Wednesday, March 2, 2011
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!
Monday, February 14, 2011
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.
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.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
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.
Monday, January 10, 2011
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.
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.
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
True Grit
Nowadays it seems that the classic western film is more hard to come by. An upside to this is that whenever a western comes around it is usually pretty good (for example, "3:10 to Yuma"). The same goes for the Coen brother's newest adaption of Charles Portis' novel, "True Grit." The film of the same name brings together an award-winning team of Jeff Bridges, Matt Damon, Josh Brolin, and the Coen brothers to bring us a western that won't soon be forgotten.
Mattie Ross (Hailee Steinfeld) narrates the film as she tells of her quest to avenge her father, who was murdered by a man named Tom Chaney (Brolin) when she was 14. When Mattie goes to collect her father's body, she also looks for a US Marshal who she can hire to hunt down Chaney. She chooses a man named Rooster Cogburn who was described to her as the most merciless of the Marshals. However when she approaches Cogburn he rejects the offer.
Mattie isn't the only one searching for Chaney. Later that day she meets La Boeuf (Damon), a Texas Ranger who is hunting Chaney after he killed a senator in Texas. La Boeuf proposes that they both team up with Cogburn to get Chaney but Mattie quickly refuses and continues to plead for Cogburn's help. Eventually Cogburn agrees to help her and tells her to meet him at his house the next morning (a lie so that he can leave without her knowing, keeping her out of harms way). The fact the Cogburns already left doesn't stop Mattie from catching up to him where she finds that he has teamed up with La Boeuf. From there the three ride into Choctaw country in search of retribution.
The first thing I noticed while watching "True Grit" is that it is nowhere near as dark as I expected it to be. The trailers for the film make it out to be dark and grisly. Looking at what the Coen brother's have directed in the past (specifically "No Country For Old Men") I expected the movie to be just the same. However when I saw it I realized that "True Grit" has more laughs than most comedies that were released this year. At the same time, the majority of the film consists of people being shot, killed, having fingers and teeth chopped off and pulled out, you get the point...it's intense. But the Coen brothers manage to mix the intense moments with the humorous ones, which many times does not work out well. Luckily for "True Grit," it does.
Jeff Bridges, Matt Damon, Josh Brolin...of course this movie will have great acting that's what I thought...and I was right. To me, Jeff Bridges already has the right look and persona to play a merciless US Marshall/cowboy and the role of Rooster Cogburn was perfect for him. But the standout actor wasn't these three men mentioned, it is Hailee Steinfeld. This is the young actresses first film to my knowledge and she is outstanding playing her cunning and very intelligent character. She has already been nominated and has won awards for "True Grit" and I believe that this is the beginning of a very successful career.
Now I bet everyone reading this is waiting for me to answer the question, "Is Jeff Bridges better than John Wayne?" Well...I don't know. I never saw the original (you can gasp in horror) and after seeing the film I'm actually glad I didn't (gasp louder). Why? Because I didn't have to waste my time in the theater comparing the two versions of "True Grit" and tell myself that, "Jeff Bridges is no John Wayne!" What I can tell you is that the new "True Grit" is a spectacular film, one of the best of the year, with a great story, great acting, great everything. Maybe one day I'll see the original but when that happens I will probably end up comparing John Wayne to Jeff Bridges (mega-gasp) but hey, he was before my time after all. I give "True Grit" 4 stars out of 4.
"True Grit" has a running time of 110 minutes and is rated PG-13 for intense sequences of western violence including disturbing images.
Mattie Ross (Hailee Steinfeld) narrates the film as she tells of her quest to avenge her father, who was murdered by a man named Tom Chaney (Brolin) when she was 14. When Mattie goes to collect her father's body, she also looks for a US Marshal who she can hire to hunt down Chaney. She chooses a man named Rooster Cogburn who was described to her as the most merciless of the Marshals. However when she approaches Cogburn he rejects the offer.
Mattie isn't the only one searching for Chaney. Later that day she meets La Boeuf (Damon), a Texas Ranger who is hunting Chaney after he killed a senator in Texas. La Boeuf proposes that they both team up with Cogburn to get Chaney but Mattie quickly refuses and continues to plead for Cogburn's help. Eventually Cogburn agrees to help her and tells her to meet him at his house the next morning (a lie so that he can leave without her knowing, keeping her out of harms way). The fact the Cogburns already left doesn't stop Mattie from catching up to him where she finds that he has teamed up with La Boeuf. From there the three ride into Choctaw country in search of retribution.
The first thing I noticed while watching "True Grit" is that it is nowhere near as dark as I expected it to be. The trailers for the film make it out to be dark and grisly. Looking at what the Coen brother's have directed in the past (specifically "No Country For Old Men") I expected the movie to be just the same. However when I saw it I realized that "True Grit" has more laughs than most comedies that were released this year. At the same time, the majority of the film consists of people being shot, killed, having fingers and teeth chopped off and pulled out, you get the point...it's intense. But the Coen brothers manage to mix the intense moments with the humorous ones, which many times does not work out well. Luckily for "True Grit," it does.
Jeff Bridges, Matt Damon, Josh Brolin...of course this movie will have great acting that's what I thought...and I was right. To me, Jeff Bridges already has the right look and persona to play a merciless US Marshall/cowboy and the role of Rooster Cogburn was perfect for him. But the standout actor wasn't these three men mentioned, it is Hailee Steinfeld. This is the young actresses first film to my knowledge and she is outstanding playing her cunning and very intelligent character. She has already been nominated and has won awards for "True Grit" and I believe that this is the beginning of a very successful career.
Now I bet everyone reading this is waiting for me to answer the question, "Is Jeff Bridges better than John Wayne?" Well...I don't know. I never saw the original (you can gasp in horror) and after seeing the film I'm actually glad I didn't (gasp louder). Why? Because I didn't have to waste my time in the theater comparing the two versions of "True Grit" and tell myself that, "Jeff Bridges is no John Wayne!" What I can tell you is that the new "True Grit" is a spectacular film, one of the best of the year, with a great story, great acting, great everything. Maybe one day I'll see the original but when that happens I will probably end up comparing John Wayne to Jeff Bridges (mega-gasp) but hey, he was before my time after all. I give "True Grit" 4 stars out of 4.
"True Grit" has a running time of 110 minutes and is rated PG-13 for intense sequences of western violence including disturbing images.
Saturday, December 25, 2010
Monday, December 13, 2010
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader
It would be fair to say that in 2005, "The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe" was one of the most memorable films (it's currently the 35th highest grossing film of all time). However, after the first installment in what is now a trilogy, the "Narnia" films seemed to lose their power. Though "Prince Caspian" (the 2nd in the franchise released in 2008) was somewhat well received, it did not gain the popularity that its predecessor had and to add to that it was a terrible adaption from the book. Things didn't look good for Aslan and his magical creatures when Disney decided to drop the series due to economic problems but Walden Media pressed on and has produced a third film. Has the franchise redeemed itself or is Narnia continuing to digress into a lost cause? To be honest, after I left the theater I wasn't quite sure.
The two youngest children of the Pevensie family, Edmund (Skandar Keynes) and Lucy (Georgie Henley) are staying with their selfish and quite annoying cousin, Eustace (Will Poulter). Very quickly, the three children look to a painting of a ship in the ocean on the wall. Lucy remarks that the ship reminds her of a ship from Narnia which Eustace calls a stupid fantasy world that only exists in their heads. When Edmund and Eustace get in an argument, the painting starts to release water into the room until the room overflows. When the three emerge to the surface, they are back in Narnia and are rescued by King Caspian (Ben Barnes) and his crew on his ship, The Dawn Treader. Three years have passed in Narnia since Caspian overthrew his evil uncle in the second film and since then Caspian has brought peace to Narnia. Now the King is sailing to find the seven lords that served his father before his uncle took over.
However, the quest soon takes a more perilous turn when Caspian and the children discover a green mist that captures Narnians and take them to a place called Dark Island. To destroy this island, the seven swords of the lords Caspian is looking for must be laid at Aslan's table. During their journey the four must learn to overcome their inner struggles and resist the temptation that the mist presents to them or else they too will become corrupted with the evil.
As I briefly mentioned earlier, I wasn't sure what to think of "Dawn Treader" at first. My first impression was one of disappointment from the expectations that I had. The first two "Narnia" films (especially the 2nd one) contain good amounts of entertaining action and climactic battle sequences. This above all else is what I was looking forward to in this movie. Unfortunately for me, there was nothing like this in "Dawn Treader." While there are several entertaining, visually stunning fight scenes, there is nothing compared to the epic climax found in the first film so I was a little bummed out.
Now my second impression of the film, after I disregarded my expectations, was a good one as I realized that "Dawn Treader" accomplishes what its predecessor "Prince Caspian" could not--it contains a good, well though out story and that seems to be the film's main focus. Personally, not much could make me happier when watching a sequel. One of my biggest requirements for a good sequel is for it to maintain a strong focus on the plot and not to just skip to tons of action which many sequels fail to do. And considering that this is actually the third film in the series, I am especially impressed that the film focuses on the story more than the action.
Now even though the film had a good story that doesn't mean it was successful in completely drawing me in. Something that I have began to notice with third, fourth, etc. installments in a movie franchise is that the film needs to do something to draw me back into the series. I already know the characters, I already know the setting, and if the film can't bring anything new to the table, I will be bored. Thus, the problem with "Dawn Treader."
When I first heard that Walden Media would try to make a third Narnia, I was both surprised and skeptical thinking that there was little chance that the series could make a comeback. Sadly, without the epic battles that the first two included, I'm not sure the series can survive. I doubt that a strong story, not to mention a sub-par script and mediocre acting can keep movie goers coming to the theater. Was "Dawn Treader" a bad movie? No, but it doesn't make me desire more sequels. I give it two stars out of four.
"The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader" has a running time of 115 minutes and is rated PG for some frightening images and sequences of fantasy action.
The two youngest children of the Pevensie family, Edmund (Skandar Keynes) and Lucy (Georgie Henley) are staying with their selfish and quite annoying cousin, Eustace (Will Poulter). Very quickly, the three children look to a painting of a ship in the ocean on the wall. Lucy remarks that the ship reminds her of a ship from Narnia which Eustace calls a stupid fantasy world that only exists in their heads. When Edmund and Eustace get in an argument, the painting starts to release water into the room until the room overflows. When the three emerge to the surface, they are back in Narnia and are rescued by King Caspian (Ben Barnes) and his crew on his ship, The Dawn Treader. Three years have passed in Narnia since Caspian overthrew his evil uncle in the second film and since then Caspian has brought peace to Narnia. Now the King is sailing to find the seven lords that served his father before his uncle took over.
However, the quest soon takes a more perilous turn when Caspian and the children discover a green mist that captures Narnians and take them to a place called Dark Island. To destroy this island, the seven swords of the lords Caspian is looking for must be laid at Aslan's table. During their journey the four must learn to overcome their inner struggles and resist the temptation that the mist presents to them or else they too will become corrupted with the evil.
As I briefly mentioned earlier, I wasn't sure what to think of "Dawn Treader" at first. My first impression was one of disappointment from the expectations that I had. The first two "Narnia" films (especially the 2nd one) contain good amounts of entertaining action and climactic battle sequences. This above all else is what I was looking forward to in this movie. Unfortunately for me, there was nothing like this in "Dawn Treader." While there are several entertaining, visually stunning fight scenes, there is nothing compared to the epic climax found in the first film so I was a little bummed out.
Now my second impression of the film, after I disregarded my expectations, was a good one as I realized that "Dawn Treader" accomplishes what its predecessor "Prince Caspian" could not--it contains a good, well though out story and that seems to be the film's main focus. Personally, not much could make me happier when watching a sequel. One of my biggest requirements for a good sequel is for it to maintain a strong focus on the plot and not to just skip to tons of action which many sequels fail to do. And considering that this is actually the third film in the series, I am especially impressed that the film focuses on the story more than the action.
Now even though the film had a good story that doesn't mean it was successful in completely drawing me in. Something that I have began to notice with third, fourth, etc. installments in a movie franchise is that the film needs to do something to draw me back into the series. I already know the characters, I already know the setting, and if the film can't bring anything new to the table, I will be bored. Thus, the problem with "Dawn Treader."
When I first heard that Walden Media would try to make a third Narnia, I was both surprised and skeptical thinking that there was little chance that the series could make a comeback. Sadly, without the epic battles that the first two included, I'm not sure the series can survive. I doubt that a strong story, not to mention a sub-par script and mediocre acting can keep movie goers coming to the theater. Was "Dawn Treader" a bad movie? No, but it doesn't make me desire more sequels. I give it two stars out of four.
"The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader" has a running time of 115 minutes and is rated PG for some frightening images and sequences of fantasy action.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)