Super 8

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

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

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

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

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

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

X-Men First Class

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

Fast Five

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

Water for Elephants

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

Arthur

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

Source Code

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

Sucker Punch

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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