the billionaire playboy Tony Stark/Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.), the WWII soldier Steve Rogers/Captain America (Chris Evans), the Norse god of thunder Thor, and the gamma radiated Bruce Banner/Hulk (Mark Ruffalo). On their side are S.H.I.E.L.D. agents Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) and the archer Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner). Together these hero's must unite against this great threat...but they need to learn how to get along first.
A big part of "The Avengers" is the humor. Comic-book fans know that whenever heroes meet for the first time, there will be some insults thrown and some punches dished out. This film is loaded with this much needed element and the results will make you crack up. The funniest character is without a doubt Tony Stark. Downey brings life to this beloved character once again and whether he's making fun of Thor's Shakespearean dialect or calling Captain America an "Old Man", he sarcasm will never get old. All the characters have their own humorous lines but in the end it may actually be the Hulk who wins the award for biggest laugh (I'll give you a hint...it involves smashing!)
The highest of praise for director Joss Whedon, who has also produced an incredible screenplay/script. This guy knows what he is doing. The nearly two and a half hour film gives an equal amount of time to each and every character in the cast which I thought to be nearly impossible. It's not "Iron Man 3" and it's not "Thor 2." It is "The Avengers" and it stands entirely on its own. He also did an outstanding job with the character development. Black Widow and Hawkeye are basically new characters to the Marvel Universe, but after the film, I feel like I've known their characters for years. And the way Whedon writes Captain America blows the actual "Captain" film out of the water; this is much more classic and lovable Cap, the way he should be.
And the screenplay is backed up from top notch performances for every actor. The most notable is Mark Ruffalo. He is the third actor to play Banner in the last 10 years and he is by far the best. His Banner is the perfect balance of calm, hesitant, and genius (with the occasional outburst of anger). He steals the scenes he is in and I would certainly enjoy a new "Hulk" film with Ruffalo at the lead. The other worthy of noting is Hiddleston's Loki. After this film I can say with full confidence the Loki is the coolest and greatest Marvel villain to ever be portrayed on screen. Hiddleston's amazing acting makes Loki shine as the cunning, cruel, and downright nasty villain who never seems to lose his smile even if things aren't going according to plan. Evans and Hemsworth are great just like the rest and with Jackson's no-funny business Fury, "The Avengers" boasts a well rounded cast.
Oh and did I mention that there is action and lots of it? If you have been let down by some of the climactic battles in the last several Marvel films...join the club. But don't worry, the final half hour of this film delivers some of the most jaw-dropping action to ever be displayed on the silver screen. Just seeing these iconic heroes fight together sent chills down my spine. Imagine the coolest thing that you have seen each hero do in past film, double that (maybe triple), and you've got what to expect in "Avengers." I was never more happy to hear the words "Hulk Smash."
As a proud comic book nerd, I could have been very easily let down by just the slightest wrong in this movie. But there was no wrong. Whedon has accomplished the impossible and created something incredible. Just the fact that he could bring all these big characters together in one movie and make it work is simply MARVELous. My friends, "The Avengers" will satisfy every expectation you may have and is not only the best Marvel film to date, but is a landmark for the super-hero genre and all of cinema. I give it four stars out of four.
"The Avengers" has a running time of 142 minutes and is rated PG-13 for intense sequences of sci-fi violence and action throughout, and a mild drug reference.

Wrath of the Titans

How often does a sequel to a remake come around? From what I can remember, hardly ever. This doesn't come as a big surprise though since remake's are almost NEVER as good as the original. So one would think that if a remake spawned a sequel, it would be even worse right? Well, in the case of "Wrath of the Titans," the sequel to critically hammered 2010 remake "Clash of the Titans," we may have an exceptional treat.

Once again, Hades (Ralph Fiennes) is up to know good. Ten years has past since Perseus (Sam Worthington) slayed the Kraken and foiled the God of the Underworld's plans and he wants revenge. This revenge involves the imprisonment of Hades's brother Zeus (Liam Neeson) so that he can drain the God of Thunder's power to free the titan Kronos from the walls of Tartarus. Perseus must once again use his powers as a demi-god to save his father (Zeus) and send the Titans back to Hell. Oh, and did I mention that Kronos is a mountain sized behemoth of rock and lava? Oh yeah.

Sounds like I pretty cool concept right? Well, as cool as it sounds, the film went a little over-the-top in a couple areas. This happened primarily with the CGI/action scenes. At one point in the film, the heroes find themselves running and falling through a gigantic labyrinth to reach the Underworld. The sheer size of the labyrinth, how the heroes maneuver through it, and the fact that they all survive is just unbelievable even for a fantasy film (I can let the giant sized Kronos at the end of the film slide because he looked so incredibly cool).

In addition to this, the script is full of cheesy dialogue and one liners. Scenes that have the potential to be the definition of epic are ruined by a laughable line that ruins it. And for Greek mythology lovers, some may be upset by the butchering of certain points of classic Greek lore (SPOILER...the gods can die?!).

But on the positive side of things, "Wrath of the Titans" boasts some pretty insane action. The showdowns between Perseus and Ares (god of war), Hades and Zeus finally demonstrating their godly powers (Hades can use the Force?), and every other action sequence is what really carries this film. Since this is what I was expecting, the trailers were overloaded with action, I had no problem watching a nearly two hour action fest. Yes I know, sometimes a film fails by having too much action and too little plot and character development, but I was already expecting this to be the case. Therefore, my expectations were met, and I came out pleased.

Make no mistake, "Wrath of the Titans" is not a great film, but it is an entertaining film. I am happy that I payed the admission price to see high octane craziness and I'm even happy that I saw it in 3D (which was actually really impressive). Sure it was at times over-the-top and cheesy, but I can look past that and appreciate the film for what it is...fun, a guilty pleasure if you will. If you are an action lover, this film is a must see. If not, this film is worth missing. Since I am in the first group, I give this film two and a half stars out of four.

"Wrath of the Titans" has a running time of 99 minutes and is rated PG-13 for intense sequences of fantasy violence and action.

The Hunger Games

When the "Harry Potter" series came to an end last summer, people began to wonder what franchise would come along next to make its mark on Hollywood. So far the attempts have not been so successful ("John Carter" "Green Lantern") and while the Twilight series has made lots of money--the majority of the world despises it. So now we have the Hunger Games; a bestselling trilogy about an intense concept that involves twenty-four kids fighting to the death. The anticipation leading up to the premier was huge and now that it has been released has Hollywood found its next cash cow?

The land that was once North America is long gone, devastated by an unknown apocalyptic event. Now it is known as Panem, a nation divided into twelve districts and the wealthy and controlling Capitol. After a previous rebellion against the Capitol, a decree was made so that each year, children between the ages of twelve and eighteen would be selected from each of the districts to compete in an annual ceremony known as The Hunger Games. In these games, the "tributes" would battle to the death in a large arena composed of different environments (forest/desert/etc) until one victor remained. This year, in District Twelve, Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) and Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson) have been selected to take part in the games. With fiery outfits, incredible talent, and growing connection between the two tributes, Katniss and Peeta gain a lot of attention in the capitol before the Games begin. When the times comes to survive in the arena, the two must decide to either stick together or kill each other, and their decisions may have a larger effect on the corrupt Capitol than they know.

The big thing that "The Hunger Games" boasts is a well-rounded cast, with the two leads being up-and-coming actors, surrounded by better-known Hollywood stars. I've only seen Jennifer Lawrence in one other film but this Oscar nominated actress has started her career off with a bang. She captures the seriousness and emotionality of Katniss's personality brilliantly, which is impressive since her character does not have a heavy amount of dialogue for the majority of the film. Opposite her is Josh Hutcherson who, to be honest, I've never been a big fan of. While his performance was above average, he has some catching up to do in the sequels before he can reach the excellence of Lawrence's performance.

But the supporting cast--two in particular--is where I was most pleased in terms of acting. First, Woody Harrelson was by far the best casting choice as he stole every scene with his humor portrayal of Haymitch, the mentor to the two tributes (and my favorite character from the books). Harrelson finds a perfect balance between drunken fool and wise mentor and serves up many of the film's laughs. The other actor worthy of praise is Donald Sutherland who plays the evil President Snow who is showcased far more in the film than in the books. His character is a man of few words, but that is what makes him so menacing.

With a running time of nearly two and a half hours, I was a little concerned about parts of the film dragging out. Surprisingly, "The Hunger Games" has remarkably good pacing. The film never spends more time on a scene than it needs to and more often than not, the action and suspense speed the story along at a quick pace.

And there is plenty of great, high-octane action. With the film being about a futuristic version of the gladiator games, you know what to expect. Most of the killings happen off-screen or in quick flashes while others are quite brutal especially since they involve teens. Yes, the filmmakers did majorly tone down some of the more intense aspects of the games, but it shouldn't upset many fans of the books (it didn't upset me). Once all of the tributes go into the arena, the film quickly speeds up and never really slows down...and that's ok with me.

As a fan of the books, perhaps the most exciting thing about "The Hunger Games" is how great of a job the filmmakers did with the book to movie adaptation. The film captures the intense nature, the suspense, and the emotional power that the book had and any who have not read the book will have no problem understanding the movie. The film has everything: a unique plot, great action, superb action, and even a little romance. So has Hollywood found its next big franchise? With the film already meeting high praise from fans and critics premiering to the third highest opening gross of all the time, I'd say the odds are definitely in its favor. I give it three and a half stars out of four.

"The Hunger Games" has a running time of two hour and twenty-two minutes and is rated PG-13 for intense violent thematic material and disturbing images-all involving teens.

Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance

Sure there used to be a time when Nicolas Cage made good movies but frankly, I don't remember those days. Now I can only remember the past five years or so...where Mr. Cage has stared in terrible films with terrible plots that feature him either speaking corny dialogue or yelling his face off. An example of this kind of film was 2007's "Ghost Rider," a Marvel Comics movie where Cage rode around with a flaming skull, sending demons back to Hell. While the comic character is indeed pretty cool, the film adaptation was much less impressive, which is why I was just as surprised as anyone to learn that a sequel was in the works. Five years later, Cage has dawned his flaming motorcycle again and...oh brother.


The devil's human form has grown week and the time has come for him to find a new host to inhabit. So he chooses a innocent boy...oh wait he's actually the devil's son...I think (the movie doesn't explain). To protect this boy from becoming the Antichrist, a secret sect of the church seeks out Johnny Blaze, who has been hiding out in Eastern Europe, attempting to cope with the demon living inside of him. They tell Johnny that if he can use his demon, the Ghost Rider, to save the boy from the devil, they can relieve him of his curse.


I'm just going to come out and say it...everything was wrong with this movie. The center of all the problems was the plot. The story was so simple and predictable and the directors obviously had no intention of developing it at all. There is no elaboration on any the characters (who are they, what are their motives, why are they doing this, etc.) and there is no character development. All of the characters are one-sided and don't allow the audience to connect with them or care for them.


This might be because of the dreadful acting. I don't know if Cage has realized that the world views him as a madman in his movies and has decided to embrace that or not, but his acting was WAY over the top. In scenes he would go from whispers to screams at the snap of a finger and when he tries to be emotional near the end of the film, the crowd just started to laugh. Some of the dialogue may have been corny to start with but most of the time, he made it corny,


And I though that at least the action would save the movie from being a total waste...wrong! The film tries to find these artistic ways to make the action unique, but it fails each time. If he gets hit with a rocket, have him fly against a wall or something, instead of spinning around on his back in the air like some old cartoon. If you want to show how he can manipulate fire, have him shoot it from his fists instead of urinating fire while shaking his head up and down. Oh, and don't have him do this weird, swaying dance whiles he's waiting to be attacked. The movie almost seemed like it was making fun of itself, through the action, the acting, and everything else.


Awhile back on an episode of Saturday Night Live, Andy Samberg did a hilarious Nicolas Cage impression where he mocked Cage's insanity. In the skit he made a remark on one of Cage's upcoming films (maybe "Ghost Rider) saying, "It has every element of a classic Nicolas Cage movie. One...IT EXISTS!" That's how I view "Ghost Rider 2." It's a bad movie with a lousy plot, dumb action, and a cliche script and yet it existed. And because it existed, Cage wanted to do it. What did he see in this film? I haven't the slightest idea, but one thing is for sure, his acting only made it worst. "Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance" is not only the worst film that Marvel has made in past decade (replacing the first "Ghost Rider") but it's quite possibly one of the worst films that I have ever seen. I give it a half star out of four.


"Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance" has a running time of 95 minutes and is rated PG-13 for intense sequences of action and violence, some disturbing images, and language.

The Woman in Black

Nowadays, when a horror movie comes around most people think of several things: pointless gore and torture, disturbing murderers, and overall...a cruddy movie. Of course nine times out of ten, this is true. A good scary movie is very hard to come by these days, but every once-in-awhile one manages to be a crowed pleaser. Since "The Woman in Black" is the first film to showcase the Hammer Film name (who were behind some of the most famous horror films such as the classic Dracula, Frankenstein, and the Mummy) in 35 years, it seemed like this film had promise, and with "Harry Potter" star Danielle Radcliffe as the leading man, the film guaranteed many eager viewers. But does "The Woman in Black" shine in a genre that hasn't been favorite of critics?

Arthur Kipps (Radcliffe) is going through tough times. His visions of his deceased wife, combined with financial problems and the threat of being fired from his job as a lawyer, are causing much trouble in his young life. He is given one last chance to prove himself a worthy worker and is sent to handle the estate of Alice Drablow. Things don't get much better for Arthur when he arrives to the small town where the house is located. Nobody seems to want him there and nobody is willing to take him to the house to begin with...oh, and a creepy ghost is haunting the entire town and is taking out her vengeance on children. Sound creepy? It is! Determined to get to the bottom of this haunting problem, Arthur must learn the past of this mysterious Woman in Black and work to prevent her from further harming not only the towns people but himself.

"The Woman In Black" stands out from other scary movies because of two big reasons: an intriguing character and an engaging story line. So many protagonists are never developed (or given time to) in films of this genre. Instead they are dumbed up only to be slaughtered to simply get a reaction. Not Kipps. It is very clear that the filmmakers want the viewers to really get to know and care for Arthur Kipps. Besides the fact that Radcliffe is almost never off the screen, the character is developed throughout the entire film so that by the climax, we want him to succeed (and survive).

The story itself is a very classic one and that is in no way a bad thing. Several plot points (to give an example would be spoiling the film) echo the most famous of the haunted house/ghost story flick. It's suspenseful, it's intense, and it isn't predictable. Yes it does draw from other ghosts stories but there are some twists and turns that you won't be expecting.

Now make no mistake, while the film is different than most horror films regarding the character and plot, it's all the same when it comes to the scares. "The Woman in Black" is heavy on the "jump scares." And they do it so perfectly that many of the scares come just after you would normally expect them. This process effectively drew screams from most of the audience in my theater (although there were a few who laughed at my terror and the terror of many others). Some people, such as myself, enjoy the feeling of waiting for something freaky to pop out on the screen, and if you are one of these people...you will be impressed. Another great thing about these scares is that they are achieved without the overwhelming amounts of gore found in most horror films

Hammer Films chose the right movie to be their first in so many years. The intense and engaging story and interesting protagonist, combined with Radcliffe's great performance, makes one great film that breaks the mold of the horror genre and succeeded in throwing me out of my chair in shock. I give it three stars out of four.

"The Woman in Black" has a running time of 95 minutes and is rated PG-13 for thematic material and violence/disturbing images.

Beauty and the Beast 3D: An Investment or a Scam

It's hard to find a new movie that ISN'T playing in 3D these days. In fact it's become such a popular money-maker that I'm surprised movies still advertise the 3D instead of just assuming that people know (this will happen soon enough). Anyways, ever since the release of "Avatar" back in 2009, the third dimension has taken over the film industry. But this year a new strategy is beginning to take it's course...3D re-releases. With such films as "Star Wars," "Titanic," and "Finding Nemo" being re-released on the silver screen later this year (in that order), the time has come to ask the question, "Are seeing these old films in 3D really worth the money?"

This weekend showcased the opening of the first 3D re-release of 2012, Disney's "Beauty and the Beast." Was I willing to pay the extra cash to see a film that I could simply watch at home? Of course! Why? For starters it's my favorite animated Disney film and I never had the privilege of seeing it on the big screen. This is the best quality of these upcoming re-releases, it allows people to experience a film they love in a way they have never experienced it before...at a movie theater. This alone is worth the money; but in case you aren't convinced, "Beauty and the Beast"
boasts digitally restored visuals, providing a more colorful, descriptive, and high-quality picture. The sound is also restored and when played on the powerful movie theater speakers, it's hard not to sing along.

Now if you didn't like the movie when it first came out, this will obviously be a waste of money. The filmmakers didn't add anything new (story-wise) to make the film different. In fact they actually removed the new song that was placed in the recent Blu-Ray/DVD release, making this movie exactly as it was when it was first released (except for a few minor visual changes). Also, if you describe your attitude towards the film as "Alright" "Worth the nine bucks" or any other mediocre term...RED FLAG! Only pay to see these re-released films if you absolutely love it, otherwise it will be a waste of money.

So it's simple, if you loved the film the first time then see it again, especially if you never saw it at the theater. "Beauty and the Beast" was the same magical masterpiece that it was when I first saw it, and in 3D I got to experience it all on a whole new level. I eagerly anticipate the upcoming re-releases that 2012 is bringing our way (STAR WARS!) and will gladly pay to see some of the most famous works of Hollywood in the third dimension.

War Horse

With films like "Saving Private Ryan" and "Schindler's List" on his filmography, it's no question that director Steven Spielberg is a master of the "war" genre (and every other genre for that matter). This being the case, I could not wait for his new World War 1 epic "War Horse" to be released on Christmas day. With my high expectations and Christmas spirit I walked into the theater ready to be impressed. Hello Academy Awards, let me introduce you to the film that deserves to sweep the prizes this year.

"War Horse" is the tale of a horse, obviously, who impacts several English, French, and German families and individuals during the course of World War 1. The start of the tale begins with the young horse, named Joey, being sold to Albert Narracott's (Jeremy Irvine) family. Albert raises Joey and trains him to plough so that his father will make enough money to keep their house. Against all odds, Albert and Joey succeed in ploughing the farm. Sadly, this joy is quickly diminished when Albert's father is forced to sell Joey to a captain in the English army (Tom Hiddleston) in order to make ends meet. From here Joey travels through the course of the war, passing from the English army, to the Germans, and to several other places. At the same time Albert keeps faith that he will be united with his closest companion before the dangers of war can affect either of them.

The grand thing about "War Horse" is that it showcases what Spielberg does best, telling a great story. The movie doesn't try to cram special effect laden action sequences or unrealistic heroic feats into the plot line. Instead it focuses on what is important, the heart and soul of the film...the story. And the story connects to the viewer. It drew me in, made me care about the characters and the horse, and stirred my emotions in scenes of both sorrow and happiness.

And for those who can be squeamish to graphic violence scenes prevalent in most war films, don't worry. This PG-13 rated epic stays far from the intensity seen in "Saving Private Ryan." That's not to say the the battle scenes are any less impressive. Each conflict is beautifully shot and visually captivating. The film as a whole includes beautiful landscapes and set pieces that fully immerse the viewer in WWI Europe.

And the music is a grand addition as well. John Williams, who has composed some of the most famous movie themes of all time (Star Wars, Jurassic Park, Indiana Jones, etc) is back with his usual collaborator (Spielberg) and has created another beautiful score. Williams bring a stunning, classical sound to "War Horse" that lives up to his reputation.

Spielberg has done it again. Another instant classic has been brought to the silver screen and thanks to the brilliant acting, cinematography, and captivating story, "War Horse" is the best film of the year. I give it four stars out of four.

"War Horse" has a running time of two hours and twenty-six minutes and is rated PG-13 for intense sequences of war violence.