Movie Review - "The Sitter" (2011) 1/2 star

     Why Jonah Hill? Why? I sang your praises so much in Moneyball and felt you were by far deserving of the Best Supporting Actor Oscar for that performance. It was brilliant and I want to see more of it. But then you go off and do something like The Sitter and it's such a waste of talent. Leave this dreck for the likes of Adam Sandler and others of his kind. I'm not going to do a full review of this movie, I just don't have the desire. Jonah Hill stars as a slacker who ends up having to babysit three kids and the foursome end up running around the streets evading drug dealers just so Hill can get to his girlfriend for a booty call. Yes, that's the plot summary. It's as mindless as it sounds. It could have been somewhat interesting, a cult film the likes of Adventures in Babysitting, but no, that's not the case. It's way too raunchy for kids to see even though that's who it should be targeted to. It's just a mess pure and simple and I could have gone with it had it been funny. I like raunchy when it's funny. But it's not, instead it's very boring. I'm not even sure why I'm giving this even a half star. I guess I just like to save my No Star reviews for a special kind of film. This is close. At least it's quick and finished in under an hour and a half. So for that, it gets a half star. Skip this people.

Movie Review - "Straw Dogs" (2011) **1/2

     Rod Lurie's Straw Dogs is a remake of a 1971 Sam Peckinpah film that has a bit of a cult following due to it being considered very violent for the time. Even though the violence was too harsh for many, the film is widely considered to be one of Peckinpah's finest movies along with The Wild Bunch, another film known for it's violence. I have not seen the original, which stars Dustin Hoffman and Susan George, but I have heard a lot about it over the years and that is what interested me in checking out this remake. After seeing this remake, I don't feel inclined at all to go back and watch the original. Maybe if I catch it on one day I'll give it a look, but I don't think I will actively seek it. The story just simply isn't that compelling me to in the end.

     James Marsden and Kate Bosworth play David and Amy Sumner, a happily married screenwriter and actress from L.A. who have returned to Amy's childhood home in the deep south in order to fix up the home of her father, who has passed away, to sell. The couple drives a fancy car and have a bit of a Hollywood snootiness to them that immediately has the locals (rednecks) watching them closely. When they stop by a local diner for a meal, Amy runs into her ex-boyfriend Charlie (Alexander Skarsgard) who tries to make a pass on her but she declines. Complicating matters, Charlie and a group of his friends are the ones repairing the family home to sell. Tension between the couple and Charlie's group slowly start to build when they upset David by leaving the job early, inviting themselves into the house for beer and food, and playing music loudly while David is trying to work. When Amy is attacked by two of them men, all hell breaks loose leading to a violent confrontation that will have the couple fighting not only for their house but for their lives.

     Straw Dogs isn't a terrible movie by any means, I just wouldn't make it a viewing priority. This is a fine movie to catch on cable on a Friday or Saturday night when nothing else is on, just don't expect it to leave any last impressions. It's a movie that will be easily forgotten in a few months. The finale is pretty violent but it's nothing you haven't seen before, although there is a scene with a bear trap that will make you cringe for a bit. The acting is passable, if nothing else, with one exception. James Woods has a supporting role as one of the locals and he gives a chilling performance. Woods has played some bad characters in the past, but this one may take the cake. Marsden, Bosworth and Skarsgard are okay, but I felt each role could have been cast a little better. I can see how someone more like Dustin Hoffman would be more believeable in the main role, so maybe I should give that original a shot. There's nothing much more to say about this. Nothing earth-shattering but you may find a decent distraction with this picture if you are looking for a thriller. You can do worse.

Movie Review - "The Dark Knight Rises" (2012) *****

     I've mentioned several times on the blog that I was not the biggest fan of comic book movies. I never got much from the original Superman films. The Spiderman films did nothing for me. And stuff like the X-Men, Fantastic Four, Green Lantern, etc. just simply didn't appeal to me. The one exception was Batman. I highly enjoyed Tim Burton's 1989 Batman and it's follow-up, Batman Returns. The rest of the films in the series were pretty dreadful, but those first two were favorites of mine at the time. When I heard that the Batman series was being rebooted in 2005, I was intrigued. Unfortunately, after my first viewing of Batman Begins, the first film in Christopher Nolan's trilogy, I was a bit disappointed. Subsequent viewings of that movie have improved my position on it, but I still find it somewhat lacking. However, a few years later when The Dark Knight was released, I had finally found the perfect comic film. I gave The Dark Knight five stars and to this day, it is one of my favorite films. Heath Ledger's performance as The Joker was deserving of the Oscar it received, and I still find it a crime that the film didn't receive a Best Picture nomination in what was a weak year for films. So, heading into this year, my anticipation for The Dark Knight Rises was very high. Only Prometheus matched my level of excitement, and that met my expectations. The Dark Knight Rises not only met my expectations...it somehow managed to exceed them.

     I won't go into a plot summary too much. I believe this is one of those films that it's either going to interest you, or not, and those that are even the slightest bit interested should just go see it. Plain and simple. It's been 8 years since Batman was last seen in Gotham City following him taking the fall for the crimes of District Attorney Harvey Dent. The plot that Batman (Christian Bale) and Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) came up with has worked as crime has been almost non-existent in those 8 years. But trouble in Gotham is about to pick up again in the form of two different villains. A cat burglar named Selina Kyle/Catwoman (Anne Hathaway) is causing havoc and the even more dangerous Bane (Tom Hardy), a masked terrorist set on destroying Gotham. Bruce Wayne/Batman is living as a recluse but the acts of Bane have caused him to rethink his retirement, much to the chagrin of his loyal butler Alfred (Michael Caine). After a visit to see his old friend Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman), and a new array of crime-fighting devices, Batman is soon back in the game with the help of Gordon and a young, ambitious cop named Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), who is still a big believer in Batman and what he stands for. The group goes after Bane but it isn't long before Batman realizes he has finally met his match, as even he may be no competition for Bane.

     In what has been a strong year for movies so far with films like Prometheus, The Avengers and The Grey all receiving 4+ stars from me, The Dark Knight Rises stands above all and I would find it difficult for a movie to beat it in my year end rankings. It would take a pretty special film along the lines of a Social Network or Moneyball to unseat it. It's possible a gem like those two were will come along, but it's going to be tough. TDKR clocks in at just under 3 hours long, but it could have gone another hour or two and I would have been perfectly fine with it. The first hour is more build-up and if there is a weak point in the movie, it is this first hour, but it's really being nit-picky. I liked it, but some people could find it a touch slow. But when all hell breaks loose in this movie, it doesn't let go. If you like action, this is the movie for you, there's plenty of it. We throw terms around like "edge-of-the-seat excitement" loosely these days, but it applies in this case.

     Comparisons to Dark Knight are inevitable and I have been thinking about this a lot since the movie ended. I would give both 5 stars but I may give the slightest edge to The Dark Knight simply for Heath Ledger's Joker character. There's nothing in this newest installment that is probably Oscar material from an acting standpoint. Everyone gives a fine performance but nothing along the lines of what Heath was able to pull off. That would be the main difference, but the separation is very minimal and additional viewings of TDKR may bump it up over its predecessor. The one acting performance that really shocked me was Anne Hathaway as Selina Kyle. I wasn't really expecting much from her in this role, but she is awesome (and darn sexy in that Catwoman suit if I do say so myself!). In a genre that is dominated by male actors, her performance along with Scarlett Johanson's in The Avengers have been scene stealers. Kudos to the ladies. Any review of this movie wouldn't be complete without mentioning director Christopher Nolan and his co-writer/brother Jonathan Nolan. You two are to be commended for this trilogy which turned out one solid movie and 2 unforgettable movies. I can't believe I'm saying this, but this trilogy is worthy of being mentioned in the same breath as the original Star Wars trilogy. And people who know my Star Wars love understand what kind of praise that is. If you are on the fence at all about this movie, do not be. It's simply one of the greatest films ever made, I feel confident...and happy...in saying that.

Author' Note:  It's unfortunate that the release of this movie has been overshadowed by the tragic shooting in an Aurora, Colorado theater at a midnight premiere of the film. My thoughts and prayers go out to all the family members of those who lost their lives or were injured in the attack. I cannot begin to understand what people there may be going through right now, but I encourage everyone who reads this review to say a quick prayer for those affected by these tragic events. Thank you.

Movie Review - "Ted" (2012) ***1/2

     I believe there are three types of people in this world, as it relates to the tv show "Family Guy". There are those who have either not seen it or who have seen it and simply don't get it. There are those who get it, but are offended by it and reject it for those reasons. And there are those who get it and think it's simply one of the funniest shows to ever be on television. You can count me in this last group, I get "Family Guy". I realize it's not for everyone, and there is no way I would let my kids watch it if I had any, but underneath the foulness and raunchy humor I get what it is trying to say. There's definitely a "message" in there about how we take things way too seriously these days. I bring this up because "Family Guy" creator Seth MacFarlane is the first-time feature director, and writer, of the new movie Ted. There is a lot of "Family Guy" DNA in Ted, in fact some of the voice actors on the show have roles in this film. Ted is an...interesting...film to say the least and I think it can best be described as an episode of "Family Guy" on steroids. It takes the raunch of the show and turns it up a LOT. This movie will not be for everyone and if you find yourself in either of the first two categories that I mentioned earlier, than this movie will probably not be for you. However, if you are someone who can handle the sometimes uncomfortable subject matter and humor, you will be pleased.

     Ted stars Mark Wahlberg as John Bennett. As a child, John had no friends, not even the kids who got bullied wanted to hang out with him. For Christmas one year, John receives a teddy bear that he names Teddy, of course, and it is the greatest gift he has ever been given. He wishes on a shooting star that Ted will come to life, and sure enough he does, which freaks John's parents out. Ted (voiced by Seth MacFarlane) is a miracle and soon his story is spreading around the world, including an appearance on the Tonight Show with Johnny Carson. John and Ted are inseparable and make a pact to always be friends, no matter what. Fast forward to his adult years and John is a thirtysomething bachelor who works at a rental car company. Years spent partying and drinking has made him a likable fellow, just not very motivated to accomplish much. Ted is still a part of John's life....and has taken on the same characteristics as his buddy. The first time we see Ted in adult years, he is sitting on a couch taking puffs on a bong pipe. For John and Ted, life is sitting around drinking beers, smoking dope, and watching the 80's cult hit Flash Gordon. This is fine for them, but John's girlfriend of four years, Lori (Mila Kunis), is ready for John to become more of a man and propose to her. She likes Ted, but she feels it is time for the duo to split up so John can finally start acting his age. Ted does end up getting his own place, but John finds it difficult to not hang out with his best friend and he keeps testing Lori to the point where John is forced to choose...his girlfriend or his best friend.

     For the first hour of the film, I laughed as much as I have in a theater in a long time. Ted is very raunchy and there are times when you aren't necessarily proud of the fact that you are laughing, but it is very funny nonetheless. Unfortunatley, the movie goes on for another 45 minutes that is not nearly as strong. For some reason, this becomes an action picture in the end with a car chase and all that jazz. Why? It makes no sense here and really takes away from the comedy that is working so well. I think if the movie would have just stayed the course and played it more straight, this could have been one of the funnier movies ever made. But that last bit just leaves a bad taste in my mouth that I can't ignore. The acting here is all fine, nothing to write home about. Wahlberg can be likable on screen at times and he plays this role very well. Kunis seems to be along for the ride and isn't given much to do other than the frustrated girlfriend, any number of actresses could pull of a similar performance. But she is a "Family Guy" alum, so for that reason I am okay with her here. Giovanni Ribisi has a small role in the film as a father who wants to buy Ted for his son. All I'm going to say about his part is that it is SUPER CREEPY and I will never look at Ribisi the same way again. Don't get me wrong, it made me laugh, but it is strange! Overall, I think MacFarlane did a very good job here, he just messed up the ending a bit and it took away from the finished product. Hopefully he will learn from that because I'd like see more feature work from him. I love his sense of humor. Ted is very funny and if what I have said above seems to appeal to you, by all means give it a shot. This won't be for everyone though. And it's especially not for kids. Parents, please do not let your kids watch this. You don't want to be explaining certain things to them. Trust me.

Thoughts on the James Bond marathon

     In July, the Encore channel is having a James Bond movie marathon all-month long. The first 19 Bond films are being played repeatedly on Encore and you can watch them at any time with Encore OnDemand. I have seen a lot of films in my time, but this may surprise you; I have only seen 2 Bond films all the way through. Back in the 80's, I saw Octopussy because it played what seemed like EVERY day on HBO or Cinemax. I'll be completely honest, I only saw that film because I was young and thought it was about something completely different.....but that's beside the point. I remember liking it and watching it many times. I didn't see my second Bond film until Casino Royale, one of the most recent entries into the series. I thought that one was just okay, although the opening sequence was fantastic. But that's it, just those two. I have caught bits and pieces of other films here and there, but never saw them from start to finish. I don't really have a good answer to why I haven't caught more of the Bond films. There are definitely aspects of them that would seem to appeal to my movie tastes, especially when it comes to the espionage stuff. I think one of the reasons is that I hate coming into a film or tv series in the middle. It's just one of those mental block things that doesn't make sense to a lot of people, but it's just a quirk I have. If I think I might be interested in something that has already been going on for a while, I like to go back and start at the beginning and catch up. In the age of dvd and such, it's easy to do that but I have just been reluctant to for some reason. Until now.

     This Encore marathon seems like the perfect time to catch up on Bond. Throughout the month, I plan on watching the Bond films in order. I don't plan on doing full reviews for each movie, but from time to time I will pop in and give my thoughts on the series. So far I have only seen the first film, Dr. No, and I was less than impressed. I found it quite a bit boring and thought it dragged a lot. But I understand that is the first one and maybe they were trying to find their way through the series. I started From Russia with Love yesterday and watched the first half before something came up and got me sidetracked. But so far, I am enjoying this one much better. I will probably watch all of the Connery films first and then give an update, seems like a logical way to break it up. In the meantime, I'd be interested in hearing what some of your favorite Bond films are and which ones I should look out for. I encourage any feedback.

Movie Review - "Snow White and the Huntsman" (2012) ****

     I did not want to see this movie. I didn't bother reading any reviews, I just wasn't interested in the story. I was perfectly fine with Disney's original version, which is still one of my favorite hand-animation films. However, at the request of two friends, I joined them for a showing of the movie and I'm glad I took them up on that offer. This is a gem of a movie and it's for this reason that I continue to enjoy cinema as my favorite art form. You just never know when you're going to find that next surprise. It's one thing to go into a movie with high expectations and be satisfied, like I was recently with Prometheus. But when you go into a movie with zero expectations and come out raving about what you have just seen, those are the movies I love talking about the most. And it's that continuous search for the next one that lands me in the theater on a regular basis.

    Snow White and the Huntsman follows the story we know fairly closely but definitely veers off into it's own direction at times, most of them with great success. Kristen Stewart of Twilight fame stars as the title princess who is imprisoned by the evil queen Ravenna (Charlize Theron) following the betrayal and murder of Snow White's father. When the magic mirror on the wall reveals to Ravenna that Snow White is the fairest in the land, Ravenna sends her brother Finn (Sam Spruell) to fetch the princess. Snow White utilizes this opportunity to escape and heads for the Dark Forest. Ravenna dispatches a hunter (Chris Hemsworth) to capture Snow White, but once he finds her he feels for her and decides to help her escape the queen's army. Snow White and the huntsman form a bond and he becomes her protector and trainer in an attempt to remove Ravenna from the throne, placing Snow White as the true ruler in order to bring peace to the kingdom. They are joined in their quest by William (Sam Claflin), childhood friend of Snow White who feels guilty for leaving her behind when the evil queen took over and he escaped. On their adventures we encounter a kingdom full of interesting creatures, including a troll who proves to be a dangerous foe, and of course a few dwarfs join in along the way.

     This is a much darker telling of the story than anything you have probably experienced in the past, and I enjoyed that aspect of it. I was surprised by how quickly the story hooked me in and it never really let up. There's only some slight pacing issues in the middle third of the film. I feel having about 10-15 minutes cut from the running time would have been an improvement but it's really nitpicking. The visual effects in this movie were the biggest surprise to me. I was reminded of lot of films like Pans Labyrinth, Lord of the Rings, and The Chronicles of Narnia while watching this. It's hard to believe, but this on that same level for sure. Even stranger is that this was made by a first-time feature director, Rupert Sanders. You sir, I will be watching for more of. Bravo. The acting is fine with the only standout performance coming from Charlize Theron as the evil queen. She gives her best performance since her Oscar winning role as Aileen Wuornos in Monster, and is having a great 2012 with this film as well as Prometheus. Kristen Stewart has never been my favorite actress, but she is fine here as Snow White. Hemsworth plays a role similar to his turns as Thor with equal success. Claflin is a bit flat as William, but I've seen worse. But for all the acting choices, this is a directors film and Sanders is the star here as he has put together a visual masterpiece that caught me completely off guard. I can't wait to see more. Highly recommended.

Movie Review - "Prometheus" (2012) ****

     When I first heard rumors that Ridley Scott was going to be making a prequel to the movie Alien, that immediately went to the top of my list of movies I was interested in. Then over the course of the last year, I've heard all the talk that yes, it is a prequel to Alien, with an equal number of sources saying no, that in fact it was not. The debate has gone back and forth. I didn't care anymore, I was invested and I just wanted to see it. Of all the 2012 summer releases, Prometheus is the one I have been looking forward to the most with Dark Knight Rises being right there at the top also. I still have to wait a little while for Rises but Prometheus has now come and gone. It was worth the wait. I'm happy with the outcome but to answer the original question; Is it a prequel to Alien? The answer is of course yes AND no....we'll get into it in a bit, first a quick summary of the story.

     A team of explorers led by Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) and Charlie Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green) discover a clue to the origins of mankind while exploring a cave. A drawing on the cave wall matches others that have been found in ancient civilizations all over the globe. They believe it points them towards a celestial body in the universe that might provide the answer to how we came to be. The duo joins the crew of the spaceship Prometheus on an expedition which is being led by Meredith Vickers (Charlize Theron) and financed posthumously by Peter Weyland (Guy Pearce), who appears in a video recording to explain the mission which is taking place after his passing. Also on board are an android named David (Michael Fassbender), the ships captain Janek (Idris Elba), and other scientists. Upon arrival at the desolate planet, several members of the crew, led by Shaw, head out to explore a series of underground dwellings and passages. It appears nothing is alive. Of course, appearances are deceiving and before long the crew is battling for their lives in attempt to not only save themselves, but all of mankind.

     First off, this is one of the more visually stunning films I have ever seen. I saw this in 3-D and it joins Avatar and Hugo as the best use of the gimmick that I have seen. I don't think you need to see it in 3-D by any means, but if that's something you can consider, you won't be disappointed. The depth is really well done in many parts. This is just all around a visually stunning movie, nothing bad there. The pacing of the movie definitely has an Alien feel to it. This is a slow build, not much actually happens for the first hour of the movie, but Ridley Scott utilizes this time effectively to slowly build the suspense, just like he did in Alien.  There's a lot of surprisingly deep themes in this movie, and that was a nice surprise for me. Contact with Jodie Foster is one of my favorite films, and it goes a lot into the debate about how we were created. Did God put us here, or can everything be explained scientifically? I loved how that movie approached both sides equally and fairly, and I had some of the same feelings with Prometheus. I definitely have my viewpoint on this, but I love to see debates about things like this, debates that don't involve people yelling at each other. It's refreshing to see. All that being said, there's enough here to satisfy the horror fans too. This is not a horror film by any means, but when you're compared to the Alien franchise, you're expected to have some of that and this movie does. Trust me, all hell breaks loose in the second half of the movie, and there is some nice gore, it's just not what I would classify as horror.

     So, let's talk about that question we mentioned earlier; Is this a prequel to Alien? I stand by my yes AND no statement. Anyone who says this has nothing to do with Alien is just wrong, and I have heard that argument. I'm sorry, it's just not a true statement. There are definitive homages to Alien here. In fact, even though it's not necessary to see it beforehand, I would recommend watching Alien shortly before or after seeing Prometheus, and I think then you will agree with me. That being said, it's not a direct prequel...though I think it could be eventually. I feel Prometheus has more story to tell and I definitely feel at least one sequel should be made. It works as a stand alone movie, but I think there's a lot more here and I hope they approach it. I want more of this world. The acting ranges from satisfactory to pretty good. No Oscar performances here but everyone does a decent job. Michael Fassbender is the standout, in my opinion, as the android David. As you know, if you have seen the previous Alien films, it's not always clear where the android stands in the story. And Fassbender does a great job here straddling that line, we're not 100% sure if we should trust David or not. That's the way it should be. I've never been a huge Ridley Scott fan, when you look at the whole body of work, but Alien was a masterpiece in my book and he now makes Prometheus which I feel highly about and want to see again. He knows this world, and it is a world that appeals to me a lot. I want to see more and I hope he continues down this path. I give Prometheus a high recommendation and I think it's rating could go up even more upon repeated viewings.

Thoughts on "Citizen Kane"

     Whenever you see a list of the "Greatest Movies Ever Made" that is compiled by film critics or industry experts, there's a decent chance that Citizen Kane is going to be number 1 on that list. If it isn't number 1, it's going to be in the top 5 for sure. Once a decade, "Sight & Sound" magazine, a UK publication, compiles a list of film rankings from critics across the globe. Kane has been number 1 in each of the past five lists...yes, that's five decades, for those keeping score. Casablanca, Gone With the Wind, 2001:A Space Odyssey, and Vertigo, among others, will always have their supporters. But it's safe to say that the general consensus is that Citizen Kane is the single greatest American film ever made. So what do I think?

     I've always been a movie watcher but as a kid I pretty well stuck to things that would interest most kids my age. I was hooked on Star Wars and other fantasy and Sci-Fi. Horror was also a hit with both my sister and I. I stuck with your basic hits that would show up on HBO every month, and that my parents found appropriate to watch. I didn't wander too far outside of your big name movies. My movie repertoire started expanding in the late 80's, when I was in junior high school. During this time, I was reading a LOT of Stephen King and other more mature subject matter and my taste in films was expanding at the same time. I started seeing movies that I had passed on before, either because I wasn't interested in the subject matter, or it wasn't on my parents approved list at a younger age. It was in this time that I saw movies like Scarface, The Godfather, and Apocalypse Now. These films, as well as many others, these are just examples, introduced me to different types of movies. For the first time I started being interested in specific actors and directors. I was introduced to Hitchcock via The Birds and Psycho, and immediately fell in love with his work. Who wouldn't? I met Kevin Costner, simply by accident, while on a family vacation in Washington D.C. He told us they were filming a movie called J.F.K. about the assassination of President Kennedy. Ironically, when that movie was released a year later it immediately became one of my favorite films and to this day, you will find it ranked number 3 of my favorite films list. It also introduced me to the political and courtroom thriller, opening up a whole new wave of films to see. It just all took off from there. I started watching anything and everything I could get my hands on. I was a weekly visitor to the cineplex and when I wasn't there, I was checking out movies by the handful from Blockbuster. I watched everything...with a couple of exceptions.

     For whatever reason, I stayed away from the "classics". Things in black & white, or pre-1960, I tended to avoid like the plague. That was stuff old people watched. I had started becoming interested in film criticism and couldn't understand why so many people thought these were the best films ever. Had they not seen Star Wars?? I mean, seriously. But you can only hear claims so many times, before you finally cave in and start giving some of it a try. I think Gone With the Wind was first and I remember thinking it was ok, but it felt like it lasted for days. I watched a few others here and there, with mixed results, but nothing was blowing my mind. I decided to jump all in and watch the ONE that was considered the best, Citizen Kane. I picked up the old VHS tape at the video store and popped it into the VCR at home. I didn't get it. THIS is the greatest movie ever. Hogwash. I returned the tape and went back to my new movies. Looking back on it, I blame the age mainly. I was your typical teenager and I knew more than everybody else (don't we all at that age). As I matured and became an adult, I did start more of these classics and many of them are truly that. Casablanca, To Kill a Mockingbird, and 12 Angry Men are all personal favorites now. I've seen Gone With the Wind a second time and while I still think it's way too long, I appreciate it's spot in film history. But I never went back and watched Kane, to me it was always the roadblock to film appreciation. That changed this past week.

     Cinemark Theaters is running a program this summer called the Cinemark Classics Series. For one day only, eight classic films are being shown on the big screen, each digitally enhanced. Kane was the selection this week and I took the opportunity to see it. I was so pleasantly surprised and I'm happy I decided to give it another chance. There's something about seeing a movie on the big screen the way it was intended to be seen. I believe in many instances it can alter a film from leaving a positive versus a negative opinion. Kane should be experienced this way if at all possible. Kane is always praised for it's inventive shots, the cinematography is considered some of the best ever because it was the first time anything like it had ever been accomplished. That's part of the problem with appreciating older films. You can get the joy of appreciating some things for the first time. Think about the shower scene from Psycho. In today's standards, we've seen 100 times worse than that. It's tame now. But in 1960, you just didn't see that. The shower and bathtub were taboo places that were very private so that would have been a shocking scene to witness then. Not so much anymore. The techniques utilized in Kane are commonplace now, but to see them for the first time, that's why Citizen Kane will always be praised, as it should. After seeing this, will Kane become one of my favorite films? No. There are many other stories that I have enjoyed a lot more, it's as simple as that. But I do appreciate it's place now and I understand it's significance to film. What has changed is that I do now recommend it. Yes, people should see this movie. At a theater if they can, but I realize that's probably not going to happen again too much. But it is out now on Blu-Ray in a commemorative 70th anniversary edition that was released last year and I intend to pick it up. You should too. Don't be afraid like I was. There are so many great movies out there...and yes some of them were made before we were born. That's hard to fathom sometimes.

Movie Review - "Haywire" (2012) ***

     Haywire is the newest offering from acclaimed Academy Award winning director Steven Soderbergh and boasts a cast of high-profile names including Michael Douglas, Michael Fassbender, Ewan McGregor, Channing Tatum, Antonio Banderas and Bill Paxton. Yet, the film is a showcase for a first-time actress Gina Carano, who is best known for her role in MMA fighting. I started following MMA about 3 years ago and actually one of the first cards I ever saw had a fight that included Carano in it. She was beat in the fight (by a fighter who was found to be using performance-enhancing drugs later on) but you could tell she was a fan favorite and had lots of talent. Of course, it didn't hurt that she was beautiful as well. Carano never fought again after that fight, but it's apparent now that she had other interests outside of the ring, which included one in front of the camera. Haywire called for a female lead that kick major butt...not many people better at that than Carano so she landed the role. The ironic thing is, in this cast of big name talent, the newcomer Carano more than holds her own.

     Carano plays Mallory Kane, a highly-trained government operative who does the dirty work that only the best of the best can pull off. Think Jack Bauer. After freeing a Chinese journalist who is being held hostage, she is double-crossed by her own agency and left for dead. Mallory survives and must utilize all of her resources and training to fend off an international manhunt that finds her a target seemingly at every turn. While evading capture, and assassination, she must uncover the details of her double-cross and learn why her government has turned its back on her.

     That's a fairly quick and simple plot summary but this is one of those films that you should just go with. The plot is really secondary to the almost non-stop action and well-choreographed fight scenes that accompany Mallory from location to location. Carano is obviously at her best when she is simply kicking butt and she does plenty of it in this film, but pulls it off convincingly by doing almost all of her stunt work herself. It adds some credibility to the action for sure. She isn't given much dialogue for obvious reasons as that is not her strong suit, but she never feels out of place in the role, even during the few times when things slow down. Most of the other performances in the film are simply adequate. Nobody brings the movie down, but nobody gives an Oscar-worthy performance by any means either. I am a fan of several of  Soderbergh's works, Ocean's Eleven cracking my Top 100 favorite films list last year. You could tell he was having fun with this movie. I give Haywire a slight recommend. It's nothing great, it falls apart as it goes along, but you can do a lot worse when it comes to find something to kill some time on a weekend.

Movie Review - "The Innkeepers" (2012) ****

     I love the little films like this. Ones that sneak under the radar and end up being much better than most of the stuff you find at your local cineplex, especially in the horror genre. The Innkeepers was a movie that first caught my attention when it had a very brief, but positive, review in Entertainment Weekly magazine. It sounded like something that would interest me but in the coming weeks, it never played at a local theater (at least not one that I could find). So as usual I dropped it in the ole Netflix queue and proceeded with the long wait ahead. The wait was worth it.

     The Yankee Pedlar Inn, believed to be one of New England's most haunted hotels, is going out of business. During the last weekend of operation, two employees, Claire (Sara Paxton) and Luke (Pat Healy), are assigned the task of watching over the hotel and it's last four occupants...some of which, it's safe to say, have more to them then we initially think. Claire and Luke are also amateur "ghost hunters" and intend to spend the last boring hours at the inn proving that a spirit resides there. They walk around the halls with microphones and speakers hoping to find that one sure piece of proof so Luke can add it to his website that he has started about the inn. Sure enough, odd things begin happening and Claire and Luke start to realize that things may be more real than they believe.

     The Innkeepers is a slow-build film that takes its time, slowly increasing the suspense, and that style appeals to me a lot. For almost the first hour of the film, nothing really happens but all the while the tension is building as we learn bits about the inn's history and why it might be haunted. We get the occasional jump scene that gives us the opportunity to unwind for a second, but we always get right back to it. For those expecting non-stop action and violence, or if you like your horror more in the Saw style, this isn't going to be for you. You have to stick with this and go with it. Both Paxton and Healy, relative unknowns, give acceptable performances in the lead roles, with Paxton really standing out. She's an actress I think I would like to see more of, I like her screen presence. Kelly McGillis (Top Gun) is almost unrecognizable as one of the inns final guests, and one that knows more than she is letting on at first. The movie is directed by Ti West who had a bit of a cult hit with 2009's The House of the Devil, a movie I found pretty decent as well. He obviously has some talent and I look forward to seeing what he can do in the future. The Innkeepers is not going to be seen as a classic, or anything close to it. The ending is a bit of a letdown but for an hour and thirty minutes it had me hooked fully. It's not going to be for everyone, but I give it a very strong recommend.

Movie Review - "The Avengers" (2012) ****

     As I stated in my previous review, the one for Thor, I'm not the biggest comic book movie fan but as long as the acting and story are entertaining, I can go along for the ride. Well, I came along for The Avengers ride...and I had one helluva good time!! I'm not willing to put it above the Michael Keaton Batman films or The Dark Knight, but it's pretty close. The Avengers mixes great action, surprisingly good acting across the board, and a strong script that mixes in a lot of comedy, to form an ideal example of what a summer movie should be. It's one thing to be loud and special effects heavy, but if you don't care about the characters involved what good is the story and why is it worth watching? I'm looking at you Transformers. I feel too often during recent years that is what the summer movie season has turned into. And perhaps it will continue, I sort of dread thinking about what Battleship may be like, opening in just a couple of weeks. But for 2012, at least we are off to a strong start thanks to Joss Whedon, director and writer of The Avengers. Hopefully the trend will continue, I miss going to the movies in the summer.

     I don't know that a typical plot summary is a good idea this time around. First off, just as I stated in my Thor review, I personally don't understand a lot of the things I saw on screen. If I did, this would probably flirt with a 5-star rating. I don't completely understand things like the Tesseract, or the S.H.I.E.L.D. agency. I'm not knowledgeable of the background of most of these characters and there is dialogue in the movie that went straight over my head. But really all of that is of secondary importance. What's important is that Loki (Tom Hiddleston), the villain from Thor, has returned this time around with the help of an alien race called the Chitauri, and he plans to take over Earth in exchange for the Tesseract. Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson), director of SHIELD, recognizes the global threat occuring and initiates the Avenger initiative, a uniting of several of the worlds top heroes. Iron Man/Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.), Capt. America/Steve Rogers (Chris Evans), Thor (Chris Hemsworth), Hulk/Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo) and Black Widow/Natasha Romanoff (Scarlett Johannson) are eventually joined by Hawkeye/Clint Barton (Jeremy Renner) to take on Loki and his minions and save the Earth from destruction. The group does not know how to function as a team in the early going and find themselves fighting with each other more often than the enemy, which is part of Loki's plan. But when Loki takes out a SHIELD agent who was close to the team, it unites the Avengers into a formidable fighting unit, leading to an ultimate showdown with Loki and the Chitauri.

     I believe the thing that shocked me the most about this movie is how each character is really given time to develop on screen. I give Joss Whedon a ton of credit for this because it would be very easy to focus on 2 or 3 of the Avengers and have the others, especially Hawkeye and Black Widow who have not received their own films (yet), pushed off to the side in secondary roles. But that's not the case here. While Downey's Iron Man seems to get maybe a hair more screen time than the others, it's not noticeable. I did not like the original Iron Man film, I thought it was not good at all. But I absolutely loved Downey here in the role and it makes me wonder if I need to go back and revisit that movie, especialy since I have the whole picture now. Downey is a whiz at the one-liners and he spouts them out non-stop here but it never gets old. You can definitely see Whedon's influence in the comedy. Downey shines but all of the other actors, especially the main roles, more than hold their own. I think I personally fell in love with Scarlett Johannson as Black Widow. I had to make myself close my mouth because I was drooling all over my popcorn. (You Scarlett, are beautiful!!) I'm a huge Jeremy Renner fan and once again he is strong here as Hawkeye, spending half the movie on the dark side before teaming up with his rightful group. Mark Ruffalo as The Hulk/Bruce Banner is casting genius. I can go on and on, but I like to keep these reviews to a certain length. In closing, The Avengers is a fantastic film, worthy of the money and success it has already obtained. I may not understand everything I saw, but it was sure fun experiencing it.

Movie Review - "Thor" (2011) ***1/2

     I've stated more than once before in the blog, I'm a nerd and proud of it...but I've never been into comics and the movies they have inspired too much. I know enough general knowledge about some of this stuff to hold my own in a conversation, but it's generally not my thing. Batman seems to be exception as I really enjoyed several of those films. But I found the Spider-Man movies to be relatively boring, I didn't care for Iron Man, and my recent review for Captain America was simply average. I haven't even bothered with most of the X-Men or Fantastic Four films. All that being said, for some strange reason I was intrigued about the new Avengers movie coming out and once it destroyed opening weekend box-office records, with a big thumbs up from the critic masses, I knew it was going to be a movie I needed to see. And I did, but more on that in a later review. Before seeing The Avengers, I had been told that you really needed to see Thor, a movie that I intended to pass on but decided to give a shot to before heading out to see The Avengers. I'm glad I did. Of the precursor Avenger movies to date that I have seen, Thor is the one I enjoyed the most.

     The film stars Chris Hemsworth in the title role of Thor, a powerful yet arrogant warrior whos recklessness reignites a war between his homeworld of Asgard and the evil Frost Giants of Jotunheim. Thor, with the help of his mighty hammer, succeeds in this initial skirmish but back on Asgard, his actions have infuriated his father, Odin (Anthony Hopkins). Odin banishes Thor to the planet Earth where he is to live among the humans as punishment. As he crashes to Earth, Thor is hit by an RV that is home to three scientists; astrophysicist Jane Foster (the lovely Natalie Portman), Dr. Erik Selvig (Stellan Skarsgard) and Jane's friend, Darcy Lewis (Kat Dennings). This leads to a series of amusing moments between the god Thor, who doesn't understand what is going on around him and his human companions who are constantly hitting him with their RV or tasering him when they do not know if he is dangerous or not. I have to admit, while some of this is eye-rolling slapstick, I found it quite amusing. I definitely chuckled a few times seeing this fish-out-of-water tale. Thor's hammer has landed a short distance away in the desert and is immediately quarantined by the secretive S.H.I.E.L.D. organization. Thor learns of this and sets off to reclaim his hammer, only to find he no longer possesses the strength to wield it. Back on Asgard, a new, sinister villain is rising to power...Thor's own brother, Loki (Tom Hiddleston). Loki dispatches an evil force to Earth to destroy Thor and any humans that get in the way. It's up to Thor to learn what it means to be a true hero in order to regain his strength and protect Earth.

     I'm not even going to pretend that I understand some of the storylines involved in this film, and it's for that reason that while I enjoyed the film, I'm not able to give it a higher score. It's made for individuals who know a bit of the backstory and who have read the comics. I am not one of those people. That is the primary reason I dislike many of these superhero films, I just don't understand them. And if I don't know what's going on, the acting and story must be good enough to draw me in for a length of time. A majority of these movies have failed with that in the past. With Thor though, I was able to follow along for the most part and I enjoyed myself. I don't think there is any one thing that I thought was outstanding, but all of the performances are at least watchable and I liked the story that was presented to me. The movie was directed by acclaimed British actor Kenneth Branagh, who I didn't even know had directing credits to his name, but he's done several films actually, none of which I have seen. Hemsworth has become a bit of a hot property as an actor in recent years, especially among the fanboy community. He landed the role of Capt. Kirk in the Star Trek reboot, has become a vital role in the Marvel universe, and was recently seen in the horror film The Cabin in the Woods. I'm sure there are other actors who could have pulled Thor off, but I think he was a fine choice. Portman seems out of place to me in this movie, but she's so darn beautiful, so she is always welcome to be around!! I really enjoyed Thor and being that I saw it mere hours before heading out to see The Avengers, I think it makes for a good double-feature. Did it add to my enjoyment of that film? We'll find out shortly.

Movie Review - "Into the Abyss" (2011) ****

     I view movies as a nice way to escape reality for a couple of hours. We can put ourselves in a fantasy setting and forget our worries on the outside world, if only for a brief time. I would guess this is also the case with the majority of the movie-going public. It's for this reason that I think documentaries get a bad rap from the general public and are often avoided like the plague unless they are made by someone who is in the public conscience, like Michael Moore. Documentaries make us think and perhaps even question things that we believe in, or thought we believed in. I fully admit that I avoided documentaries for many years, I associated them with the word boredom. Why did I do that? No reason. I heard other people with that opinion and just assumed they were right. But I eventually came around and started giving some of them a shot and because of that, I have found that I generally enjoy documentaries a lot. I still don't seek out as many as I probably should, but I try and sneak one in there every month or so, just to mix things up a bit from the basic rabble that is floating around out there. I encourage you to do the same if you find yourself in the boat that I mentioned above. Into the Abyss, the latest film from acclaimed filmmaker Werner Herzog, is the most recent in a string of excellent documentaries that I have seen recently (The Interrupters, Waiting for Superman, The Cove).

     With Into the Abyss, Herzog tells the story of a horrific triple-homicide that occurred in Conroe, Texas in October of 2001. Two young men, Michael Perry and Jason Burkett, brutally murdered 50-year old nurse Sandra Stotler in her home as she baked cookies. Why? She owned a nice red corvette that the boys wanted to take joyriding. Later, Stotler's teenage son, Adam, and his friend Jeremy Richardson, were also murdered by Perry and Burkett when they arrived to the neighborhood. Perry received a death sentence for his role in the crimes while Burkett received a life sentence, a fact that is touched upon in the movie as one of the questions surrounding the legal system. There are numerous interviews with detectives and police who worked on the case, including actual crime scene video, as well as interviews with family members of the victims and the accused. Herzog's biggest coup though is to get interviews with both Perry and Burkett, with Perry's interview coming just 8 days before he is to be executed by lethal injection. Both accused blame the other for the crime but their side of the story is never given. From everything we have seen, the guilt of the two men is not in question, but they each blame the other without denying involvement. We also get an interview in prison with Burkett's father who is serving a life sentence himself. It is during this interview where we learn why Burkett was not given the death penalty along with Perry, and how something so small can sway a jury one way or the other. For me, it was clear that Herzog was making an anti-capitol punishment film here, but he doesn't beat you over the head with it. He subtly states his case, most obviously in the interview segments with former Captain Fred Allen, who led the Huntsville Prison death row for many years, overseeing over 100 executions. He states very matter-of-factly what happens during an execution and how seemless of a procedure it really is. But Allen was eventually overcome with emotion following one execution and quit his job, forfeiting his pension. It's in Allen's testimony that we see that sentencing someone to death not only affects the accused, but everyone around them.

     Into the Abyss is a wonderful film but as with many documentaries, a lot of what you may think of it depends on where you stand on the subject being raised. One thing I try to do with statement movies like this is to separate myself from my beliefs and make sure my mind remains open at all times. I am not going to state where I stand on the death penalty, I have my thoughts on it, but it's irrelevant to this review. How is the story told, that's the only thing I cared about, and no matter what I feel about the subject I feel Herzog did a great job of telling the story and keeping me interested in it. I cared about the people in this movie, for the most part at least. The film has received generally positive reviews but the negative reactions toward it seem to suggest this is a longer version of a Dateline or A Current Affair episode. I respect those opinions but disagree with them. There is way more depth here I feel. The crime scene stuff itself is played out pretty basic, but the reactions being captured of the those affected is top notch stuff. I give Into the Abyss a high recommendation. If you continue to shy away from documentaries, I understand your concerns, but encourage you to expand a little bit and give some of these a try.

Movie Review - "The Debt" (2011) **1/2

     I was not familiar with The Debt at all until a couple of months ago when I was skimming through the new releases on Netflix and ran across it. It sounded like an espionage thriller and I'm usually game for something like that, so I threw it in my queue and forgot about it for a while. I had pretty well forgotten about it again when it finally showed up in my mail box recently. I decided not to do any advance reading on it and just went in blind, it's fun to do that every so often. The result was less than stunning, but man, there is a GREAT movie lurking under the surface here. There is a lot to like and I did enjoy a large portion of this movie but ultimately it falls just a bit short of being really good. As can often happen with films in this genre, they can get buried in their own story sometime and become a bit too complicated. I felt a little of that here. There are two storylines and one is way more fascinating than the other. Unfortunately, the storyline that didn't work as much brought the whole thing down with it in my opinion.

     The movie starts in 1997, current time according to the story, and three retired Mossad secret agents are being celebrated with a new book detailing their 1966 mission where they infiltrated East Berlin and captured Nazi war criminal Vogel. The three agents, Rachel Singer (Helen Mirren), Stephan Gold (Tom Wilkinson), and David Peretz (Ciaran Hands) were celebrated in their country for the accomplishment but we quickly learn in present day that something is awry when David commits suicide. Rachel and Stephan know why, but we as the audience are not let in on that reasoning right away. The movie then takes us back to 1966 for a failry straightforward telling of what happened on that mission...and how not everything may have happened as people would believe. Secrets, and allegiances, will be put to the ultimate test. The suspense builds across both timelines leading to surprising revelations.

     When this film is taking place in 1966, it really works. I think that story alone would have been worth a feature length movie. Watching the middle portion of this film, I was reminded of the great Spielberg film Munich, a film that I had in my top 100 list. Some of the tension is on the same level of that classic, it has a Hitchcockian feel to it. The good news is, this takes up a good portion of the movie. The bad news is that it doesn't take up the whole thing. In present time, I just simply didn't care as much. It's not the fault of the actors. Mirren, Wilkinson and Hands are all well-respected in their field and are great here. But I feel they are overshadowed by their younger 1966 counterparts played by Jessica Chastain, Sam Worthington and Marton Csokas, all of whom deserve kudos for their work here. The movie is directed by John Madden, who I learned directed Shakespeare in Love, a movie that I despised and have a personal disgust for because I feel it robbed Saving Private Ryan of a Best Picture Oscar. I'll never forgive that!! But Madden does a much better job here, working with a script that has three screenwriters, and therein may lie the problem. There may be one too many hands in the cookie jar and it didn't help things out. I'm not sure, but the end result was a little disappointing. Focus on the 1960's stuff and you will be fine. I give it a very slight recommend.

Movie Review - "Our Idiot Brother" (2011) **

     Paul Rudd is one of those weird actors for me. I'm going to guess I've seen in him in maybe 6 or 7 films and I can remember liking his characters for the most part but I don't think I have ever given any film he is in over 3 stars or so. Rudd has a charm about him that is endearing, it seems like he'd be a good buddy to hang out with, but for whatever reason, his movies just seem to fall a little short for me and Our Idiot Brother is no exception. In fact, it might be the poster child for what I'm talking about. I like Paul Rudd's character in this movie...the movie as a whole fell flat though. I'm not sure why that is and if I thought long enough about it I'm sure I could come up with other actors who fit this same criteria, but it really stood out for me while watching this.

     Rudd plays Ned Rochlin, a constantly upbeat organic farmer who is very likable but just seems to invite trouble with whatever he does. He means so well, and we feel like he has never hurt a soul in his life, but he is prone to doing or saying things which land him in hot water. As the movie opens, he has good intentions but ends up in jail when he sells a bag of marijuana to a uniformed cop. By reading that you may think he is a loser, a drug head, but once you see the scene you feel sorry for him, he just has that way about him. Upon his release from jail, he heads home only to find out that his girlfriend is now shacking up with another man and refuses to let Ned keep his dog, named Willie Nelson, in one of the best running jokes of the movie. The majority of the film sees Ned travel first to his mothers house and ultimately to the residences of each of his three sisters, played by Emily Mortimer, Elizabeth Banks, and the oh so beautiful Zooey Deschanel. Each sister has their own unique relationship issue and as Ned moves in with each one he ends up causing unwanted stress and conflict, usually due to his naivete. This obviously drives them crazy but as things play out, the sisters slowly learn to realize that maybe their brother isn't such the idiot he is made out to be.

     I've given Our Idiot Brother a fairly low score, but it does have a charm about it that I think will appeal to a lot of people, especially ladies. Ned is easy to root for and Rudd does a great job with the character. For me, the movie just seemed to drag way too much for my taste, in the middle third of the film especially. While all the actresses playing the sisters do a fine job, none of them really stood out and took a firm grasp of the role and made it their own. I felt as if I could thrown any of several dozen actresses in those roles and gotten equal, or better, performances. I will not remember who was playing those roles a year from now unless I look it up. The film is directed by Jesse Peretz, a name I had never heard of before, and looking at his IMDB profile seems to be a relative newcomer. He has potential, you can see it. If the movie has appealed to you prior to this and you think it's something you would like, go ahead and give it a shot. If it seems like a movie you wouldn't like, you are probably going to be right. Ultimately I can't give it a recommend.

Movie Review - "30 Minutes or Less" *

     One of my favorite movies of the past decade is The Social Network, David Fincher's brilliant film about the founding of Facebook. One of the reasons for this is my appreciation for Jesse Eisenberg's performance as Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg. Everything about his performance worked for me, it was darn near perfect. I also enjoyed Eisenberg in the 2009 cult hit Zombieland, a movie that was way better than it had any right to be. That film was directed by Ruben Fleischer, a little-known director who managed to develop a cult classic with his first major project. When I saw the previews for 30 Minutes or Less, it didn't appear to be something I would enjoy, but since Fleischer and Eisenberg were both associated with the film I decided to go ahead and give it a chance and see if I would find another surprise, just like Zombieland. I was surprised alright...by just how terrible the movie is.

     I'm not going to spend much time on a plot summary, but basically Eisenberg stars as Nick, a pizza delievery driver who lives a mundane life. His life takes a turn for the bizarre when he is kidnapped by Dwayne and Travis (Danny McBride and Nick Swardson), two not-so-bright individuals who need to come across $100,000 quickly. They strap a bomb vest to Nick and tell him he needs to rob a bank within 10 hours or the bomb will explode. Nick freaks out and turns to his best friend Chet (Aziz Ansari) to help him rob the bank. Obviously, things do not go as planned as none of the principals involved are criminal masterminds in the slightest. Various hijinks ensue. That's really all you need to know, it's mindless.

     I'm giving 30 Minutes or Less one star but that is being VERY generous. I like to save my no star reviews for special trash, such as Tree of  Life, movies that "think" they are great but are just the opposite.I never laughed out loud once and slightly chuckled maybe once or twice tops. I think you can tell a lot about a movie if the funniest scene occurs after the credits have finished rolling, which is the case here. Unfortunately, by then it was too little too late. I also have one big beef with this movie, and it's something I rarely complain about, and that's the language. First off, I am not offended by foul language. I have seen tons of films with language even harsher than what is here, there is a big difference though. Here it is so obvious that the writer has no idea what he is doing and can't come up with a coherent script, so let's throw in an F-bomb every other word because that's the "cool" thing to do. The lack of thought that went into writing this is appalling. I'm not sure what worries me the most, the fact that the writer has such a limited vocbaulary, or the fact that there is a large portion of the population that will find this script hilarious and entertaining. Look, I'm not mad at you if you like this, we all have different tastes, but if this is one of the better films you have seen in a while, you need to expand your movie tastes just a bit. As for Eisenberg, I'll chalk this up as a mistake. Get back to the good stuff, you have so much talent to waste it on this.

Movie Review - "The Cabin in the Woods" (2012) ***1/2

     I came up with a theory in the late 90's that the next big, game-changing horror film will be released in the year 2014. What is my reasoning behind that thinking? Well, in my opinion, the three horror films in history that redefined the genre at the time they were released were Psycho in 1960, Halloween in 1978, and Scream in 1996. Those three at the time of their releases changed the horror landscape and became the most copied films of the genre during their respective timeframes. If you look at the years, they all fell 18 years apart from each other, hence my theory that 2014 will be the next genre changer. Okay, I realize that theory may be a little corny, but hey, it's at least interesting to consider. I bring it up for the simple reason that I thought maybe that theory would be bested by two years. I had heard a lot of positive things about Cabin in the Woods but I was surprised to be hearing such things as "this will change the way you look at horror films" or "you have NEVER seen anything like this film before". I was hearing about these amazing plot twists and for that reason "you should not read or listen to anything about this movie before seeing it". Then when reviews started rolling in and it was hovering at around 93% on RottenTomatoes, I thought maybe this was finally going to be it. The next big thing was here, just two years early. Well, what I saw is indeed very different and the ambition that went into the project is to be respected....but ultimately I was a touch let down.

     There is one piece of information out there about this movie that is completely correct. The less you know about it prior to seeing it, the better off you will be. The whole premise of the movie from the start is basically a plot twist. For that reason, a plot summary is really not a good idea. Here is what I can give you. The movie starts with what we think is a simple premise. Five young kids, that seem to be your typical slasher-film stereotype victims, are heading for a remote cabin in the woods to have a weekend full of partying, complete with drugs, beer and sex. Naturally they run into a shady gas station attendant who warns them of the dangers of going to the cabin (Doesn't that guy show up in all horror movies!), but they go ahead anyways. There's a weird thing though at the start of this movie, we are also introduced to two gentlemen (Richard Jenkins, Bradley Whitford) who work in some sort of government building that appears to be underground. At first we have no idea how these two people are related to the story, but of course they are related somehow.......That's it. That's all I can give you. Basically this is about the first 10 minutes of the movie. Everything after that, you are on your own to discover.

     I love the ambition behind this movie. It is directed by Drew Goddard and written by Goddard and good buddy Joss Whedon. These two have a cult following, mostly from their tv hits such as "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" and "Angel". Cabin in the Woods seems to play like their love letter to the horror genre as many different tributes can be found throughout the film (you will see what I mean if you watch it). While I love the ambition and the effort put into the movie, ultimately I was a little let down by the ending. This movie is strange and will mess with your mind a little bit but when things start to go haywire (you will see what I mean) horror fans will definitely have a smirk on their face. I just wish it could have been done a little better. I don't even really know specifically what it is that bothers me about it, perhaps I just went in with expectations too high. That's possible. All that being said though, I do recommend this movie for the horror/sci-fi junkie out there. I just don't think it was the game-changer that I was expecting. Maybe in two more years.

Movie Review - "Dolphin Tale" (2011) ***

     I can remember growing up in the 80's and every Sunday night the whole family would gather around the tv to watch the Sunday Night Disney Movie. It was one of the few times that we would all watch the television together. In later years, shows like "E.R." and "Home Improvement" would also become regular family viewing, but they didn't have the memories that the Sunday night movie established. I can still see my mom and dad sitting in their respective recliners, with my sister and I on the floor in our beanbags. Everyone with a bowl of popcorn of course. The reason I bring this up is because some of those memories came back to me while watching Dolphin Tale. It's the perfect example of the type of movie that you would see on those Sunday family movie nights. Usually they are nothing extraordinary but are simply a good watch and appropriate for all ages. There's a place for these movies, especially non-animated ones, at a time when family films seem to be a bit of a dying breed.

     Dolphin Tale is inspired by a true story of a young boy named Sawyer (Nathan Gamble), who happens upon a dolphin that is injured on a Clearwater, Florida beach. The dolphins tale is caught in a crab trap and severly injured during the struggle to free itself. Sawyer cuts the trap away from the dolphin and immediately seems to form a bond with the animal. Dr. Clay Haskett (Harry Connick Jr.), a marine biologist with the Clearwater Marine Hospital arrives with his team to transport the dolphin, which they name Winter, to their facilities for treatment. Sawyer is concerned about Winter and tries to sneak into the facility the next day. He is aided by Clay's young daughter Hazel (Cozi Zuehlsdorff) who understands Sawyer's concern. Clay eventually finds out about Sawyer sneaking around but allows him to stay when Winter shows an attachment to the young kid. Sawyer starts working with the team on a daily basis but Winter starts to take a downturn due to her damaged tail which must be removed. In order to save the animals life, the group comes up with an idea that has never been attempted before; a prosthetic tail. Prosthetics expert Dr. Cameron McCarthy (Morgan Freeman) is the last hope for Winter, but when the dolphin does not respond well to initital treatments, Cameron, Clay and Sawyer wonder if Winter will be able to overcome tragedy against great odds.

     Dolphin Tale as stated earlier, is a perfect family movie for everyone to enjoy. The story is not without flaws as everything is fairly predictable but not all films need to be The Usual Suspects. What makes this stand out from other movies that tend to be "by-the-book" is the surprising cast that was used for this film. Morgan Freeman always bring legitimacy to any project and Ashley Judd has a nice little turn as Sawyer's mom. I have always been a fan of Harry Connick Jr.'s, he just has a likability about him that is refreshing to see. I feel he is underrated as an actor and I will never forget his bone-chilling turn as a serial killer in the highly underrated film Copycat, with Sigourney Weaver and Holly Hunter. Young Nathan Gamble also turns in a fine performance as Sawyer, a socially awkward kid who seems to find true enjoyment in life for the first time when he starts working with Winter. If you're looking for a nice movie to catch with the kiddos one night, you can do a lot worse than this. Give it a try, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

Movie Review - "Martha Marcy May Marlene" (2011) ***1/2

     Well, if you are looking for a nice, pleasant, feel-good movie for a warm afternoon...this is not it. If you are looking for something deep, dark, and makes you feel like you need a shower afterwards...by all means jump in. That's not to say that Martha Marcy May Marlene is a bad film, it's not, but wow is this a dreary picture. I had not heard anything about this film until this past Oscar season when I heard mentions here and there of it being a possible dark-horse candidate for some nominations, including Best Picture and Best Actress. It was highly regarded by a couple of critics that I admire so while it never came to theaters in my area, I made a mental note to add it to my Netflix queue and catch it later. I had high expectations coming in and while there are things about the movie that I really enjoy, I came away for the most part feeling a little let down.

     Elizabeth Olsen, sister of famed twins Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen, stars as Martha, a troubled young lady who has spent the past two years living with a cult under the name of Marcy May. As the film opens, Martha has run away from the cult and turns to her estranged older sister Lucy (Sarah Paulson), and Lucy's husband Ted (Hugh Dancy), for assistance. Martha is obviously troubled and does not choose to tell Lucy and Ted about her past two years, though it is obvious she has experienced something traumatic. The movie plays as a series of flashbacks of Martha's time with the cult and the abuses she experienced there at the hands of cult leader Patrick (John Hawkes), interspersed with present time and Martha trying to adjust to a new life where actions she once experienced as acceptable are now frowned upon. For instance, Martha wants to swim in Lucy's lake and strips down all of her clothes and jumps in naked. This was normal behavior in the cult, so Martha is confused when Lucy and Ted get upset with her and tell her she can't do that in public. She has been brainwashed to the point she doesn't understand right from wrong in many instances. These episodes cause a lot of frustration for Lucy and Ted and it threatens to put a strain on their relationship. When Martha becomes convinced that cult members have found her hiding place and are coming for her, the line between reality and delusion are unclear and we worry that too much permanent damage may have already been done to save Martha.

     This is one of those films that I believe I would have liked a little better if a few things had been done differently. I had some issues with the flashbacks in this movie and more than once I was confused which timeline I was in for a minute or two. I can usually follow along pretty well when movies use this storytelling technique, but here it felt a little TOO choppy in parts. There wasn't always a clear break where we would switch over and I started getting frustrated a bit with this. Also, without giving any spoilers, I will say that this movie has an open ending. It ends abruptly during a scene we are very interested to see what happens in, and we do not get an outcome. This seems to be happening more and more in films, and I'm always torn on it. There are times when it really works, so I understand why it's done, but there are times also where I feel it's lazy and the filmmakers didn't want to commit to something. I sort of felt that way about this movie. I wanted a closure to this story and I didn't get it, I feel it was a bad use of the ambiguous ending. My final complaint is that story is a bit too slow with it's pacing. This is not an action-packed adventure by any means, it's not intended to be, but man this thing drags at times. They save it by keeping the running time at a manageable hour and forty-five minutes.

     All those things being said, I do ultimately recommend this movie. The acting is all adequate to very good with Elizabeth Olsen and John Hawkes really shining in their roles. Olsen may not be as well-known as her younger sisters but that will change in due time. She is very pretty and has a presence on screen that you are immediately drawn to. She reminds me of Jennifer Lawrence a bit in that sense, they exude a quiet confidence about them. She will definitely be an actress to watch in the coming years. Hawkes is also very convincing as the cult leader Patrick. It's easy to see how he gets his followers to love him and ultimately obey his every word with his words and actions. Hawkes never goes overboard into Charles Manson territory, we get the feeling he is always in control, and Hawkes nails that. Sean Durkin is at the helm of the movie and he is a first-time writer and director. He has some kinks to work out but for a first feature, it's a job well done. There are some frustrating things to deal with while watching, but Martha Marcy May Marlene comes as a recommend. It's not going to be for everyone though.

Note: Just to explaing the title/name. Martha is here given name. Marcy May is the name the cult gives her. Marlene is the name that all female cult members use when answering the phone. So there you go.

Movie Review - "Titanic 3-D" (2012) ****1/2

     In 1997, a little movie came out about a boy, a girl and a boat. It was a dream project of a filmmaker who spared no expense to bring his vision to the big screen. After receiving mostly positive reviews from critics, it went on to make over $600 million at the box office, an astounding number that overtook longtime box office champion Star Wars. It would hang on to the top spot for the next 12 years until a movie called Avatar, by the same filmmaker, would finally sink it (pun fully intended). I'm of course talking about Titanic, director James Cameron's epic tale of the fateful ship that sank on the night of April 14th, killing over 1,500 people who were not able to make it on lifeboats. Cameron was long a fan of the Titanic story and used his skills as a deep-sea explorer to visit the actual ruins of the ship. These quests inspired him to make the film and provided some legitimacy to the early shots in the film. To celebrate the 15th anniversary of the film and the 100th anniversary of the actual disaster, Cameron has re-released the movie in 3-D format, a process he perfected in Avatar.

      A plot summary for Titanic seems like a moot point. Just about everybody has seen this film and has already formed their own opinions on it. If you haven't seen the film yet, well then....REALLY? It's time to come out from under the rock. Titanic while being critically acclaimed, and rightfully so, does have a healthy and very vocal group of haters. Mostly men who cannot fathom why there is such an awful romance story mixed in with a disaster tale. Personally, I think these people just want to be part of the "cool crowd"!! Everyone is obviously entitled to their opinion on every movie, but I simply don't get the hate this one receives. I think Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet bring a legitimacy to their scenes that would have been lost with lesser actors. After hearing that Matthew McConaughey was considered for this role, I cringed a bit. Yes, the initial scenes on the ship can be a bit silly or sappy but when this movie kicks in, it's one of the best. I think it's easy to forget that this disaster really happened and when you put it in that perspective while watching the massive loss of life, it's hard not be pulled in emotionally. There are people that actually went through this, just stop and think about that for a minute.

     The 3-D post-conversion of this film is easily the best I have seen. I was not blown away with the Star Wars: The Phantom Menace in 3-D, and went in expecting more of the same. While the 3-D in Titanic didn't necessarily "add" anything to the film, there are at least lots of time when it's very noticeable and does add tremendous depth to the picture. I especially noticed it early on in the film. During the second half I didn't notice it as much, but by then I could have just been enjoying the movie and not paying attention to it specifically. Either way, I was definitely impressed with the conversion but don't know that I would necessarily recommend people go out and see it just for that. If you enjoyed the movie anyways, by all means go see it. Who knows when you will get another opportunity to see that film on the big screen again, the way it was meant to be seen.

Movie Review - "The Adventures of Tintin" (2011) **1/2

     The Adventures of Tintin is not a movie that I had originally planned on seeing. I had seen the previews and was not overwhelmed and while the reviews were generally positive the couple of people that I knew who saw it in theaters were less than impressed. So it disappeared from my radar for a time. Then during a phone conversation with a movie buddy of mine, he was raving about the film which he had just watched, even somewhat implying that this was one of the better movies he had seen in years. Comparable to Raiders of the Lost Ark I was even told. Well, it is directed by the great Steven Spielberg, so there could be some truth to that. So not only did I add Tintin to my Netflix queue but I also bumped it up to the top of my long list of movies that I'm waiting to see. I had gone from zero expectations to heightened expectation in one phone call. As with most things it seems, the truth lies somewhat in the middle.

     Tintin is a motion captured computer-animated adventure film directed by Steven Spielberg and produced by Lord of the Rings director Peter Jackson. It is based on a series of comic books from Belgian artist Herge' that was around during the 1940's. The comics have been around since 1929 actually, but the movie is based on three specific comics from the 40's. Jamie Bell stars as Tintin, a young journalist with a knack for solving crimes along with his faithful sidekick, his dog Snowy. At an outdoor European market, Tintin buys a model of the famous ship the "Unicorn" but is immediately approached by two mysterious individuals who want to buy it from him, one of them is the sinister Sakharine (Daniel Craig). Tintin refuses the offers and takes the ships home where a fight between Snowy and a cat knocks the ship off a counter, breaking one of the masts which contains a scroll. Tintin doesn't notice the scroll originally but is later led to it by Snowy. The discovery of the scroll will end up leading Tintin on an adventure that is worthy of Indiana Jones and will find him kidnapped aboard a ship, stranded in a desert and zipping through the streets of Morocco in search of lost treasure. He is joined along the way by drunken sea captain Haddock (Andy Serkis) who attempts to help Tintin solve the mystery of the "Unicorn".

     The Adventures of Tintin fits perfectly what I call a "moment" movie. There are moments in this film that are really well made and I was invested in the story. Unfortunately, the scenes that bridge the gap from moment to moment are a bit lackluster, even boring at times. The initial 20-30 minutes of the movie are the best, in my opinion, and I almost wish the movie had stayed in that locale and explored a story there. But it gets to jumping around too much and I think it tries to be too much at one time. It's hard to imagine saying this, but I would have liked to have seen it scaled back just a touch. One of the biggest issues I had is that I simply didn't care about the characters. Perhaps that had something to do with the motion capture animation and something was missing on an emotional level, but I thought they were pretty flat. Only Capt. Haddock seemed to have mutliple levels of personality in my opinion. All that being said, I can definitely see where people may like this movie more than I did. It was released in 3-D in theaters and I wonder if this is a film that may have benefited from seeing it in that format, it's possible. While I don't think Tintin is anywhere  near as good as Raiders of the Lost Ark, I definitely feel it is much better than Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, so it has that going for it. It's a fine little movie, just don't go in with too high expectations.

Movie Review - "The Interrupters" (2011) ****

"It may sound absurd, but don't be naive
 Even heroes have the right to bleed.
 I may be disturbed, but won't you concede
 Even heroes have the right to dream.
 It's not easy to be me."

     Those lyrics are from a song called "Superman" by Five For Fighting, and it's personally one of my favorite songs. That song popped in my head as I was watching The Interrupters, the most recent documentary from acclaimed documentarian Steve James, who made the brilliant 1994 film Hoop Dreams. Hoop Dreams followed two young basketball players through their high school and college careers as they both dreamed of making it to the NBA one day and showed just how fragile those dreams can be. To this day, it remains the best documentary I have ever seen, and James latest effort is not far behind.

     The Interrupters follows three individuals who work for an organization called CeaseFire, a Chicago-based anti-violence program which sends workers, Interrupters, to areas where gang violence is simmering to try and stop conflicts before they arise. Ameena Matthews, Eddie Bocanegra and Cobe Williams are all former criminals who dealt drugs, committed crimes and even were involved in deaths of other individuals. They have turned their lives around and now work as Interrupters trying to quell the very violence they once engaged in. They are ideal to work the streets because they know what it is like to live in the shoes of these offenders. They are often placed in very dangerous situations and could get caught up in altercations easily, but they do their job anyway hoping to save lives one person at a time. It takes a special kind of person to do a job like this and they have the patience of saints. It's a job I know that I could not do and I doubt many others could either. These individuals are true "heroes" and if this film serves no other purpose, it makes people aware that there are folks out there who truly care about problems on the streets. We follow them over the course of a year during one of the most violent times in Chicago's history. It's safe to say, you will respect this organization when you are finished.

     I really enjoyed this film but I do knock it a bit for being just a tad too long. It clocks in at a touch over 2 hours and I think it could have benefited with about a 15 minute cut. There's a lot of great scenes but there are a few moments where it drags, but don't let that dissuade you from giving it a shot. Also, being that this movie is a documentary, and very real, the language can be pretty harsh which will turn some people off. Unfortunately, this is a realistic slice of this life so that's to be expected. If you can look past these complaints, I think you will find a film here that will have you thinking long after the credits have rolled. I know documentaries don't tend to make for great Saturday evening entertainment but there are lots of great ones out there, and this is one of the better ones.

Movie Review - "The Hunger Games" (2012) ****

     If you're looking for the hot, new thing going these days, look no further than The Hunger Games. You probably can't turn on a tv, walk in a store, or be anywhere near a teenager without hearing or seeing something about The Hunger Games.  Usually these fads are not worth the attention they are getting but I feel this one is an exception. I have to admit...I have bought into the hysteria. I first became familiar with this franchise about a year or so ago when I heard a few people here and there talking about the books and how good they were. I didn't even know what they were about at the time, but it stuck in the back of my head and later on I started reading articles in Entertainment Weekly magazine about a movie version coming out. It was here that I learned what the story was and I became intrigued. In preparation for the movie being released, I decided to pick up the first book and give it a shot. I was hooked into the story early on by the time I reached the second half of the book, I couldn't put it down. The books are a trilogy of stories by author Suzanne Collins, and I proceeded to polish off the second book, "Catching Fire", and am currently working on the final book, "Mockingjay". After seeing the film, I believe they were pretty faithful to the book and I highly anticipate the next entries into the series.

     For those not in the know, The Hunger Games tells the story of a North America that is not as we know it today. The nation of Panem is led by a Capitol that rules 12 unique districts. As a form of punishment to the districts, resulting from a failed uprising by a 13th district that once existed, the Capitol forces each district to offer up one female and one male, between the ages of 12 and 19, who are forced into an arena where they must fight to the death until only one tribute remains. This child is declared winner of the Hunger Games and is treated to a lifetime of royalty and riches for their family. When young, 12-year old Primrose Everdeen is selected as the female contestant from District 12, her older sister Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) fears for her sister and volunteers to take her place in the arena. She is joined by Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson), the male tribute who has had a past encounter with Katniss. The two are escorted to the Capitol by Effie Trinket (Elizabeth Banks) and their mentor, Haymitch (Woody Harrelson), who is the only previous winner from the 12th district.

     Haymitch is an alcoholic who does not accept his role as mentor initially, but he sees talent in Katniss and Peeta and feels for the first time in many years that they can produce a winner of the games. Since the games are a nationally televised extravaganza, the contestants are dressed up and primped for numerous television appearances before they take part in the games. Cinna (Lenny Kravitz) is the stylist who is assigned to Katniss and the two form a friendship right away as Cinna shows that he truly cares for her. His creations for Katniss are crowd-pleasers and soon she is a fan favorite, known as The Girl on Fire. During the buildup to the games, Katniss and Peeta become attracted somewhat and they realize that a blossoming relationship could earn them favors in the games. Katniss is torn by this as back home there is a young man named Gale (Liam Hemsworth) who is her closest friend, that she obviously has feelings for. Katniss and Peeta are eventually thrown into the bloody massacre of the games and they must make decisions that will test their relationship, survival insticts and their humanity in a inhumane situation.

     I really enjoyed The Hunger Games, but as is almost the case in any situation like this, the book is obviously deeper and a bit better. Books have the time to develop characters fully and get inside their heads, and that's difficult to do in the time constraints of a film. However, if you never decide to read the books, I think you will still enjoy the movie. Jennifer Lawrence is wonderful as our heroine. In 2010, I thought she gave the best performance of the year in the little-seen Best Picture nominee, Winter's Bone. I see a lot of that same character in Katniss, making this an excellent casting choice. The supporting roles are all effective as well, especially the decision to cast Woody Harrelson as Haymitch. I wasn't picturing someone like Harrelson while reading the novel, but after seeing this, it was a perfect choice. Stanley Tucci, Donald Sutherland and Wes Bentley are also standouts as various members of the Captiol.

     The movie is directed by Gary Ross who only has a couple of previous directing credits prior to this but they were good ones; Seabiscuit and Pleasantville. He is also a writer on the film along with the stories author, Suzanne Collins, as well as Billy Ray. As of this writing, the film has already grossed over $240 million in under 2 weeks. It has mass appeal and could flirt with the top 10 list of all-time box office returns. Either way, it has fully grasped the pop culture landscape and has made future movie installments a certainty, something that was not for sure a few weeks ago. The Hunger Games is not for everyone, especially if you are susceptible to kids-on-kids violence, although a lot of the action is toned down in the movie to obtain a PG-13 rating. For the most part though, this will be a hit with those who gives it a chance.