Seven Psychopaths

To be completely honest, I wasn't sure what to expect when I walked into this film, only hoping that it would be funny.  I'm happy to say, it was so much more than just funny.  As Christopher Walken says in the film, "I like it.  It has layers."

Seven Psychopaths is about three friends, one who is trying to write a screenplay for his next movie titled "Seven Psychopaths", and the other two who steal dogs for a living in the hopes that they can retrieve the reward money when they return the dogs back to their owners.  The three of them get in a little trouble when one of the dogs that was stolen just happens to be the dog of a known killer.  Events that go from there cannot be explained through a measly synopsis, so I encourage you all to see this film because it's kind of genius.

I really liked this film.  It is so different than anything I've ever seen before, which I don't find myself saying often.  I can't really compare it to anything.  I have to say, a lot of credit goes to Martin McDonagh who wrote and directed the film.  Colin Farrell's character, the screenplay writer, is named Marty in the film, and trust me, that irony didn't go unnoticed.

This film knew how to play with irony and how to really enjoy humour through irony, which seemed very strategic and well thought out, even though it appeared effortless.  The acting was wonderful from absolutely everyone.  I have to give special shout outs to Christopher Walken, who could probably make you crap your pants by just staring you down if he wanted to, and Sam Rockwell who played his character with such enthusiasm that you really could believe him to be a psychopath.  I didn't forget Woody Harrelson and, of course, Colin Farrell who never disappoint no matter what character they take on.

So more about the film itself.  The plot may seem all over the place, but there are a lot of subplots that tie up neatly at the end and throughout, which I enjoyed.  I also really had fun with the obvious homage that was being paid to past gun-killing psychopath films and the many villains/ heroes those films produced.  I found that Walken said it perfectly - this film really does have layers and as an audience member I had an amazing time trying to peal those layers away.  I really want to see it a second time, just to get the full effect of it.  Once didn't seem like enough.

Oh, and I liked how in the film, they basically give you a formula for how the film is going to go and why.  It's subtle, but there are hints of it everywhere.

I also want to point out that this film didn't try to just be comedic or bloody with all the killings.  It had depth in the characters as well, which a lot of directors might not have bothered with otherwise.  I appreciated this as an avid movie goer.  Somehow, you find yourself really feeling for some of the characters even among the most ludicrous things that were going on around them.  That is not an easy thing to accomplish, I'm sure.  So again, everyone who was involved in this film did an amazing job.

Okay, now my verdict.  I give this film 8.7/10 for standing out among so many films, and for making me laugh and cringe all at the same time.   (I would also point out, not all of you will care for the blood and guts that pour out in this film.  Don't say that I didn't give you fair warning)

Looper

I'm sorry, but can we please point out the sexiness of the picture above... pretty please?

Looper follows a futuristic plot where the mob has a new way to dispose of unwanted men and their dead bodies.  The mob from the future sends tied up people back in time, where an assassin shoots them dead upon arrival.  You might think that seems a little complicated, and it could be my crummy way of explaining things, but the film was actually easy to follow.  Things get a little more complicated when one of the men sent back to the past, just happens to be the older version of the assassin hired to kill him.  Does he have the strength to kill his older self?? Well, it wouldn't be much of a movie if he did.  As for the rest, I'll leave the plot for you to figure out... it's much more fun that way.  This film stars the adorable and talented Joseph Gordon-Levitt, the bad-ass killing machine Bruce Willis, the pleasantly surprising Emily Blunt, and the classic Jeff Daniels.

Okay, time to get into it.  I just have to say... OMG!!!!  Yes, I said it!  I loved this film.  It was unique and original, action packed, full of talented actors, and it had a deep meaning behind it - one that they actually took the time to spell out for you in case you happen to be that thick.  I haven't seen anything this original since Inception, and even though this film involves time travel, I ironically found it easier to follow.  For them to accomplish that, I have to tip my hat off to them.  It is not as easy as they made it look.  It took no effort on my part to fall into the story and truly escape into the plot without any reservations.

....oh, and yes... it does help when Joseph Gordon-Levitt is in it... (I still think he and Seth Rogen should have gotten an award for 50/50- just my opinion)  And for all of the Bruce Willis fans, he doesn't disappoint.  He brings the violence and action to a whole different bad-ass level, but I have to admit, it was nice seeing him in something with a little more depth to it - it has been a while.

I really don't want to give away anything more for this film, so just go and see for yourself!  It mixes sci-fie, drama, action and thriller to create this wonderful and unique box office hit.  Don't miss out!  I give this film 8.9/10. 

Lawless

Tom Hardy is one busy bee lately... Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining.

Lawless follows the lives of three brothers during the prohibition, bootlegging moonshine in Franklin County, Virginia.  Things get a little more complicated when a new deputy from Chicago comes into the picture with a ruthless and unforgiving demeanor.  Charlie Rakes is on a mission to shut their operation down quickly and without remorse.  This film stars the "less is more" Tom Hardy, the "got something to prove" Shia LaBeouf, the wise and excellent Gary Oldman, the magnificently devilish Guy Pearce, the subtle but strong Jessica Chastain, and finally, the meek and beautiful Mia Wasikowska.  Each actor individually brought their A game, and for that they get a little more attention from me than usual.

Let me start by saying that Guy Pearce was phenomenal.  I can say with complete honesty that he played one of the most disturbing villains I have ever encountered in a film.  He is so amazing at taking a character and creating something with that character that no one else could even come close to.  I know it sounds like I'm gushing... but I can't help it!

Okay, okay, I'll move on.  Apart from the incredible actors in this film, which I can't emphasize enough, the plot is pretty incredible to consider.  It's based on real life events and real life brothers.  Through all of the near death experiences, you can't help but be a little floored that real men survived all of it and they lived quite a long time after these events were over and done with.  I don't want to give away the violence that occurs (and it's not for the faint of heart), but it's not something most people can live through.

So, if you're are going into this movie looking for purpose, or even a sense of plot direction, you'll probably be disappointed.  Since it is based on real life experiences and lives, the plot is not an expected plot, and things seem like they run on unnecessarily for a little bit.  But like I said, that's real life for ya.  As for the romantic elements, girls, they aren't going to jump off the screen for you.  They are simple and in some cases even childish.  Really, the film didn't even need these elements at all, but I assume it was to bring in more of a female audience and to be true to the story.

All this film wants to do is tell a remarkable story about cheating death, not once, but several times, even when all the odds are stacked up against them.  This is also a film that gives the opportunity, with a variety of unique characters, for actors to really work out their acting chops and try new things that perhaps they have never really tried before.

Alright... I guess it's time to conclude.  I give this film 8.3/10, because yes, even though the acting was great, I have to consider all of the aspects, and the fact of the matter is, the plot thins out from midway till the end.  There is really no character development - maybe only in Shia LaBeouf's character - and there isn't proper cause and effect, especially when most of the characters never die, and they probably should have.   So... I concede.   

Hope Springs

The passive housewife, the miserable accountant... why is this sounding so familiar???

Hope Springs follows the lives of a typical married couple living through monotonous routine and daily chores that distract them from the elephant in the room - their dwindling marriage.  When the wife (played by Meryl Streep) has finally hit her limit, she forces her husband (played by Tommy Lee Jones) into couples therapy in Maine.  He reluctantly gives in to her demands and finds himself having to face the fact that their marriage is in desperate need of restoration.  This film also stars Steve Carrell as the marriage councilor.

It is absolutely delightful having to watch Tommy Lee Jones play the discomforted husband discussing his sex life with a marriage councilor.  Jones and Streep are excellent together.  Even though the situation is common in many marriages, the humor the story displays is necessary to counter-balance the anguish that the characters are feeling on the inside.  This film does an accurate job of reminding audiences of what happens after the children have moved out and the years of neglect and hurt are over.  What are we left with?  Shattered relationships that need to be put back together - picking up one piece at a time and putting it back into place.  The problem is, at that point, do you have the patience, the emotional stability, and the love to bother picking up the first broken piece?

I think this film does an excellent job at showing people the heartache that one has to go through to pick up the first piece, but that the pay off you get is worth it once the image is complete.  It has to slowly build back over time, but you have to be willing to rebuild it.  Marriage is a two person commitment, something the film is constantly trying to remind us of.  It's insightful and shines light on certain aspects people would rather ignore.

I give this film 7.8/10 for being relatable and unique in comparison to most romantic comedies.  

The Dark Knight Rises

 

Christopher Nolan does it again!  I don't think I've seen one movie with him as director, that I didn't like - Prestige, Memento, Inception - the man knows what he's doing!

The Dark Knight Rises acts as the final chapter in a three film series, concluding Batman's vigilante escapades, fighting crime in Gotham city.  In the face of a new terror named Bane (played by Tom Hardy), Bruce Wayne has to come out of hiding and become Batman once again.  I'm going to stop there, because the plot is just too good to give away.  

Christian Bale fell in to the role as he always does, with certainty of his character.  Nothing new there.  But it was Anne Hathaway that dressed to impress - literally.  Hathaway was wonderful with her depiction of cat woman, creating a character with a moral dilemma, but who still isn't hopeless.  She was feline in the best way possible - Michelle Pfeiffer would be proud.  Joseph Gordon Levitt did a wonderful job as well, like he always does.  I've never had doubt in his acting abilities and he didn't disappoint.    

Tom Hardy was the star of the show, however.  Even though his face was halfway covered throughout the entire film, his vocal abilities and his physicality overcompensated wonderfully.  He did an amazing job with his character, living up to the fear his character is supposed to inflict.  I enjoyed the background story of Bane, because it really added to the character's development and the plot.  I appreciated the accuracy related to the original comics, when Nolan included the famous scene where Bane breaks Batman's back.  Even though not everything could stay true to the comics, they left the important things for the die hard fans.  

   

The editing of the film was very inventive, especially the way they cut up the scenes to depict the passing of time.  I thought it was unique and it kept you on your toes.  The only thing that bothered me about this film was the ending, and that was only because the plot took a twist, deviating away from what is expected of certain characters.  I can't go into details, because I don't want to spoil it for anyone, but for those who know the Batman comics well, know that certain characters should not be together.  As for the open ended feeling of the film, I was annoyed.  With the knowledge that Nolan is not going to do any more films for this series, it leaves me feeling disappointed that we may not see the appropriate continuation the film calls for.  

I give this film 8.7/10 for being wonderfully dark, with doom and gloom in every corner, however, still making room for that one speck of light that makes its way till the end.    

      

The Amazing Spiderman

It was a nice change from the dark and sinister world of Batman, to have a light and slightly comedic retelling of one of the most beloved superheroes.  (not that I don't love the Batman trilogy)

The Amazing Spider-Man is a film that retells the origin of Spider-Man, setting a different tone from the Tobey Maguire films back in 2002-2007.  We follow the adolescent life of Peter Parker (played by Andrew Garfield), a high school student desperate to uncover the past and discover the truth about his parents' sudden death.  While trying to get close to an old work associate of his father's, he comes in contact with radioactive spiders.... well, I'm sure you can guess all the rest.  The love interest is played by the lovely Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy, a fellow high school student (no she's not Mary Jane, but in the comics Gwen Stacy actually comes in the picture first).  Some of the other actors in this film are Martin Sheen, Sally Field, Rhys Ifans, and Denis Leary. 

Andrew Garfield handled his role with all the respect and delicacy it required.  He made the character his own, leaving little comparison between his interpretation and Maguire's interpretation. Garfield is an excellent actor who is able to convey the deepest emotions with the slightest of subtleties. His communication was more through the body than it was through the dialogue, something I find very interesting to watch. The chemistry between Andrew and Emma was evident in their romantic scenes.  They played the excitement of a high school love - a first love - extremely well, never losing sight of that distinction.  As the male lead, Garfield lived up to my expectations and in some cases, even exceeded them.

Now, even though my overall outlook on this film is positive, there were some negative aspects I can't overlook.  Rhys Ifan as the Lizard was not a developed villain.  In the last Spider-Man series, the Green Goblin was a dynamic character, where you felt the villain was still a person, and not just a 'bad guy'.  In this adaptation, the motivation behind Rhys' actions did not seem sufficient for the extremes he begins to go to.  As a result, you never fully connect yourself with his character and, therefore, you never feel that right amount of satisfaction when his character is stopped and brought to justice.  I think it's just as important to make both the protagonist and the antagonist emotionally understood.

Other than that, I think they stayed true to the comics as much as they could and brought in new elements we haven't seen before.  For that I give the film 8/10.         

Ted

Honestly, this is where Mark Wahlberg belongs.  Forget The Fighter, I think he's found his calling! (I'm not being sarcastic for once)

Ted is about a young boy named John Bennett who makes a wish that his teddy bear will come to life and become his best friend.  Strangely enough, the wish comes true and Ted is born.  They grow up together, but along the way, things get more difficult when John's relationship with his girlfriend reaches a new level.  Suddenly, John has to leave his childhood behind, and in turn Teddy, in order to enter his adult life.  This film stars Mark Wahlberg, Seth MacFarlane, and Mila Kunis. 

The celebrity guest appearances were extremely entertaining in this film.  Ryan Reynolds, Norah Jones, Tom Skerritt, Patrick Stewart as the narrator.  There were many more, but let's leave it at that for now. 

I think this film was hilarious with its jokes, in true Seth MacFarlane fashion.  Sometimes stupid, sometimes flat out ridiculous, while always attacking popular culture along the way.  It was almost like stand up comedy, but with a teddy bear making the jokes.  I give a thumbs up to Wahlberg for his ability to physically fight a teddy bear and make it look real.  Great job guys!

My favourite scene I have to say is the when Kunis has to pick up a turd from her carpet.  Mark Wahlberg's expression is priceless!

See this film!  Trust me, it's worth the two hours watching a teddy bear on screen.  I give this film 7.7/10.

Magic Mike

Surprise, surprise... looks like Channing Tatum is useful after all. 

Magic Mike is about a young man named Adam who gets into the stripper business, falling in to the party life of easy money, loose women, and drugs. This film stars Channing Tatum, Alex Pettyfer, Olivia Munn, and Matthew McConaughey.

And you thought this film was just cheap titillation for women.  Shame on you!

I was pleasantly surprised by this film, and not because of the naked men stripping on screen.  Let's just say I have little faith in Channing Tatum's acting abilities, partly because he rarely impresses me.  But in this film, I had zero issues with him.  I assume that he stepped it up because the film is loosely based on his life.  How embarrassing would it be if he sucked at recreating something he has already lived through?    

I found that the script was very realistic, especially the dialogue with the young girls.  The acting seemed very authentic and I liked that the most.  Now there were a lot of stripping scenes, and maybe a little too many, but that's just my opinion.  The dance numbers were very impressive, especially Tatum.  I forgot he was a good dancer, though you wouldn't know it by just watching him in Step Up. Ironically, he was much better in this film.

Now let's talk about the huge issue with this film: the ending!  It's so ambiguous, so empty.  You get a conclusion for one character, but you are completely left hanging when it comes to the main character.  They did not wrap up the film like they should have, and I just hope from the bottom of my heart, that they did not want to leave room for a sequel.  I can guarantee that if they try to continue this with more films, it will be a waste of people's money and time.  This is a one time success, and I promise you it won't happen again.

But back to the ending.  Seriously, it doesn't make sense.  I know I can't give it away, but let me say this -  had everything unfolded the way it did, the romantic element in the movie should not have happened.  Family will always come first, especially in a film like this, and I doubt that it would have ended that way in reality.  I think they were just desperate for a romantic moment.  That's all I'll say for now.

Matthew McConaughey deserves his own paragraph.  He really went all the way with his character, you can tell.  He was hilarious to watch and somehow mesmerizing - as though stripping is what he was meant to do.  I wish I was on set when he was filming, because I have a feeling it would have been one of the most entertaining performances to watch.

So Kudos to all the actors, the director, and the producers that made this film actually have substance.  Who would have thought?  I give this film 7.8/10.  Had the ending been better, maybe this would have been worth a solid 8.

Brave

Now this is animation I can get behind!

Brave is about a young Scottish princess named Merida who wishes to choose her own path in life, and not have her mother choose it for her.  By breaking Scottish tradition, Merida defies her mother and creates chaos among the kingdom.  When she puts her trust in a witch to change her fate, she learns the consequences of her rash decision.  She needs to be brave in order to set things right.  This film stars the vocal styling of Kelly Macdonald, Billy Connolly, Emma Thompson, Julie Walters, and Craig Ferguson. 

The scenery in this film is beautiful, so much so, that I want to go to Scotland to see it for myself.  The music was also really well done, and added a nice touch to the Scottish influence.  They kept true to the culture and tradition of Scotland, which I think was really important.  As for the plot, it was refreshing, in a traditional sort of way.  It was the type of film where there was a lesson to learn, but it was also easy to relate to.  It appealed to most audiences I believe, but perhaps, alienated some male movie goers.  I admit, it was more of a mother/daughter sort of film.  Regardless, for children, I think this an inspirational film that will stay with them. 

It had its funny moments too.  I especially enjoyed the younger boys, her siblings.  This is a film that children will love for years, I just know it.  I give this film 8.7/10 for being perfect just the way it is.

Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted

I was seriously disappointed by this film.  The critics must have all been high off of happy pills when they saw this, because I didn't quite get the enthusiasm.

Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted is the third installment in the Madagascar franchise.  We follow the lives of Alex the lion, Marty the zebra, Melman the giraffe and Gloria the hippo, as they find themselves joining a traveling circus in order to make there way home to New York.  It stars Ben Stiller, Jada Pinkett Smith, Chris Rock, David Schwimmer, Sacha Baron Cohen, and Cedric the Entertainer - to name a few.

My biggest problem with this film is that the humour did not appeal to all audiences and the plot was kind of all over the place. There was too much going on sometimes, and at times it felt like work following the movement of events.  Some of the scenes were so ridiculous, that all reality flew out the window for this film.  Yes, I realize its an animated film about talking zoo animals, but still.  It was too much, especially with the woman who tries to hunt Alex down throughout the movie.  Her character was rarely fun to watch, even though the writers definitely intended her to be a highlight of the film.  She was obnoxious more than anything else.  Now let me be clear about the actors, they all did a great job voicing their characters.  This was purely a problem from the writers and those who constructed the plot's events.  Now let's talk about the comedy. 

This film rarely appealed to adult audiences, and when it did, the humour came solely from Sacha Baron Cohen's character - King Julian.  I give him the majority of the credit.

I think I'm gonna leave it at that.  To sum up: Too much going on in one film, limiting its audience to  children under the age of 10, and at times feeling a little unnecessarily long.  But for the sake of the children, this film just reaches a 7/10.

Snow White and the Huntsman

We have lots to catch up on.  I know I've been somewhat MIA lately, but I'm back and I have quite a bit to say.

As for Snow White and the Huntsman, a synopsis seems kinda pointless.  I would hope that the majority of the population would have at least heard of the fairytale Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.  For those of you who aren't familiar with the fairytale, well, I'd be curious to know what your childhood was like - and if I were you I'd buy the animated movie pronto!!!  As much as I respect Charlize Theron, she wasn't enough to carry this film by herself.  And it wasn't for a lack of trying.

Without meaning to sound harsh, the movie wasn't all bad.  I mean, the visual effects were really interesting to watch.  I enjoyed the dark and sinister landscape, as well as the tone of the entire film.  Honestly, if I was going to give credit to just one group, it would be the visual effects team/set design. As for the costume design, that didn't go unnoticed either.  Very impressive, especially with the Queen's outfits. 

Now let's get to the acting, since we all know that is usually what makes or breaks a film.  I wanted more from Theron's character, the evil Queen.  She seemed like a very static character, not quite developed or deep.  In my opinion, the evil Queen is a character you could really explore - make her someone you could sympathize or empathize with.  Theron's version of the Queen was disturbing, but its effect was fleeting.  She stood as a prop to move the plot forward, rather than a dynamic character to give the story some life.  They threw in a pathetic attempt at giving the Queen background story, but it felt unexplored and last minute.  As for Kristen Stewart, she wasn't horrible.  Usually, I just want to smack her for entering the acting biz, but I was content this time.  I'm still convinced that almost any other female actress her age would have done a better job, but I guess because she looks the part and she was in Twilight, the film industry overlooks her... flaws (to put it kindly).  Now, I acknowledge that she has been a decent actress in the past, but some roles she should just stay away from - like anything that involves romance or sadness.  Anyways, to sum up Kristen Stewart in a word: mediocre.  Moving on to Cutie (a.k.a. Chris Hemsworth), I'm always impressed at how he can alter his Aussie accent in almost every movie he's in.  Not many actors can do that so well.  I thought he did all he could do with the role he was given.  Again, not too much depth to his character, but that's not his fault, nor is it Theron's fault.   Other than that, he can do no wrong.  I think he's a pleasure to watch, and not just because he's nice to look at.  The dwarfs were entertaining to watch as well, and they actually brought some excitement to the film, especially during some of the more boring scenes.  I'm actually quite grateful for their appearance in the film, otherwise I might have fallen asleep.

Let's talk about the plot for a minute.  There are a few scenes that just show the characters traveling, with light music in the background.  To sum up: too many, too boring.  I noticed that in one of the scenes they are walking through snow and Snow White miraculously has a jacket.  Huh?  I don't remember her having a jacket. How convenient - just saying.

To move on, I want to talk about the pathetic attempt at romance.  What the hell was that?! It was so random and so pointless.  I don't want to ruin it for anyone, but trust me, don't get too excited.  It's not like they actually go anywhere with it.  They should have done themselves a favor and left romance out entirely.

Okay, let's end this.  So I think this movie had a few redeeming qualities such as the visuals, but the script and the plot need a serious rewrite. With more developed characters, certain actors could have taken this movie further and I would be writing a slightly different review.  I give this film 6.2/10 for the visual effects that made scenes interesting to watch.

The Avengers

I know you have all heard wonderful things about this film.  Let me just tell you that, for the most part, it does a wonderful job of living up to your expectations.

The Avengers is the combination of Marvel's greatest superhero's coming together to fight against a common enemy.  The antagonist (Loki) just happens to be from another world and just happens to be Thor's brother.  Amidst the chaos in trying to track down Loki and the energy cube he stole, our favourite superheros learn how to put their own egos aside in order to work together.  This film stars Chris Hemsworth (still cutie) as Thor, Robert Downey Jr. as Iron Man, Mark Ruffalo as The Hulk, Chris Evans as Captain America, Scarlette Johansson as Black Widow, Jeremy Renner as Hawkeye, Tom Hiddleston as Loki, and finally, Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury.  Quite an exhaustive cast, isn't it?

That's probably the most impressive aspect of this film - the intricate and lengthy cast of excellent actors.  They brought together all of these currently popular actors with their busy schedules and talented careers, in order to show the respect they have for Marvel's most beloved superheroes.  The film was careful to link all the superheroes' individual stories/ films, incorporating aspects of how the characters came to be and how they are all connected to the current source of anxiety.  This film was careful to include fans that may be new to the comic world, as well as satisfy diehard fans that have been anticipating this film for much longer.

Okay, let me just say that the humor in the film really added to the action of the film.  When you have a full-on action film, you can sometimes get bored with the constant fighting and you need some comedic relief.  This film delivered on that.

All in all, this film is light, action filled, funny with a well thought out plot, and full of great actors.  I give this film 8.6/10.  Go see it if you haven't already.      

The Raven

As an Edgar Allan Poe fan, I felt somewhat torn...

The Raven follows a series of events that occurred in the last, otherwise unknown, days of Poe's life.  From one brutal murder to another, Detective Fields discovers that the connection between the murderous acts link back to the stories by Edgar Allan Poe.  In order to find the murderer, he involves the intelligence of Poe himself.  This film stars John Cusack, Luke Evans, Alice Eve and Brendan Gleeson.

I can't say that my expectations were high in the first place, but this film was mostly disappointing.  Other than quoting some of Poe's famous works, and taking from his stories the many gruesome deaths, this film had so many issues with it, the entire time you knew something was off.  The research the film makers attempted, didn't do Poe justice.  His character was too modern that it became unrealistic.

As for the genre of the film, it seemed somewhat undecided.  Was this a comedic film? It certainly tried to start out that way.  Was this a detective film?  Well, it's no Sherlock Holmes, but it definitely tried to be that at times.  Was this a horror?  I found myself jumping a few times.  Or was this a thriller?  I couldn't figure out what this film wanted to be.  It did not flow well at all. And after the first hour, it felt like it was droning on, forcing the minutes to pass.  The film could have been concluded so many times, and it became obnoxious how long they kept it going for.

Now, as for the acting, John Cusack was fine.  He didn't wow me, but he didn't disappoint me either.  Luke Evans, however, is another story.  He was famous for overacting.  His face gave away a hint of exaggeration, one which told you, 'yes I am an actor, playing a part'.  There is no better way to ruin a film, but to overact in your scenes.

Finally, the ending was not satisfying at all.  You are dragged through this not-so-complex plot, only to find that the ending you've been waiting for is somewhat taken from you.  It's extremely anti-climactic.
                  
Ultimately, I give this film 6/10 for being lazy in its execution and careless with the reputation and respect of Edgar Allan Poe.

The Cabin in the Woods

 

This film was a pleasant surprise...

The Cabin in the Woods seems like a typical horror film, however, it actually enjoys turning the genre on its head.  It's about five college students who go to a cabin for spring break, only to meet their inevitable death.  You think you've seen this film a thousand times with different variations, but trust me, you haven't.  Let's just say, premeditated murder has been taken to a whole new level.  This film stars Chris Hemsworth (a.k.a. cutie), Kristen Connolly, Anna Hutchison, Franz Kranz and Jesse Williams.

All the actors did a great job.  I enjoyed the approach the writers and creators took to this film.  They incorporated humour and horror, which was refreshing for me.  The idea that people were watching each death without a shred of remorse was definitely a comment on the media in our world today -  a nice touch.  I would also like to add that I absolutely loved the beginning.  I thought it was a really light way to start a potential horror film.
Now, let's get to the actual problems of the film, because they weren't that small.

The ending was too ridiculous for me.  It went from interesting, intriguing, to flat out - "are you kidding me?"  The killer unicorn was probably my absolute favourite.  Yes, that's right, a killer unicorn.  Who would have thunk it?

The story lost my respect towards the end.  Too much of a stretch that didn't really resolve itself.  I do, however, like how they set up the stereotype of the characters - the stoner, the virgin, the football star, the not so virgin, the book worm - and then they mock that stereotype for you, so you don't have to.  I enjoyed that. 

Therefore, other than the ending, this film is worth the watch.  I give it 7.8/10 for being unique, fun, and extremely entertaining.             

The Hunger Games

As a reader and fan of the novels, I was impressed...

The Hunger Games, based on Suzanne Collins' novel of the same name, takes place in the future, where a part of the world is divided into 12 districts.  Every year, two tributes are chosen from each district to fight to the death in front of millions. This acts as a reminder of the Capitol's power over its people.  This film stars Josh Hutcherson, Liam Hemsworth, Elizabeth Banks, and Jennifer Lawrence.

Jennifer Lawrence did a great job playing her character, leaving subtle traces of shock, strength and fear.  The men in this film also did a great job with their acting.  The stage set was wonderful and detailed as well.  There was some unnecessary tweaking to the story, which irritated me because it wouldn't have been a big deal if they just left it the way it was.  For example, the whole reason Katniss gets the mockingjay pin is changed in the film.  I would think something that obvious would have remained the same, but I guess I was wrong.

As for the film as a whole, I felt for those audience members that knew nothing about the books or their storyline.  The film does not do enough to keep them involved with what is going on and why events are happening, which is preventing specific audience members from enjoying the film as much as everyone else.  This is the fault of the film makers, having the assumption that everyone is in tune with the storyline. 

I also want to comment on the romance element.  I think it did not get its due in this film.  It was completely rushed through and unclear, therefore, unbelievable (and this is coming from someone who read the book and enjoyed it).  I realize the main character is faking her feelings most of the time, but both actors seemed like they weren't sure how to approach those scenes, and the writing/editing/direction, didn't help either. I guess what I'm getting at is that the actors seemed uncomfortable with those scenes, entering a drastic change from the rest of the film.  The film should have transitioned much better into romance. 

My advice -stick closer to the novel and save yourself the risk of messing up too much.

All in all, a great film.  I appreciated all the effort put in to it and I'm looking forward to the second installment.  I really hope it keeps up with its newly formed standard. I give this film 8.3/10.            

The Vow

Wasn't as bad as I thought it was going to be...

The Vow is about a married couple that make it through a bad car accident, however, Rachel McAdam's character (the wife) experiences partial memory loss.  She can't remember her own husband.  As you can imagine, this would be just devastating for the husband, played by Channing Tatum.  Instead of dwelling on the bad, he sees it as an opportunity to make his wife fall in love with him all over again.  Does it work?

Well, the romantic in all of us would certainly hope so, but don't hold your breath.

So, I'm conflicted.  This film does not satisfy the romance genre as I would hope, because the ending is somewhat unconventional.  How do I explain without giving the ending away?  The resolution of the film is based on choice.  Usually, when you watch a romance, it is all about how the woman cannot live without the man or vice versa, therefore, lack of choice.  However, in this film, it's about how the woman takes her time and makes a choice.  This film takes a more individualistic approach to love, rather than all or nothing.  It takes its time with the circumstances.  You might say it is in fact more realistic in regards to love, than most films.  Because of this, I respect it.

Now, here's the problem.  For the same reason I respect the film, I also felt dissatisfied with it.  The ending was a let down, because there was no grand gesture. The ending, the conclusion, was just too simple.  It didn't match up.  It is almost as if the film rejected itself and tried to turn in to something else, just at the very end.  The ending was unfulfilled. You'll see what I mean if you go and see this film.   

Okay, so if I haven't confused you enough, let's move on to the technicalities of the film.  The acting from Channing Tatum wasn't completely horrible, but it wasn't anything to rave about either.  I didn't really care for him.  Every time he talks I want to yell at him, "Open your mouth! Relax your jaw!"  He's always mumbling his lines, and it pisses me off.
Rachel McAdams bothered me only during the cheesy (in love) scenes, because to me she played her character so cheesy that it came off as overacting.  I don't like when I have to be reminded that someone is trying to play a part.  With Rachel, I felt that way the most when she was acting in love.  I felt that way the least when she was confused and lost.  It seems she's better with drama.

As for the flow of the film, it was decent, nothing major to complain about.  Nothing else really stood out to me as bad or good - it all seemed passable otherwise.

I give this film 5.8/10.  I definitely won't remember it in a month's time.  P.S. I Love You is still the reigning champion for me.

This Means War

 

If Chris Pine and Tom Hardy were not present in this film, it would have been completely pointless and a waist of time - but that's just my opinion.  Not that I have anything against Reese Witherspoon... it's just... look at them!  (picture above)

Okay, now that I sidestepped the obvious, we can get back to the film's synopsis.  This Means War is about two CIA agents, who just happen to be partners, that find out they are dating the same girl.  Competition heats up when they decide to win over her affections, without letting her in on the fact that they know she's dating both of them.  This film stars Reese Witherspoon, Chris Pine, Tom Hardy and Chelsea Handler.

We all can understand the obvious appeal.  A great cast, a romantic trio, and a comedian to make you laugh all the way through.  Sounds like a perfect mix?  Well, it's not.

Despite the fact that each of these actors are good at what they do, for some reason, the putting together of the film doesn't allow that talent to shine.  I blame the producers, the writers, and the director.  Honestly, what were they thinking?  It's almost as if they relied so much on the reputations of the actors to sell their movie, that they didn't bother to make it much of a movie.  The plot was not creative or unique to me, despite the fact they were CIA agents and not just normal men.  The humor was forgettable.  I didn't feel the impact of the storyline.  I didn't feel the intensity of the situation.  It felt rushed all the way through, like they were doing one scene, just so that they could get to the next one.  Chris Pine tries to salvage this oversight, but his efforts weren't enough to prevent this train wreck of a film.  And Tom hardy, really?  I expected so much more from you.  To go from Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, to this?

Basically, my problem surrounds the putting together of the film - the editing.  The scene to scene transitions, the plot development, the convenient ending.  It just felt like the least amount of effort was put in from everyone, even at times, the actors.  I know they are capable of better, that's what bothers me the most.

I don't know what else to say.  Major disappointment.  Other than Chris Pine and at times Tom Hardy, this film was weak.  I give this film 5.6/10.  Get your shit together guys!              

Chronicle

 

This film started out strong and then slowly descended into unbelievable territory.

Chronicle follows the life of a neglected and abused teenager named Andrew, who lives as a social outcast at school. He begins recording his life with a video camera, isolating himself even more from the rest of the world.  Things change when he, his cousin Matt, and his cousin's friend Steven, come in contact with unknown matter.  They each develop telekinetic powers that allow them to do things they never could have imagined. This film stars Dane DeHaan, Michael B. Jordan, Michael Kelly, and Alex Russel.

My favourite aspect of this film is that the audience is always viewing it through the perspective of the camera the character is holding.  The film plays with this perspective, hopping it around as characters take the camera from one another.  I thought this was very unique and interesting, however, if your sensitive to movement, it can make you a little nauseous.  It reminded me of The Blair Witch Project.

The acting in this film was really well done and realistic. I really have no negative comments about the acting.

I do, however, have negative comments about the plot.  Near the end of the film - the climax - was when my respect for the plot flew out the window.  Events became too hectic, too fast, too irrational and too extreme.  It reminded me I was only watching a movie, taking me out of that world and putting me firmly back into the theatre seat.  This ruined the whole film for me.

Because this film held strong 3/4 of the way through, I give it 7.6/10 for attempting something different, something original, among the interchangeable films we've been watching so far this year.

Man on a Ledge

 

No, they did not put much thought into the title of this film...  

Man on a Ledge follows the life of an escaped convict, as he tries to prove himself innocent for his supposed crime - being accused of stealing a $40 million dollar diamond.  This film stars Sam Worthington, Elizabeth Banks, Jamie Bell, Genesis Rodriguez and Ed Harris.

Whenever I tell someone I saw the film Man on a Ledge, they always ask me, "So, did he jump off the ledge?"  Well, I'm here to tell you... it's not exactly worth the watch to find out.  It's a good thing this film has more plot dynamic than you might have originally anticipated.  Not bad for a movie with a title like Man on a Ledge. 

Anyways, everything about this film was decent - not amazing, not impressive, but consistently entertaining.  Elizabeth Banks' acting bothered me, however.  She was not convincing as a negotiator, with something to prove to her male superiors.  She came off just as lazy as the people who gave the film its title.  She portrayed the character with little enthusiasm or attitude, and came off unimaginative and dull.  There was no feeling of determination when she spoke her lines, which would have been one of the most important things to convey about her character.  To sum her up: a disappointment.

As for all the other actors, their characters were not exactly deep, but they kept me interested in what was going on... which says something.  They did their jobs, more or less.

I do have to point out Ed Harris, who in my opinion was the star of the film.  He did a great job with his small, but important role.  I finally felt reminded of what real acting is.  It wasn't just make-believe for Ed Harris, but a matter of completely giving himself over to the character.  A complete abandonment of self.  I give him a thumbs up for making some portion of this film have purpose.

Now, this is not a film I would see again.  Once was enough for me, and I don't think it will leave a lasting impression.  So, here is my advice to those of you not sure what to see this weekend.  Man on a Ledge is a light thriller that will be fleeting with its effect on you, if it has any effect on you.  I give this film 6.7/10. It's just okay. It's no Phone Booth.          

The Woman in Black

 

Well, some would say that Daniel Radcliffe will forever be seen as Harry Potter and nothing else.  I think that this might be one of the rare occasions when an actor actually takes his job so seriously that he surpasses the media's low expectations of him.  That goes for all of the young Harry Potter actors.  

The Woman in Black, based on a novel by Susan Hill, is about a young lawyer who is asked by his boss to sort out papers on a property that is meant to be sold.  Little does he know that the property he needs to sort out is haunted by a vengeful mother longing for her dead son, taking her anger out on the children of the town.  

This film is your typical horror film.  You've got ghosts, shadows, black and grey everywhere, things popping out of corners.  This film totally relies on the power of sound at just the right moments, and shadows to keep everything eery.  The set design was really well done and the tone of the film was perfect. To top the horror tradition, you actually have a good actor leading the entire thing. 

Now, to transition from some positive to some negative.  Daniel Radcliffe does not really pull off a father or a widow missing his wife, for that matter.  I didn't feel the parental love I should have felt or the inner pain certain flashbacks were telling us he was in.  He may have taken a leap with that one.  As for the events, moving from one to the other, it seemed slow and slightly repetitive.  It took a while for things to get really interesting with the ghost and Radcliffe.  The ending was not satisfying and you don't quite get any closure.  

With a strong performance from the entire cast, all this film needed was more plot dynamic.  Because it lacked this, I give this film 6.8/10.               

Mission Impossible : Ghost Protocol

This series is known as America's James Bond.  I prefer Britain's James Bond myself...

Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol follows the ongoing spy life of Ethan Hunt, one of the top agents from the IMF agency, facing yet another mission.  Only this time he goes rogue.  His mission, which he chooses to accept, is to save the world, yet again, from some sort of bomb.  Really, what's the difference what he's saving the world from?  It's all the same...  This film stars the obvious Tom Cruise, the talented Jeremy Renner, the funny Simon Pegg, and the beautiful Paula Patton.  

So where was I?  Oh yes, the fact that I find it insulting when comparing Mission Impossible to James Bond.  The reason I say that is not because Mission Impossible isn't a decent film series.  In fact, Mission Impossible has always been a solid and reliable film series.  The reason I say it is because James Bond is about the swagger/charm of the character, where the audience connects and feels for the character on an emotional level.  It is not just about the story line and how much action they can fill it with.  The character of Ethan Hunt, on the other hand, does not possess characteristics worthy of a strong attachment to the audience.  In fact, he isn't what makes the films what they are.  It's the supporting actors that made this film and, if I look back, the films before.  Whatever spark there once was between Ethan Hunt and the audience, it has long disintegrated to relying on the supporting actors and the ridiculous, yet remarkable stunts.

As you can see, I have more respect for the strength of character, than for action and stunts.  That said, the scene where Tom Cruise climbs the Dubai building is impressive and terrifying to think about.  So I will give him credit for doing it.  I will also clarify, Tom Cruise is a decent actor.  It's not that he isn't.  He just hasn't bothered to develop his character more than by plot.

The writing for this film was well done and light.  Jeremy Renner and Simon Pegg were as wonderful as always.  As for Paula Patton, other than being pretty and adding a female dynamic to the scenes, she wasn't impressive as an actress.  I would also like to point out the ridiculous fighting scenes.  I thought the characters fighting each other (particularly at the end with the cars, and when the bad guy gets in a car crash) was just plain stupid and unrealistic.  Usually, when a person is involved in a car crash, they can't get back up and start running within seconds... just sayin'.

Mission Impossible films definitely know how to capture your attention, but they don't know how to make that connection meaningful and with purpose.  Maybe they're supposed to be light and fleeting, but if that's the case, it is no James Bond.  James Bond is iconic and Ethan Hunt is... not.


I give this film 7.5/10 for being, if I could sum it up in one word - okay.

Hugo

 

You can't say it isn't unique...

Hugo is about an orphaned boy who keeps the clocks running in a Paris train station, meanwhile, spending his days searching for clockwork pieces that will help him finish the automaton his father left him.

One thing this film isn't lacking is a sharp beautiful picture that grabs your attention and doesn't let it go until the end.  The plot has so much potential, but I don't feel like they took advantage of that.  There were plenty of scenes that slowed to the point where you found yourself bored.  The story lacks excitement and even though the visuals are inventive and strong, the story only has a few peaks that keep you hoping for better.

The actors did a good job.  I'd like to point out Sasha Baron Cohen's character as extremely entertaining and refreshing from his usual Borat type characters. Asa Butterfield and Chloe Grace Moretz were great together.  Ben Kinglsey also did a good job. None of the acting blew me away though.   

For me it was a slight let down in its entirety.  I think most children would not enjoy it as much as a kid-friendly film should be enjoyed.  The hype surrounding the movie seems to be about the visual strength of the film more than the story or the acting.  It's not balanced.

Because of this, I give this film 7.6/10 for striving to be different and original, but lacking in excitement and adventure.

New Years Eve

 

Eh...(shrug)

I think we all saw this coming.  No surprises here.

New Years Eve follows many lives as they approach a new year and new opportunities, as well as adventures to come. This film includes many stars such as Robert De Niro, Sarah Jessica Parker, Lea Michel, Zack Efron, Michelle Pfeiffer, Halle Berry, and this list goes on.

Basically, the film was mediocre or even less than that.  The acting wasn't horrible on all accounts, but I have discovered I am not a Zack Efron fan.  They all seemed to play very silly characters without much heart or much life.  I feel like a lot of unknown actors could have come up with the same result that would have skipped the theaters and went straight to the W Network.  So why did I pay for such a film when I probably could have seen a similar one on television, making me to switch the channel as soon as I discovered what it was? I should have known.

So, ultimately do not see this film, because frankly it's not worth your eleven bucks. I give this film 5.4/10.  Need a warm and fuzzy holiday film as a replacement?  I recommend The Holiday, Love Actually, When Harry Met Sally.

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

Huh?  I had some trouble understanding what was going on and apparently I'm not the only one...

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy takes place during the time of the Cold War, where it becomes necessary to bring an espionage veteran (Gary Oldman) out of retirement in order to find out who is the spy within the MI6 agency.  Some known actors in this film include Gary Oldman, Tom Hardy, Colin Firth, and John Hurt.

Let me be clear: all the acting was extraordinary.  There is no question about that.  Gary Oldman was incredible with his character George Smiley.  Colin Firth and Tom Hardy were impeccable as always.  However, this film reminds you just how far acting can go when the plot is confusing and the film's resolve is misunderstood and dissatisfying.

More specifically, I'd like to point out the tone created by the damp and dark London streets.  They truly set the mood for the film perfectly.  The cinematography was carefully constructed so that it was not overpowering or underwhelming.

I guess my issue with this film is, perhaps, that you had to have read the book in order to understand it.  Leaving the theater, I overheard many people claiming to be completely lost.  So, whether or not this is a film you have to really pay attention in, it is not friendly to all audiences and that, in itself, is the flaw that clouds the film.

However, because I am stubborn and want to make sure I'm not missing something, I am going to give it another shot, and see if maybe my perspective can change.  If I pay more attention maybe the film will reveal things to me it hadn't before.

So for now, I give this film 7.8/10 purely for the superior acting and the visuals.  This rating may change over time, so take it with a grain of salt.  If you see this film, feel free to comment because if you could shed light on certain events within it, I would be very grateful.

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows

You'd be crazy not to love the Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law duo...

The second installment of the Sherlock Holmes franchise promises continuity as well as a fresh storyline.  The film follows the lives of England's most famous detective Sherlock Holmes and his sidekick Dr. John Watson, as they try to hunt down and stop Professor Moriarty from succeeding in provoking a world war.

To start, a lot of the jokes from the first film were shamelessly repeated in the second one.  The plot itself had too many hidden facets and sharp corners for it to feel tight and secure.  There was too much going on, that it felt like plot twists were thrown in for convenience.  For both of these reasons I am lead  to believe that the screenplay was written too quickly and somewhat carelessly, in order to receive instant gratification rather than long lasting appreciation and respect.

 Now, lacking a strong solid plot, I'm going to move on to the directing and producing that took place.  This is where the talent shines through.  I give a thumbs up to Guy Ritchie for his hard work that made the film much better than what it would have been.  I'd like to point out the scene where they are running in the woods and bullets are being shot at them.  This scene was visually very impressive, with slow motion technique put in the right places and the well done camera work revealing a controlled and artistic direction.  This was one of many scenes that I tip my hat to Guy Ritchie for.  Without him, this film would have bombed.

I also will point out the actors - Robert Downey Jr., Jude Law, Rachael McAdams, and Noomi Rapace.  They did their jobs well without leaving me with any disappointment.  Noomi Rapace especially brought a refreshing character to the story, keeping female presence empowered amongst two strong male leads.

For all of this, I wouldn't say the film is worth a second glance.  It hasn't completely turned me off from seeing a third installment, but if they don't take more care with the writing, this franchise can only go downhill from here.  I give this film 6.5/10 for its acting and directing, without which the film would have been rated much lower.