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.