Pain and Gain

Throughout the years of reviewing films, there have not been many movies that ended up confusing me. Now I don't mean plot wise, there have been many films such as "Inception," "Total Recall," or "Minority Report" and have provided plenty of my confusion in my mind. I mean the film as a whole being confusing to me. Being confused by decisions made by directors or screenwriters, confused by ways an actor attempts to portray a character, or, in the case of "Pain and Gain," confused why a movie 

even exists. 

The very scattered plot of director Michael Bay's latest action comedy is based around a true story in which three Miami body builders led by Daniel Lugo (Mark Wahlburg) attempt to rob a rich client of his wealth so that they can help "make America a better place." After a few failed attempts, the three kidnap him and interrogate him until he signs away his riches to the three men. The later half of the film then shows how they use this new acquired wealth and how in the end, it leads to their very downfall (don't worry, from the very beginning you know how the film is going to end). 

But make no mistake, this is no Robin Hood story, quite the opposite actually. In fact, allow me to give a little more insight on the true story around which Bay has created his new piece of popcorn eye-candy. The film is based off of newspaper articles from 1999 that told that story of the "Sun Gym Gang." This gang brutally kidnapped, tortured, and murdered several victims in order to steal their money. Not a nice thing to hear about right? Well, Michael Bay must have thought the opposite because in his film, he tries to make the story of these criminals (two of which are currently on death row in Florida) into a comedy and tries to make these killers into heroes. That is more disturbing then anything I saw in the film...which is saying something. 

Now I will give Bay a little credit because "Pain and Gain" does have a little more thought and commentary than the "Transformers" films that he has spent his time on for the majority of the last decade. The film serves as a commentary on the American Dream and many of the ideas and dialogue spoken by the characters can give way to some discussion on work ethic and the idea of the American Dream itself and how to properly and improperly work to attain it. Unfortunately, the fact that the film contains little to no redemptive value all but ruins the value of any commentary that film seeks to provide. 

It isn't the case of bad acting, Dwayne Johnson does a great job of playing a Jesus-loving ex-convict that steals every scene he is in with his jokes and persona. It isn't that the script if full of cliches or corny dialogue, in fact the script itself was clever. But while there are a lot of little problems with "Pain and Gain," problems that seem present in every Bay film (the plot drags thirty minutes too long, the story is plagued with unnecessary and vulgar sexual content and humor, uneven pacing etc.), the real problem lies in the heart of the film...or lack thereof. Though this film is billed as a comedy, I could only leave it feeling more disturbed than humoured. And yes...the whole film is still just confusing to me. I give it one star out of four.

"Pain and Gain" has a running time of 129 minutes and is rated R for bloody violence, crude sexual content, nudity, language throughout, and drug use.  

G.I. Joe Retalliation

   The first modern "G.I. Joe" film that was released back in 2009 had a few things going for it. It had some great action sequences, an awesome ninja, and a "rising star moment" for the now very popular Channing Tatum. Overall though, the cheesy popcorn flick was critically panned and only moderately successful. Therefore I was relatively surprised when they announced a sequel. However I was very excited by the news that Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson and Bruce Willis would help reinvent this sequel into a possible improvement on the original. But did they succeed?
   Plot wise, "G.I. Joe: Retaliation" seems to pick up right where the first film left off. Zartan, one of the leaders of the evil organization known as Cobra, has used nano-technology to disguise himself as the President of the United States (both of these characters are portrayed by Jonathan Pryce). In his plan to break Cobra Commander out of prison, Zartan must first use his Presidential influence to wipe out the G.I. Joe division by framing them with treason. And after a deadly missile strike, all of the G.I. Joes are left dead....except for three, one of them being Roadblock (Dwayne Johnson). Along with his two companions that do nothing to move the plot along, the three remaining Joe's must stop this new plan of Cobra before they unleash devastating nuclear weapons.
   Now "Retaliation" is almost like watching two films because while all of this is happening, the amazingly awesome ninja known as Snake Eyes (Ray Park) is on a mission of his own to hunt down his enemy, Storm Shadow(Byung-hun Lee). Storm Shadow, who is also a member of Cobra, is responsible for breaking Cobra Commander out of prison and he might know things that could help the Joes get the upper hand. These two plot lines of Roadblock and Snake Eyes eventually come together in the end of the film.
   Now first off, props to Dwayne Johnson for being the go to guy for starring in sequels to films and making them better. Johnson's appearance in the fifth "Fast and Furious" film helped give the franchise its most successful entry in years, and later he appeared in the sequel to "Journey to the Center of the Earth" and that movie also outperformed its predecessor. It seems that Johnson has done it again with "G.I. Joe." He is a great action star and brings the same likability and intensity that he usually brings with him to the role of Roadblock as well (even though he does not speak in rhyme like his character did).
   The Rock is one reason to see the film, the other reason is Snake Eyes. This silent ninja is one of the coolest action characters out there which is why it is a shame he wasn't in more of the film. Every action scene with his character is a thrill to watch and it's always great when a character makes an impression without speaking a word of dialogue.
   Unfortunately for the most part, my thoughts on this sequel are very similar to my thoughts on the original. The action might be a lot of fun by it is help captive to several elements, the first being over-the-top plot elements. Now I can handle a lot of things in a popcorn flick, but when Cobra Commander blows up the entire city of London, and probably towns around it, that is when I start shaking my head in disapproval.
   Another thing that got on my nerves were pointless characters...way too many of them. I already mentioned how Roadblock's two companions are pretty much useless and do nothing to move the story along, I wish it had just been Roadblock and Bruce Willis' General Joe who really was not in that much of the film (much like "Expendable 2," he was used more for ticket sales). And on the Cobra side of things, I know they needed a "big guy" to fight the Rock, I just wish it could have been a more interesting character than Firefly...I wish it could have been Destro.
   Which brings me to my next point, perhaps the thing that for some reason annoyed me the most. For some crazy reason, the director decided to give poor old Destro the cold shoulder and not even include him in the film. He gets a second of screen time, being held inside a tube beside Cobra Commander, only to be told by the Commander, "You're out of the band," a line that made my cringe and wonder if that was really Cobra Commander under the mask. Well, hopefully "G.I. Joe 3" which has already been announced, will see the return of the number two cobra baddie.
   And yes the dialogue is cheesy, but you know what, it's the same way with"Transformers" saga, "Van Helsing," and a bunch of other action films that I still enjoy anyways. I can put aside the cheesiness, and most of the other problems with the film (except for Destro not being in it). In the end, I did not walk out of "Retaliation" feeling disappointed, nor did I walk out particularly impressed. It is an action film that stations itself in the realm of Hollywood mediocrity. But kids will love it, and if you love some great action you will have a good time as well. I give it two stars out of four.
   "G.I. Joe: Retaliation" has a running time of 90 minutes and is rated PG-13 for intense sequences of combat violence and martial arts action throughout, and for brief sensuality and language.

Jack The Giant Slayer

   Continuing in the trend of fairy tale reimagineings, director Bryan Singer has created a somewhat new take on the classic story of "Jack and the Beanstalk." Except in this tale, known as "Jack The Giant Slayer,"  there is a whole army of angry giants, a magical crown that controls them, and a lot more action than I remember in the original tale.
   But the heart of the story is the same. At the center of it all we have a farm boy named Jack (Nicholas Hoult) who has always loved the tale of the great King Erik, who used his magical crown to stop the army of giants from destroying the kingdom of Cloister. Living with his uncle and stuck on the farm, Jack has always longed for adventure that is out of his reach. But this adventure will come sooner than he thinks when he comes into the possession of magical beans that create an enormous beanstalk, connecting our world to the realm of the giants.
   Unfortunately for Jack, the fateful night that the beanstalk grows out of his house just so happened to be the night that a runaway princess Isabelle (Eleanor Taylor) seeks shelter with him. When she is taken up to the giants in Jack's house, he must venture up with the King's men who include Elmont (Ewan McGregor), the leader of the king's guard, and Isabelle's evil suitor, Lord Roderick (Stanley Tucci). But loosing his grip on the day-long climb up the beanstalk is the least of Jack's worries, because though he doesn't know it yet, it will be up to him to stop the giants from coming back to destroy the kingdom.
   Now as one might expect, there needs to be some pretty great CGI nowadays in a movie about large giants and an even larger beanstalk. Luckily for "Jack The Giant Slayer," the film as a whole is visually remarkable. So many scenes still stand out to me that blew me away, particularly the sequences where the main beanstalk comes crashing down over miles and miles of land. Crushing everything beneath.
   And of course the giants look incredible, especially when the whole army of them comes jumping out of a forest chasing after the humans. The attention to detail is spot-on and a good thing too, because CGI that isn't the best would drag a film of this kind down.
   But the human characters deserve credit as well...for the most part. While I'm still not convinced of Nicholas Hoult's ability to be the leading actor in a film, he is aided by a great supporting cast. Ewan McGregor has the perfect balance of wittiness, silliness, and a little seriousness to create a lovable character. And Stanley Tucci makes for a entertaining villain, something that actually surprised me a little bit.
   In the end, "Jack The Giant Slayer" may not live up to imagination of the recent "Alice and Wonderland" or the epic scale of "Snow White and the Huntsman" but it still manages to stand out as a sign of the continuing success of these fairy-tale reimagineings going through Hollywood...and it has some remarkable CGI. Kids will love it for the magic, adults will love it for the action and acting, try to check this one out if you get the chance. I give it three stars out of four.
   "Jack The Giant Slayer" has a running time of 114 minutes and is rated PG-13 for intense scenes of fantasy action violence, some frightening images, and brief language.

A Good Day to Die Hard

After several years, New York City cop John McClane is back on the big screen. One of America's favorite "cowboys" is back in another explosive outing, this time taking place in the streets of Russia. The fifth film in the "Die Hard" series, action star Bruce Willis has established a successful franchise with sequels that are, arguably, all worthy predecessors to the original (though none of them have managed to be better). Does "A Good Day to Die Hard" live up to the series' iconic name?

McClane's son Jack (Jai Courtney) has gotten into a bit of trouble during a special ops mission in Moscow. In the process of trying to crack a terrorist plot, Jack is taken into custody by the Russian police. But no worries, because daddy McClane is going on a "vacation" to Russia in order to relax, lay by the pool, and....wait, that's not right. He's going on "vacation" to find his son, kill a bunch of "scumbags", and create some big explosions. And that is all you need to know for the simple plot of this movie.

But it's ok for films to have simple plots at times. Look at the original "Die Hard" back in 1988, the whole film revolved around a cop taking down a bunch of bad guys with guns, and it all took place in a building...great film. And the other "Die Hard" films were very similar in plot structure. Unfortunately, this film's big problem (of several) was that it tried to be more like other films.

First, "Die Hard 5" tries to be like James Bond. I thought this during the very first scene of the film when the jazzy spy music started playing. Nice cars were paraded everywhere, attractive females in nice dresses were walking around...it was very Bond-ish. And if that was not enough, the plot tried to stock up on these plot twists such as those found in spy-thrillers. Unfortunately it was a sloppy attempt at story-telling.

At one point of the film, I actually asked one of the people with me what was going on...he did not know, and neither did the others. At this point I said to myself, "This is TOO MUCH thinking for a Die Hard film." I don't watch Die Hard for a plot-twisting mystery film, I watch Die Hard to see John McClane beat up tons of guys (more on that later) and make sarcastic remarks.

Second, "Die Hard 5" tries to be like "The Fast and Furious" films. This film is only 90 minutes, and so there is not a lot of time to establish a plot and characters in that time period. Since the film doesn't even do that, there is even more time for some great actions sequences full of guns and fists. Instead I got a drawn-out, car chasing sequence that felt like it lasted for a half hour...it was entertaining for the first five minutes. And I could have let that go, except that the other action scenes were increasingly sub-par that I was left only remembering all the cars crashing into each-other. Where is the gun-shooting, punch throwing goodness of all the other films? It is scarce in this film.

The heart of the flaw of "A Good Day to Die Hard" is this: the film tried to be more than a "Die Hard" film, it tried to create a new formula. The problem is...there was never a problem with the old formula to begin with. The Die Hard films had a good track record...until this point. This new installment strays so far away from the original's heart and soul in its attempt to create something new. And that something is a mess full of cheesy dialogue, an unnecessary and weak story, and surprisingly enough...not enough action worthy of the series. I give it one star out of four.

"A Good Day to Die Hard" has a running time of 97 minutes and is rated R for violence and language.

Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunter

J.J. ABRAMS, THE DIRECTOR OF STAR TREK, IS DIRECTING THE NEXT STAR WARS! YES! Ok, on to my review.

It seems that Hollywood has recently went into a phase that I particularly like. This new phase involves taking classic fairy tales and revamping them in unique ways for the big screen. This started with Tim Burton's "Alice in Wonderland" a few years ago, and has continued with other films such as "Red Riding Hood" and "Snow White and the Hunstman" that have reimagined classic characters in more intense ways. The latest film to follow this trend is "Hansel and Gretle: Witch Hunters," an intense action flick that tells the story of the classic siblings when they have grown up.
   But of course the film begins with the classic tale. The brother and sister get lost in a forest until the come across a house made of candy. It is only when they step inside the house that they realize its inhabitant is a man-eating witch. You know the rest...witch tries to eat kids, kids burn witch, happily every after...but not quite. It turns out that Hansel (Jeremy Renner) and Gretle (Gemma Arterton) have made a prosperous career of hunting down witches and turning in their corpses for gold.
   The movie really begins when the two witch hunters come to a small village where almost all the children have been taken by...you guessed it...witches. But these witches are a little more powerful because they have discovered a plan to make them immortal, and if they suceed it would mean bad news for humans everywhere...plus no paycheck for Hansel and Gretel.
   There are three words that I can use to sum up this film in a nutshell....big, bloody fun. Now allow me to elaborate. I went in to this film expecting a cheesy, popcorn action film with lots of guns and explosions...and I got my wish. "Hansel and Gretel" is what many would refer to as a Guilty Pleasure film. You don't really want to like it, and you don't want to tell people you liked it, but in your heart...you like it a lot. The most recent example of a guilty pleasure I can share was "Van Helsing" with Hugh Jackman. A film with terrible dialogue, over the top plot lines, and great action...but I love it. "Hansel and Gretel" is very much the same.
   But in terms of cheesy factor, this film is really not as bad as I expected. Ok, so the main characters are carrying shotguns, automatic crossbows, and Gatling guns in fairy tale world (not to mention spewing f-bombs). However, there was barely any of what I would call "cringe-worthy" dialogue and no plot-lines and set pieces that were wildly over-the-top. And because of that I can totally enjoy watching an automatic crossbow fire away at witches as they expload...in 3D.
   Again let me stress, this film is not for those who want to hear some complex story complete with engaging character development. This film is made for a specific audience, an audience who want 90 minutes of fast-paced, fun action sequences that have a lot of guns and a lot of witches that bite that dust, some in more brutal ways that other.
   And if this kind of film sounds good to you, then I will guarantee that you will thoroughly enjoy yourself in "Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters." It's an intense, comedic spin on a classic fairy tale, but in terms of all the action films released on a yearly basis...it's a forgettable guilty pleasure at most. I give it two stars out of four.
   "Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters" has a running time of  88 minutes and is rated R for strong fantasy horror violence and gore, brief sexuality/nudity, and language.

Mama

   Over the past fifteen to twenty years, the "horror" genre has gathered a less than stellar reputation. Now, when someone says a horror film, the first thing that many including myself think of is endless amounts of gore, coupled with senseless violence and other crude perversions that have been made infamous by films such as "Saw," "Hostel," and "Texas Chainsaw Massacre." It is rare now to see a horror film that actually puts effort into story, character development, and old school jump scares. Of course there are some great recent exceptions such as "The Woman In Black" and "The Cabin in the Woods." And "Mama," produced by Guillermo del Toro, is yet another example of a scary movie done right....for the most part. 

   It's a well known fact that creepy children make one creepy movie, and that's the case yet again with "Mama." The film begins with two girls being found in a shack in the woods by their uncle Jeffry (Nikolaj Coster-Waldau) and his girlfriend, Annabel (Jessica Chastain). These two girls had been surviving on their own for several years and the two do not understand how, but they adopt the girls and bring them to their new home (which of course kind of looks creepy on the outside). 

  But the one who was helping the girls survive in the wilderness does not like that they have been taken from her, or it, whatever you would call and undead ghost mother, and thus the haunting begins. As the monster begins to make itself more and more known in the house, Jeffry and Annabel must try to discover not only what this thing haunting them is, but why it is here and what it wants, and that quest comes with plenty of fun plot twists and scares. 

   As I said before, many horror films nowadays rely on gore and mutilation for their "scares," but not "Mama." This film is old school. There is no extreme violence, I don't recall there even being any blood (the film itself is only PG-13). Instead, the makers of the film relied on some great techniques and camera angles, accompanied with eerie music to catch the audience off guard with jump scares. Of course there is a lot of stuff that just creeps the viewer out such as someone walking through the house in the dead off night, hearing noices where there shouldn't be noises, and the younger sister playing tug of war with her older sister (OH WAIT! Her older sister just walked out of another room....oh no!). 

   But of course no movie is anything without a good plot, something that most scary movies lack. Guillermo del Toro has proven himself a great storyteller when it comes to these kind of films and he has proved himself yet again. This is a mystery film. You are trying to understand this monsters backstory, why its haunting people, what it's looking for. But it's not just a story about the monster, its a story about family. A story contrasting two mothers, one who is trying to be a good , loving mother when she has no expirence and another who will stop at nothing to keep her "daughters" emmeshed and in her possession. And the movies shows the pros and cons of both of these mothers and how they view their children. A plot line with this much effort was great to see in a film in this genre. 

  Unfortunately, the film's story is not perfect, especially when it comes to the ending. Many films are ruined by having a disappointing ending and I fear this is the case for "Mama." The film had such promise, such complexity, and really good scares but the climax relied too heavily on indeed CGI and an overexposure of the film's monster (she looked creepy at first but the creepiness is lost after twenty minutes of screen time). The end didn't make sense and didn't justify everything that led up to that point. 

  But still I applaud "Mama" for breaking the stereotype of modern day horror films. It presents old school scares, a mostly impressive story, and a impressive performance by recent Golden Globe winner Jessica Chastain as well. It's a treadgy that an ending can make the overall product a disapointment, but "Mama" will still be a good choice if you want to watch a scary film late at night. I give it two and a half stars out of four. 

"Mama" has a running time of 100 minutes and is rated PG-13 for violence and terror, some disturbing images, and thematic elements. 

Les Miserables

In the summer between 6th and 7th grade, my school's required summer reading book was Victor Hugo's "Les Miserables." Looking at the book I feared it would be tough to read, not only was it the longest book I had ever read to that point but it was full of lavish description that I was not yet used to in a book. Five years later, it is still, and will always be, my favorite book I have ever read. Then, this past January, I got to see the musical adaptation of the book on stage..it is one of my favorite shows I have ever seen. So as you can imagine, I was ready to pass out when I learned that Academy Award winning director Tom Hopper ("The King's Speech") would be bringing the musical to the big screen. And when the casting list was released, when I saw that one of my favorite actors (Hugh Jackman) would be playing Jean Valjean, I had no words. Would this new film come to hold such a high place in my heart as the book and the show?

It is the year 1815, and prisoner Jean Valjean (Jackman), who has been a prisoner for nineteen years after stealing a loaf of bread, has just been released on parole. Everywhere he goes he is rejected by those who look down on him, until a bishop offers him shelter for the night. It is this bishop that shows Valjean the grace and love of God. It is this revelation that compels Valjean to become a new man as he breaks his parole and sets off for an honest life.

Eight years later and he is the mayor of a town and owner of a factory. But his seemingly happy life is soon plagued with problems. The first starts when Valjean notices a man in his office, the Inspector Javert (Russell Crowe), who once ruled over him in prison, is ruthlessly hunting Jean Valjean because he skipped parole. His second problem arises when he encounters a miserable lady in the streets.

Fantine (Anne Hathaway) was a worker in the factory until she was fired when they discovered that she had an illegitimate child named Cosette. Now, trying to scramble together money to provide for her child by selling her hair, teeth, and body, she does not know how to go on. That is when Valjean comes to her and promises to take her child into his care. The remainder of the film tells of Valjean and his lifelong struggle to outrun Javert and take care of Cosette in the city of Paris where revolution is brewing.  

The first question I had when I was thinking ahead to this film concerned the amount of singing. Many know that the stage musical has no lines of spoken dialogue, it is all singing. Well I was happy to see that the movie is almost the same way. Ninety-nine percent of the film is sung, only a very small part is spoken, and I love it. All of the conversations, monologues, and songs that the characters sing by themselves, to another, or to a crowd just wraps you in to the story and mesmerizes you every step of the way.

But the songs would feel empty if not for the powerful performances behind them, and Hugh Jackman has given a performance perfectly worthy of his first Academy Award. The passion and emotion that he brings to the beloved character bring Jean Valjean to life like never before. His voice is incredible and his great effort makes this character one of the most memorable in the past decade.

However, it is Anne Hathaway that steals every scene that she is in. We have heard her version of "I Dreamed A Dream" in the trailers for the film, but in context, in it's entirety, the song is heartbreakingly beautiful. And every note she hits is beautiful. Her acting is so powerful and so real, I was asking myself "Where did that come from?" Look to her to sweep the Best Supporting Actress awards this year.

The love story between Cosette (Amanda Seyfried) and the revolutionary leader Marius (Eddie Redmayne) is another major story arc of the film. Thankfully for us. Their voices harmonize greatly. Seyfried hits two of the highest notes in the whole film and Redmayne gets my award for best voice (which is saying something).

Then there is Russell Crowe. Let me make it clear that I am NOT saying that Crowe has a bad voice by any means. However, when you compare his voice to every other voice in this film, he is obviously the weakest link, which is not the best thing to be when you have to portray the movie's conflicted protagonist. There were times when I was very happy with Crowe's performance such as his solo in "Stars," one of my favorite songs in the movie, but there were other times where his voice made me cringe. That being said, his acting make up for it, and I would not have wanted another actor to portray Javert.

All of the performances in "Les Mis" are noteworthy: the perfectly casted Thenardiers (Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter), the revolution leader Enjolras (Aaron Tveit), the beautiful Eponine (Samantha Barks), buts what makes the movie truly spectacular is the compelling story. The story of an angry man who, through the grace and mercy of God, has transformed his life into a life of putting the needs of others above himself, and has learned the supreme power of love. And that transformation, portrayed so well by Jackman, is inspiring.

The story of Jean Valjean is one of the greatest in all literature. It will touch the hearts of every one who gives themselves over to the musical epic. Tom Hopper has created another masterpiece, full of lavish sets, epic scope, and brilliant performances. Never before has a blockbuster film had its actors sing live on camera in a film that is singing from beginning to end. Because of this, "Les Miserables" is a grand achievement in cinema, and one of the greatest accomplishments and films to ever grace the screens. I give it four big stars out of four.  

"Les Miserables" has a running time of two hours and thirty three minutes and is rated PG-13 for suggestive and sexual material, violence, and thematic elements