Dredd - Review

The cult classic comic series, Judge Dredd, has been running since 1977, but aside from devoted comic nerds and fans of the series, the character has rarely gotten any wide recognition or attention. I'm just as guilty as anyone, though I've always been aware of the series' existence, I admit that I've never actually read a full Judge Dredd comic, though I've always appreciated it from afar. The stories themselves have interesting ideas, containing biting satire for topics including police overreach, brutality, and corruption in a crime ridden society, and asks questions like when does law enforcement overstep it's bounds or then again in such a crime ridden environment, the only way to maintain some kind of order is by operating a near-totalitarian regime. These are all thought provoking questions that could definitely make for an interesting movie. Hollywood tried once back in 1995, in the Sylvester Stallone vehicle titled Judge Dredd. The results were... not so good. While by no means the worst of Stallone's filmography, it was nonetheless a disappointing adaptation plagued by a disjointed narrative, subpar acting, and lame jokes (that's what happens when you make your film's comic relief Rob Schneider). It's 17 years later and filmmakers are at it again with a reboot simply titled Dredd. Does this make up for the sins of Stallone's missed opportunity or is is it another dreadful attempt?

Dredd takes place in a post-apocalyptic future (in an undisclosed year) in the crime ridden metropolitan Mega City One on America's east coast. The only force of order lies within the Hall of Justice whose police force, known as judges, serve as both judge, jury, and executioners with the ability to carry out on-the-spot sentences. The most well-known of the judges is none other than Judge Dredd (Karl Urban) known for his ruthless and brutal form of law enforcement and dedication to protecting what's left of society. On a routine day, he is assigned to train and evaluate Cassandra Anderson (Olivia Thirlby), a rookie judge with powerful psychic abilities. While investigating a homicide at a gang-controlled skyscraper slum, the drug lords running the building seal them (and it's thousands of residents) inside with orders to eliminate the judges. Facing unspeakable odds and vicious criminals, Dredd and Anderson put their knowledge and skills to the test in order to take down the building's criminal element.

I'll be first to admit that I didn't have very high expectations for this film, in fact I was pretty convinced that it was going to suck. With comic adaptations still riding high, I figured that this would just be a film to make a quick buck at the box office regardless of it's quality. To my surprise, however, the film is actually pretty damn awesome. It's by no means a perfect flick nor is it one of the better offerings of the genre, but it hits most of the right notes and delivers pretty much exactly where needed. It's a brutal, bloody, over-the-top, sci-fi/action flick with a fun cast, some great thrills, and even a few beats of decent satire. It had a team of filmmakers and actors who clearly respected the material and made an honest effort to create a quality film, and it shows. Like I said, I've never read Judge Dredd comics, so I can't speak for how accurately the flick follows them, but from what I've heard from comic purists, most of the film is quite faithful, so take that as you will. I will say this much, one of the main complaints about the original film was that Dredd spent most of the movie without his trademark helmet (in the comics, he never removes it), but here, Urban spends 99% of the film wearing his headgear, so that's got to count for something.

Karl Urban has made quite a name for himself as one of the more prolific character actors working today. With supporting roles in high quality genre films like Lord of the Rings, Star Trek, and Bourne Surpemacy, the guy was ideal choice for the role of Dredd. Hell, even in some of his roles in lesser films like Doom or Priest, he's still managed to hold his own. Dredd himself was heavily influenced by many of Clint Eastwood's earlier roles, and it shows in Urban's performance. Seeing as how Dredd never removes his helmet, there are some times he makes some odd and kind of goofy looking facial expressions, but for the most part I dug the hell out of this portrayal of Dredd. Urban is a badass, and he brings those traits to the character, holding his own in the action scenes and giving the character a good sense of toughness and fun. He's tough as nails but also gives the character a bit of humor here and there too, so for that I give immense props.

The rest of the cast did a solid job as well. Olivia Thirlby's performance as the psychic-rookie-judge Anderson was surprisingly solid, but more than that is actually something I really liked about the character. One of my constant complaints in these kinds of movies is that whenever the main character has a female sidekick and/or rookie accomplice, they often end up captured at some point requiring the main character to come to their rescue. This is an outdated stereotype bordering sexist that has really overstayed it's welcome, but Dredd manages to sidestep this issue. Anderson is a rookie judge who does make a mistake here and there, but she always holds her own in her fights and overcomes each of her obstacles using her own skills and intelligence, for once not requiring her male counterpart to come to her aid. In other words, she's a complete badass of a character that's just as tough and cunning as Dredd. You also have Lena Headey as the villainous mob boss nicknamed Ma-Ma. She looked like she was having fun with the role as a relentless diabolical monster of a character. She has some pretty memorable scenes and overall makes for a good villain for this kind of a film. I don't have too many complaints about the cast, for the most part, everyone was quite good.

The selling point for this kind of film, however, has got to be the action. If that's all your expecting from Dredd, I can pretty much guarantee that you will leave satisfied. As I mentioned above, the film is bloody and gory as hell, capturing (from what I've been told anyways) the themes and style of it's comic counterpart.  The film opens with a great chase scene, and following that is a barrage of awesome shootouts, fights, and killer stunts. The cinematography does a good job framing all of the erratic action without devolving into ADD shaky cam territory. Plus the movie was partially filmed in 3D, and to it's credit, has some pretty cool looking 3D shots. One of the film's subplots involved a drug trade involving a substance called Slo-Mo that slows down the user's perception of time. This was used to create some neat slow motion 3D scenes that, while eventually overstaying their welcome, are pretty cool to watch, for a while at least. I don't know if I would recommend the few extra dollars for a 3D show, but if you're a fan of the technology, you'll probably enjoy it. Overall, this was one thrilling film that delivered on all the brutal and bloody action I could have wanted.

Despite all the film's strengths, the story is kind of a mixed bag. It's by no means terrible, the pacing is good, the characters are adequate, and it has some interesting ideas. Unfortunately it also contains some plot holes, inconsistencies, and subpar execution of it's attempted satire. It seemed like the film was trying to ask the question of whether such a brutal form of law enforcement might have been doing more harm that good, or possibly whether the judges are any better than the criminals they take down. This concept, in it of itself, is interesting enough but unfortunately it's not explored very well. There are a couple of scenes in the beginning where Judge Andersen begins to have doubts about carrying out executions, but soon afterwards those qualms just seem to mostly go away. In the end, it seemed like the film was simply saying that in a chaotic world, the only remedy is an equally chaotic form of law enforcement... and without any other conflicting viewpoints or ideas, that's kind of a letdown. It seemed like it was trying to work on the same level as Robocop, another sci-fi action flick with similar themes, only Robocop featured a near perfect balance between the bloody action and poignant satire (seriously though, Robocop is still one of the best sci-fi movies ever made). That said, mediocre satire aside, the story at least serves as an adequate means to deliver on some great fast-paced action and enjoyably quirky characters. I suppose that has to count for something.

All in all, Dredd is a very fun, if somewhat flawed, action film that deserves to be seen. It's by no means perfect, but if you're looking for a fun action film with brutal violence and good visuals, this should do the trick. Check it out.

My Score: 3.5 out of 5!

Cosmopolis - Review

This movie is... going to be a real challenge to review. Cosmopolis is one of those films that takes a while to sink in after watching, mainly in the sense that I had to try and decipher whether I just watched a profound stroke of genius or a pretentious colossal misfire. After the screening, people would ask me whether I liked it or not, and my response was typically, "I don't know." This was just one of those films that was so weird and bizarre that it forced me to come to terms with what I had just watched. It's been a little over a week now and I feel like I've sat on the film enough to give a proper review. That said, I can't help but feel like this might be one of those films that if I see again, my opinion will probably significantly change (for better or worse). Nonetheless, here are my thoughts on Cosmopolis.

The film stars Robert Pattinson as Eric Packer, a 28-year-old self made billionaire travelling through the busy streets of Manhattan in his stretch limo en route to the barbershop. Along the way, he is visited by an array of colorful characters, who interact with him on a variety of topics ranging from economics, philosophy, death, life, sex, and the list goes on. As he travels, everything about Packer's world and outlook is challenged. How will the day end and how will he react to his discoveries?

I should probably get this out of the way, the movie stars Robert Pattinson, and as you may or may not know... I really can't stand the guy. It's not that I have a vendetta against him per se, it's just that every time I've seen him on screen, the guy has made absolutely no impression whatsoever. It's not just Twilight I'm talking about either, even in other films like Goblet of Fire or Water For Elephants, he has just come off as bland and dull. That said, I think one of the main problems is that in most of his roles, he's generally played dull, dead-serious, straight-man kind of characters (even in the genre films he's been in like Twilight or Harry Potter, the guy's characters have always been dull as dishwasher). You got to wonder if that might change if he was given the chance to star in a more eccentric role, like Jeff Goldblum in The Fly, Christopher Walken in The Dead Zone, or James Woods in Videodrome. Hey, wait a minute! All of those films are directed by David Cronenberg, just like this film here! Yeah, this actually might work! To Pattinson's credit, he actually does an admirable job in the role (I'm as surprised as anyone). While I'm not convinced that he's a "good" actor, his emotionless and borderline-psychopathic kind of traits work to his advantage here, allowing him to thrive in a role that could only come from the mind of an equally messed up nut like David Cronenberg. Maybe Pattinson has found his niche, and once his residual good luck from his Twilight fame runs out, the guy might actually have a career after all. I don't want to overpraise the guy, he's by no means great in this, but this is the only film in which I've seen him that didn't make me want to gouge my eyes out. That's got to count for something.

Ultimately, what made me want to see this flick was the director, David Cronenberg. He admittedly doesn't have a perfect track record, but what ultimately gets me to keep coming back is Cronenberg's unique and bizarre filmmaking style. Even in the films of his that I didn't enjoy, I at least could find something about them that was engaging and different. His style usually consists of sociopolitical or philosophical themes illustrated through bizarre imagery and grindhouse style violence. While this one is by no means as grotesque as some of his previous outings (it's actually pretty tame compared to films like Videodrome or The Fly), it still has that Cronenberg-esque feel. Everything from the surreal production design, creative camera angles, eccentric characters, off-beat dialogue, and bizarre story screams Cronenberg, and I mean that mostly in a good way. The man's direction serves the movie well, and considering the films's flaws (which I will get into next), in the hands of a lesser director, the film would have probably ended up being a huge disaster. While Cosmopolis is by no means Cronenberg's best movie, it nonetheless showcases many of his strengths.

As mentioned, there is a lot in this movie that doesn't work... and I mean REALLY doesn't work. The film's script boasts a promising premise complete with interesting themes and ideas. The dialogue, particularly the interactions between Packer and his many "visitors" is, for the most part, quite well written. Unfortunately, the movie's pacing is quite abysmal. The film doesn't have a traditional three-act structure, but that, in it of itself, isn't really a problem. Many excellent or classic films, like 2001, The Seventh Seal, or Pulp Fiction have broken away from the status-quo of story structure, but those films had their own distinct storytelling structure that followed a certain sense of rythym (as unconventional as they were). Cosmopolis, in some ways, feels just like a string of random events and scenes, held together by just the most basic thread of a plot. There's little sense of development or rhythm, and by the time the movie ended, I was left wondering what the hell just happened or if anything was really accomplished. It can be serious chore to sit through too, as most of the film is basically just long, sometimes dull, philosophical discussions. While many of the interactions are intriguing, they eventually overstay their welcome, and make you wondering when the damn thing will just end. For those that aren't a fan of slow paced narratives, this one will be a challenge to sit through.

That's about all I have to say regarding Cosmopolis. The ideas are interesting, Pattinson is surprisingly engaging, and Cronenberg's directorial skills are in full effect. If you can handle the slow pacing, odd structure, and overly talky scenes, this one might be worth checking out. Be forewarned though, this movie is definitely not for everyone. If you can't stand overly talky movies with cryptic dialogue and a snail's pace, Cosmopolis probably isn't for you. Take that as you will.

My Score: 3 out of 5!

Robot & Frank - Review

Fall is here, so that can mean one thing (well, it actually can mean many things, but given the context of this blog, it has one particular significance), done are the summer's line of high profile blockbusters and in is the line of studio's prestige pieces vying for awards... in other words, it's Oscar season. Actually, I'm not quite sure how the Academy will respond to this one. I can see this one possibly fetching a Best Actor or less likely a Best Screenplay nomination, though I doubt that it has the prestige necessary to get any more, and the chances of it actually winning one seem slim. We'll just have to wait until 2013 when they announce the nominations. But Oscar politics aside, let's talk about the film at hand. Robot & Frank is an interesting sci-fi drama that can best be described as Up crossed with Short Circuit, a story of an ageing jewel thief and his robot companion. How does it fair out... let's look shall we?

The movie opens in an undisclosed time presumably in the not-too-distant future with the aging Frank (played brilliantly by Frank Langella), living alone in his filthy and unkempt house. Years ago, Frank was a master jewel thief, whose life of crime eventually led to him serving time in prison, which in itself lead to a failed marriage and strained relationships between him and his two now grown up children (James Marsden and Liv Tyler). Frank is now on his own, struggling to come to grips with his increasing age and his slowly deteriorating mental health. In fact, his only real companion (and closest thing he has to a friend) is a local librarian named Jennifer (Susan Sarandon). Realizing his father's failing health, Frank's son Hunter presents Frank with an assistance robot programmed to provide him with therapeutic care, housekeeping, and a fixed daily routine. Frank initially wants nothing to do with his new robotic companion, but he eventually starts to warm up to it when he realizes that he can use it to assist him in a new set of heists. He teaches his robot the tricks of his trade, and suddenly Frank is robbing houses again with his technological companion.

The basic plot to Robot & Frank doesn't exactly stray away from a typical formula for the average indie drama/buddy comedy. That said, it does manage to deliver a very well-told version of the familiar narrative, making it into an emotional introspective on aging in addition to being an interesting drama about the depressing results of living a life of crime. With so many movies glamorizing jewel thieves or other Danny Ocean like criminals, Robot & Frank ultimately shows that leading a criminal life leaves you alone, depressed, and bitter. The film doesn't force you to sympathize or even like Frank right away, but it nonetheless portrays him as a person with numerous problems but deep down has a soul. His interactions with his robot (voiced by Peter Sarsgaard) are quite entertaining. The two have some enjoyable comedic bantering but also share a few dramatic moments as well. Fortunately, the movie never comes off as too cute or overly melodramatic either, bur rather hits a near-perfect stride of drama and humor that ensures neither trait overstays it's welcome. Add some great characters, a few stand-out scenes, and some poignant subtext, and it's overall a good story.

The performances are all around quite good, but the stand out, to no surprise, has to be Langella. He really sells the role, downplaying any excessive "cutesy" moments while avoiding any over-the-top melodrama. He carries out both the dramatic scenes along with the moments of humor with his natural presence and dramatic range. It's hard to say right now, but I wouldn't be surprised at all to see Langella score an Oscar nomination for this role. Susan Sarandon's role as Frank flirt and librarian is fairly small, but she sells it quite well. James Marsden brings a believable sense of frustration, obligation, and concern as Frank's son Hunter, who grows increasingly angry dealing with his father's antics. He comes to his aid anyways because he's his Dad and he has to love him. Liv Tyler does another serviceable job as the daughter, Madison, and that's all I really have to say about her. Peter Sarsgaard's monotone line deliveries as the robot were spot on. It takes a talented voice actor to take an inherently emotionless character and manage to give him some kind of a soul. It's all around a well-acted film with Langella stealing the show. No complaints there.

The movie has a very down-to-earth and interesting look as well. One of the complaints I often hear about future-set sci-fi movies is that they often overplay the futuristic elements. Take Back To The Future Part II for example (even though I do like the movie), the scenes set in 2015 predicted that we would be riding in flying cars, dehydrating and re-hydrating the food we eat, and that we would be watching holographic movies (well, considering the resurgence of 3D movies, that one's almost true). Many movies have nobly tried and failed to predict our future technological developments, and sometimes that can make the movie look quite silly. While only time will tell how close Robot & Frank fared out in this department, it seemed to me that the filmmakers did their homework and creating a fairly believable and down to earth vision of the future. This particular future includes evolved versions of the smart phone, home phones replaced by a Skype-like program, and print media being replaced by digital content. Even Frank's robot bares a striking resemblance to Honda's technological marvel, ASIMO. If robot technology ever takes off in any major way, I would imagine most robots would probably have spawned, in some way, shape, or form from ASIMO. Overall, this version of the future seemed like a thought-out and believable depiction. Like I said, we'll have to wait to see how well it will eventually hold up, but for now, I can buy it.

Unfortunately, there are a couple of things to critique here. As I mentioned, this plot is hardly anything groundbreaking, and even though I enjoyed the overall story, it wasn't hard to predict how it would end. There was even a twist in the third act that I won't spoil, but I have feeling most watching will probably figure out. There is also a strange subplot about Liv Tyler's character Madison, being vehemently anti-robot and makes it clear that she objects to her father having a robot aid. It's never explained exactly why, other than that she's something of a humanitarian (she starts out in the film doing some kind of philanthropic work in Turkmenistan). Maybe there's something I missed, but it seemed like an odd subplot, that not only gets resolved somewhat abruptly, but felt like was supposed to have some dynamic subtext but instead felt more tacked on and pointless. None of these were anything major, but worth noting.

Overall, Robot & Frank was a very enjoyable film. It didn't blow me away nor did it do anything that hasn't been seen before, but it's still a very well-acted movie with a predictable though still enjoyable story. It's hard to say whether this one will score any Oscar nominations, but the possibility is definitely there. If it's playing at a theater near you, give it a watch.

My Score: 4 out of 5!

Paranorman - Review

It's September now, so I guess that means the summer movie season is officially over. For me personally, it didn't feel like much of a season. Since July, I've busy moving from BC to Washington, so unfortunately I didn't get to see nearly as many films as I had originally wanted. I did manage to get most of the major releases, but there were plenty that I'm kicking myself for missing. So now, I'm playing catch-up with those that are still in theaters before I move onto the Oscar season lineup. Out of all the films I did manage to catch this summer, I have to admit that there weren't too many surprises or unexpected gems. With the exception of the out-of-nowhere hit Cabin In The Woods, most films managed to, more or less, delivered on what I expected. Films like The Avengers or The Dark Knight Rises were predictably good, Amazing Spider-Man and MIB 3 were predictably average, and others like Total Recall and Rock of Ages were, to no surprise, lame and uninspired. To my delight, however, I did manage to catch this little gem of a feature called Paranorman, a stop motion animated flick about a young boy who can communicate with the dead and is called to stop a zombie apocalypse. The few previews I had seen made the movie look promising, but I wasn't expected to like it as much as I did. Here's my full review.

As I mentioned, Paranorman centers around the young Norman Babcock, a young horror movie enthusiast with the ability to see and interact with spirits of the deceased. He lives in the Salem-inspired town of Blithe Hallow, Massachusetts, a centuries old community supposedly plagued by a decades-old witch's curse. None of the town residents, schoolmates, or even Norman's family believes in his ability, and as a result is labeled as a freak. The only person who does believe Norman is his eccentric and similarly outcast classmate, Neil. Despite this, Norman wishes for no friends, and prefers to be left alone (with the exception of the ghosts he frequently comes across). Norman, who has more or less come to grips with his gift/curse, faces an all new challenge when his recently deceased Uncle warns him that the aforementioned witch's curse placed upon the town centuries ago that will cause the dead to rise again. The reluctant Norman, aided by a team consisting of his new friend Neil, his preppy sister Courtney, Neil's dim-witted jock of a brother Mitch, and the school bully Alvin, races the clock to put an end to the curse before it's too late.

It's easy to see why Paranorman is good, but it's kind of tricky to identify what exactly makes it great... and make no mistake, this movie is indeed great. You've got a movie with stellar stop motion animation, a likable and well suited lead character, and a very creative script that finds a near perfect balance of inspiration and originality in addition to providing suitable jokes and themes for both kids and adults. Ultimately, what separates Paranorman from the barrage of other animated comedies is the script. While I can't go as far to call if "perfect," as it does have a couple of things to nitpick, it basically hit all the right notes and managed to do something that most family films simply fail to pull off. It's a concept with a likeable and well-developed main character, an ensemble of colorful supporting characters, a few decent twists, and some well-meaning themes and messages. In a move unusual for a kids film, Paranorman takes many of it's queues from classic horror films, with many homages and tributes that most horror buffs (like myself) will appreciate. Even better, the film throws in some themes of anti-bullying, conformism, and social culture to give it a bit more weight. It doesn't quite reach the near perfect blend of fun and pathos in most of the scripts Pixar typically brings to the table (though I'd say it's definitely got the leg up on Pixar's last two outings), but it nonetheless hits most of the right notes and delivers the goods.

It seems like the main selling point for this particular flick was the stop motion animation mixed with small details of cgi courtesy of Laika animators. This is the same team that gave us the 2009 film Coraline (another stop-motion flick which also had dark-ish themes). I have to say that I have a strong admiration for this kind of stop motion filmmaking. While computer generated animation is impressive and typically well-done, I can't shake this feeling like it's become almost a cliche unto itself. While I have great respect for the thousands of hard working cgi animators (and I really mean no offense to the work you guys do), there's just so many of them that it's becoming harder and harder to be impressed by the barrage of animated flicks to be released every year. With stop-motion, it's hard not to admire the hours and hours of dedicated work that comes with it, and the end results are usually pretty impressive. Paranorman is primarily stop-motion, complete with excellent character and creature designs, plus some beautifully realized production models of a town that brilliantly parodies Salem in Massachusetts. While most of the film was stop motion (or at least it looked like it was), it also included some small touches of cgi. This mainly comes through in the especially exciting finale, which blends it's creative stop motion along with some trippy and visually dynamic computer generated imagery to end the film on a particularly exciting note. If nice looking animation is all you're looking for, then Paranorman is all but guaranteed to satisfy.

On the not-so-positive side, there are a couple of things I can get into, but nothing that ruins the film. The supporting characters are all diverse and often funny, but their personalities aren't exactly dynamic or original. You have the preppy teenage girl, the dim-witted jock, the fat kid, and the school bully... they're fun don't get me wrong, but they all come from a done-to-death formula that lacked original thinking. Not to mention, some of the jokes fell a bit flat, but when you have a movie primarily aimed at children, that's not really a surprise. Overall, it finds a solid balance between it's kid-aimed jokes and the more adult humor. I know some parents have voiced some concerns over some of the potentially scarier content for their kids. While I'm not going to say what age I think is appropriate (it really depends on your kid and how they perceive what they watch), but I'll say this one definitely seemed aimed toward a slightly older child audience. It's not even really because the film is "scary" per se (the zombie scenes in particular are played more for laughs than anything), but it includes some themes and motifs that are a bit darker and heavier than what you typically see in your average family film. I would say most kids 10 and up could probably handle the movie, any younger than that... I'll let you make that call.

Overall, Paranorman is this summer's surprisingly great film. It's probably on the tail end of it's theater run now, so if it's still playing in a cinema near you, definitely go check this one out. If you missed it, it'll make for a great watch when the Blu-Ray comes out. Either way, see it!

My Score: 4.5 out of 5!

Top 10 Superhero Movies

I've been on a real superhero kick lately haven't I? Well, when your a big superhero nerd like myself, it's hard not to buy into the hype every summer when studios like to release their high profile comic book-inspired blockbusters to the public. Though between Batman, Spider-Man, The Avengers, Chronicle, and not to mention the other films I've been revisiting on Blu-Ray the last few months, I'm starting to feel a bit superhero-ed out. So... let's finish off the summer with a list of my ten favorite superhero films of all time.

It was tough to compile this list. I'm such a nerd when it comes to comic book movies that I've got tons of favorites and in some ways, it felt like choosing which kids I liked better. There were a couple films that just barely missed the list, so if your favorite isn't here, keep in mind that it probably was a finalist but just lost by just a hair. I decided to do only one film per franchise, so the list wouldn't be full of numerous sequels or remakes taking the credit. Also, with apologies to The Avengers, while despite being an awesome movie, I need to see it one or two more times to fairly evaluate it among the following (since most of these I've seen more than once). But enough stalling, here are my Top 10 Favorite Superhero movies.

10. Unbreakable (2000)
It's weird to think of a time when M. Night Shyamalan wasn't the laughing-stock of the film industry (doesn't that seem like forever ago). Still, prior to his critical flame-out, the guy was putting out some pretty creative and interesting takes on established genres, and his interpretation on superhero mythos is my personal favorite of his directorial efforts (yes, I like this one more than The Sixth Sense). Focusing less on action in favor of character-based drama and suspense, Unbreakable's analysis on the birth of a hero brings real-life sensibilities to the notion of the formation of a super powered individual. While the ending is a little on the nose and leaves far more to be desired, the top notch performances from Bruce Willis and Samuel L. Jackson along with M. Night's stylistic direction and script makes the film one hell of a movie. It's an often underrated and forgotten film that is definitely worth checking out.

9. Iron Man (2008)
A perfect film it's not, but Iron Man nonetheless succeeds hugely thanks to an interesting take on the superhero genre plus a memorable performance from Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark aka Iron Man. The first third of the movie is great, the second act isn't too shabby, but the final third is just okay. It was kind of neat to see a superhero who wasn't trying to save the world per se, but rather just cleaning up his own mess after putting that said world in danger. Jeff Bridges gives his all as the villainous Obadiah Stane aka Iron Monger, but his character was kind of one-note and predictable. That said, the great action, sweet effects, and Downey Jr's incredible presence as Stark elevated this film from just good to pretty damn awesome. Oh, and it didn't hurt that this film kicked off the Marvel connected universe and the countdown to The Avengers.

8. Captain America: The First Aveger (2011)
I know that this film tends to somewhat divide audiences. There are lots who loved it but also plenty who considered it cheesy and corny. Personally, I'm in the camp that absolutely loves it. It's a superhero film plus a WWII epic, how could I not like that? Yes, the movie has some campy overtones, but that's exactly the reason why I dug it so much. Taking inspiration from WWII-era serials, the film blends both retro and modern filmmaking aesthetics, creating a film that has all the fun of an old time picture show and a modern summer blockbuster. It finds a near-perfect balance between it's retro/campy appeal plus some legitimate human drama. It also boasted a great cast led by Chris Evans as the titular Captain, along with some great visuals and stellar costume design. What else can I say, but I just love this movie.

7. Hellboy II: The Golden Army (2008)
It's really a shame that the Hellboy movies aren't as popular as they could be, since these are some of the most creative and entertaining superhero flicks out there. Guillermo Del Toro is one the most visionary filmmakers working today, and he brings his artistic eye seen in his previous effort, Pan's Labyrinth to these films too. Hellboy II picks up where the first film left off, digs deeper into it's characters and mythos through stellar art direction, visual effects, and it's great cast. Ron Pearlman's performance as Hellboy is always a blast to watch, as he blends the character with a great balance of wit, toughness, and humanity... and that's saying a lot when you consider that Hellboy is, at his core, a demon. Either way, these films are pretty damn awesome and if you haven't seen either one, definitely check them out. Hopefully we'll one day get a third flick to complete the trilogy.

6. Watchmen (2009)
It's a real testament to the talent of a director (in this case Zack Snyder) when he can not only adapt a graphic novel that has often been called "un-filmable" but also make it into a pretty incredible film on it's own right. I don't want to overstate the film too much, as there are a few elements of the novel that (as predicted) don't translate quite perfectly to screen as one would like. Still, just the fact that Watchmen made it to theaters in such glorious style is damn-near a miracle. The movie looks fantastic, with a style and aesthetic consisting of beautiful art direction, excellently composed cinematography, and some sweet action. While the story and some of the actors have a few hiccups, it still manages to convey most of the legendary graphic novel's themes and messages without ruining any of the characters. Oh and Jackie Earl Haley as Rorschach... Hell Yeah!!!

5. X-Men: First Class (2011)
There had been four live action X-Men films prior to this prequel. The first two were quite good, the third was just okay, and the fourth (the Wolverine spin-off) was pretty bad actually. The fifth film, a prequel entitled X-Men: First Class, was admittedly pretty damn awesome. Despite being plagued by a rushed production schedule and some hit-and-miss visual effects, the film found a winning combination of a great cast, great story, and great style. The friendship between Charles Xavier aka Professor X and Eric Lencher aka Magneto was the highlight of the film, featuring an uneasy alliance between two powerful mutant individuals whose ideals couldn't have been more different. More than that, Matthew Vaughn's slick direction, which borrowed heavily from golden age 007 flicks, led to a great sense of style, some awesome action scenes, and strong performances from it's talented cast. What can I say, but this was just a first class flick.

4. Superman (1978)
While it's no secret that many superhero movies made before the 90s haven't exactly aged gracefully (though there are exceptions), the original Superman still holds up remarkably well. The first big budget superhero flick, the film's tagline was, "You'll Believe A Man Can Fly"... and we still do. A great cast, memorable set pieces, an amazing musical score, and some classic scenes, this adaptation is still flying high Christopher Reeve's memorable performance as the Man of Steel is enjoyable both as Superman and Clark Kent. The film also benefits from the enjoyable villain, Lex Luthor, played by Gene Hackman who in addition to being the villain also adds some comic relief. I also dug the relationship between Superman and Lois Lane (played to perfection by Margot Kidder), as the two shared some great chemistry in a romance that doesn't overshadow the main story. It also doesn't hurt to have Marlon Brando as Supes father, Jor-El, because Brando is just that much of a legend. Finally, I have to mention the outstanding musical score by the great John Williams. Everytime I hear that classic Superman theme, I get goosebumps, it's just perfect. Superman, admittedly, hasn't aged flawlessly, but there's no doubt that what works in this film... really works! It was awesome then and it's awesome now.

3. The Incredibles (2004)
Comedic legend Mel Brooks once said that the best movie parodies are done out of a love of the content being spoofed. Nowhere is that more apparent than in Pixar's animated superhero satire. The film, about a family of super powered individuals thrust back into action after trying to live a quiet suburban life, clearly wears it's love for comic books on it's sleeve. It pokes fun at the genre's cliches, but it does so by laughing along with those cliches as opposed to at them, and still manages to deliver a fun and exciting superhero epic complete with all the action you would expect out of a modern Hollywood blockbuster. Best of all, the film boasts an outstanding script compliments of writer/director Brad Bird with fully realized three dimensional characters and themes of family relationships and companionship. Throw in some stand-out voice over work from it's talented cast plus Pixar's always impressive animation, and you have a winner. Not just a good satire, but a damn great film in it's own right.

2. Spider-Man 2 (2004)
The first Spider-Man flick, released in 2002, struck a chord with audiences and critics mainly through B-Movie director Sam Raimi's knack for creating a world blending 60s comic book sensibilities and stylized modern filmmaking aesthetics. The sequel, released two years later, took everything that worked in the first while improving on everything that didn't. We get a solidly character driven narrative as Peter Parker (played once again by Toby Maguire) struggles to balance his everyday life as himself and his responsibilities as the web-slinger. Best of all, the film introduced one of Spidey's most famous comic book foes, Otto Octavius aka Doctor Octopus (Alfred Molina), as a once decent man turned to villainy after a terrible tragedy. Doc Ock's sympathetic backstory made him a dynamic and intimidating foe, leading to a good hero/villain rivalry. Throw in some absolutely bad-ass action scenes (that train scene is still one of my favorite movie action scenes of all time), Raimi's trademark cinematography, and some legitimate suspense mixed with fun comic book sensibilities, and you have one of the best comic-to-screen translations of all time.

1. The Dark Knight (2008)
Yeah... I know this was an obvious choice, and as much as I would have liked to think of something a little more out of the box, there's just no denying that The Dark Knight set and continues to hold the standard for the genre. Taking inspiration from gritty crime genres and throwing in the Caped Crusader, The Dark Knight wasn't a spot-on adaptation of Batman comics, but rather a fully realized film that honored the themes and virtues the comics had stood for. It's a constantly suspenseful crime saga with an outstanding cast, commendable story, intriguing characters, mind-blowing action, and one of the greatest villains to ever grace the screen. Heath Ledger's iconic performance as the Joker is nothing short of legendary, taking bits of inspiration from previous incarnations while still bringing his own touches to create a villain that was both familiar, unique, scary, funny, and all around perfect. I have no doubt that someday, a talented team will make a new superhero flick that will top this one, but until that day comes, The Dark Knight will continue to reign supreme as the undisputed champion of superhero flicks.

So these are my top 10 favorite superhero films to grace the silver screen. Agree? Disagree? Let me know what you think and leave a comment.

And just because I feel bad for leaving some out, here are a couple of honorable mentions.
The Avengers, Kick-Ass, Thor, The Incredible Hulk, V For Vendetta and The Rocketeer.

Chronicle - Review

If there's one particular film genre that I've had consistently mixed feelings toward, it's got to be found footage films. With the rise of podcasting, smart phones, and social networking, it's easy to see why they've had such a resurgence in popularity. Unfortunately, they've never made much of an impression on me, I've never hated them but I've never particularly cared for most of them either. Many of them are just generally gimmicky and cheap looking movies that use shaky cams and grainy/dark quality videos in order to cover up the low production values and take advantage of a lower budget. Even some of the higher budget (Cloverfield) or critically praised movies (Blair Witch Project or The Last Broadcast) were kind of "meh" to me. The only found footage movies I've ever really gotten into were the Paranormal Activity movies, though even those I admit were enjoyable mainly in a fun guilty pleasure kind of way. Chronicle took the genre in a new direction, combining both found footage with the sensibilities of a superhero flick. The idea was interesting for sure, and as far as I knew, it hadn't been done before (correct me if I'm wrong though). I unfortunately missed this one in theaters, but managed to pick up the Blu-Ray and finally got around to watching it. Does it live up to both of it's respective genres or does it get lost in it's gimmick?

Chronicle primarily centers around the teenage Andrew Detmer (Dane Dehaan), an introverted high school student picked on by his classmates, abused by his alcoholic father, and coming to grips with that fact that his mother is dying of cancer. His closest friend is his cousin, Matt Garretty (Alex Russell), a more popular and mostly well-meaning (though kind of a douche too) student who constantly tries to get him more involved among his school peers. One day, in order for Andrew to cope with his difficult school and home life, he buys a video camera and starts chronicling his day-to-day life. When Matt eventually persuades Andrew to come to a friend's party, the two meet fellow student, Steve Montgomery (Michael B. Jordan), the friendly and uber-popular big man on campus. At this party, the three teens discover a small cave containing mysterious and unknown (possibly alien) object that inexplicably gives them telekinetic powers. The trio then embraces their new-found powers, primarily using them for fun and games, but as their powers become stronger, they begin to test their integrity. Suddenly, the find themselves faced with the decision to use their abilities responsibly or to embrace their darker inhibitions.

One of my issues with found footage movies, particularly big budget films set in high profile metropolitan cities like this film, is that it becomes difficult to suspend your disbelief. This doesn't apply so much to lower budget horror flicks like Blair Witch or The Last Broadcast, because those are set in indistinct locations that most probably are not familiar with like the middle of the woods in a random rural town. For instance, even though I know a movie like Paranormal Activity isn't real, the fact that it takes place in a random location and features two people I've never seen or heard of, it becomes somewhat easier to buy that what I'm watching might have actually happened... or at least seems more plausible. Higher budget found footage films like Chronicle or Cloverfield are set in well-known metropolitan cities and feature big scale disasters. When I was watching Cloverfield, it was hard to get into the movie, for me at least, because the movie tried so hard to make it look like some top secret document of a major disaster that actually happened. Though, if by some chance, a giant monster actually appeared in New York and started tearing up the city... yeah I would have heard of that. Hell, Chronicle is set in Seattle, the city where I live, and if a bunch of teens with superpowers were running ape-shit downtown, you bet your ass that would be national news. So with that said, you're probably thinking that I hated this movie. To answer that... while I do think that the film probably would have been more effective if it didn't go with a found footage aesthetic, I have to admit that overall, I thought it kind of rocked.

Where Chronicle succeeds where so many other found footage movies have failed is in it's script, particularly it's characters. The main characters are a group of three likable and sympathetic teenagers with depth, development, and naturally flowing character arcs. Soon after we meet them, we get a feel for who they are, where they are coming from, and what drives them. It helps that the actors to portray the three characters are spot on. The standout has to Dane Dehaan as Andrew, who infuses his character with a raw sense of emotion and drama, allowing the audience to make a strong connection to his character. More than that, Chronicle paints one of the more believable and accurate depictions of high school life and conventions while addressing many common concerns and troubles teenagers face (well, at least it seems legit compared to my high school experience from what I remember, I have to admit it's becoming harder for me to critique teen movies seeing as I graduated from high school seven years ago... damn I feel old.) The film itself bares more than a few similarities to Stephen King's Carrie, which itself was a story of an outcast teenager who acquires telekinetic and takes revenge on her abusive parent and condescending classmates. Carrie was a great book adapted into an outstanding movie in 1976 (one of my all time favorite flicks), and while Chronicle takes a few too many queues from that particular story, it was nonetheless a good source for which to take some inspiration.

Something I mentioned earlier is a pet peeve I have concerning how so many found footage movies utilize shaky cam gimmicks along with dark, grainy, or generally low quality video to cover up their lack of budget. Personally, that kind of style tends to just annoy me and draws me away from the experience. Chronicle manages to side-step this problem by actually presenting a film with mostly steady camera movements and an overall solid display of production elements. Most of the time, Andrew or some other character is holding the camera via their telekinesis in a stable and watchable manner, allowing the audience to actually see and absorb what's happening on screen. The film is edited in a profoundly interesting way as well, most of the film takes place from the POV of Andrew's camcorder, but every so often the film will cut to footage from either another person's recording or footage from a nearby security camera. It kind of makes you wonder why they bothered with the found footage style in the first place, but I guess you can't argue with what works. Speaking of which, Chronicle also boasts some of stellar cgi, which is all the more impressive considering it's relatively low budget. Aside from a handful of iffy cgi shots, most of them looked pretty solid and managed to blend in with the real elements of their environment. All of this culminates to a third act finale that is all but guaranteed to knock your socks off. While it doesn't quite compare to some of the finales of some recent superhero epics (though it's not really fair to compare a 12 million dollar film to a 200+ million dollar epic like The Avengers), it's still pretty damn amazing to see what can be accomplished with a sub-par budget.

Despite all this movie has going for it, I admit that it's not perfect. While I dug the film's characters and subtext within the script, it nonetheless resorts to mostly predictable development and an ending I think most will see coming. It wasn't hard to predict the fates of the primary players, and shouldn't be to any semi-regular moviegoers. Plus there were a few times I couldn't help but question a few circumstances regarding the found footage elements. For instance, there are a couple of scenes that I couldn't help but think why would a character be filming a certain incident, or why they would have a camera in the first place. As I mentioned, I can't help but wonder if this film would have benefited more as a traditional narrative as opposed to a found footage film, but that's a relatively unimportant nitpick that boils down more to an aesthetic choice.

So overall, Chronicle kind of rocks! Aside for a handful of nitpicky-related critiques I have about the film, I don't have too many bad things to say. It's an interesting take on the superhero genre that's well-acted, well-directed, and for the most part, well-written. I'm kicking myself for missing this one in theaters, but the cash I spent on the Blu-Ray was definitely money well spent. If you haven't seen this one yet, definitely check it out.

My Score: 4 out of 5!

The Amazing Spider-Man - Review

Alright! Before I write this review for The Amazing Spider-Man, I need to get something off my chest. Now, that Christopher Nolan has finished his Dark Knight trilogy, can superhero films please stop trying to copy the Batman formula! I get it, Nolan's trilogy was awesome. I loved the movies, you loved them, everyone loved them, but come on people! Batman is NOT the only superhero around, and not every flick to feature a costumed crime-fighter has to be about some dark and brooding anti-hero. I mention all of this, because for the last few years, I've seen so many movies guilty of this, though the recent reboot of the Spider-Man film series, is arguably the worst offender. I can only assume that the filmmakers were trying to distance this particular film from the previous trilogy, and they figured a much looser interpretation of the Spider-Man mythos mixed with not-so-subtle "elements" (ie, a nicer way of saying ripped off) from Batman Begins and character beats reminiscent of Twilight was the way to go. Oh yeah... btw, the film takes a good dose of "inspiration" from Twilight too... my God what have they done to you Spidey???

*As per usual, I'm going to avoid spoilers when I can, but in this review, there might be a few story details I'll be discussing that may or may not be considered "spoiler-ish." That said, most of what I'll be talking about is familiar territory and should come as no surprise to anyone who's seen the 2002 film. I'll say this much, I promise that I won't reveal anything beyond the first act. Take that as you will.

The Amazing Spider-Man is a retelling of Spider-Man's of-told origin story. As a young boy, Peter Parker was left in the care of his Aunt and Uncle, Ben and May Parker (played by Martin Sheen and Sally Field respectively), after his parents inexplicably left and never returned. The story fast forwards years later to the now teenage Peter (Andrew Garfield), who has become a shy outcast among his high school peers. Curious to discover why his parents abandoned him, Parker digs up his father's old briefcase, which reveals that he was an Oscorp scientist working alongside the one-armed Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans) on a top secret project that could merge human and animal DNA. Determined to learn more, he visits Dr. Connors at his lab to discuss his past. It is here, where Parker gets that fateful spider-bite from a scientifically enhanced bug that gives him his superpowers to become Spider-Man. Meanwhile, Dr. Connors, in an attempt to regrow his lost arm, injects himself with a serum composed of reptile DNA. While the serum manages to replace missing arm, it brings forth the unfortunate side effect of turning him into a human-sized and reptilian monster known as The Lizard. With a homicidal Lizard loose on the streets of New York, Spidey takes to the streets to stop him before it's too late.

I'm going to do something I don't normally do right here. Typically, I don't consider it really necessary to discuss my feelings or history for a series like Spider-Man. That said, every time I've had a discussion with someone about this movie, I've been called a Sam Raimi fanboy or comic geek that either is too in love with the previous trilogy, too attached to the comics, and/or doesn't appreciate change or modern interpretations of these characters. So I'm just going to get this out of the way and let you all know exactly where I'm coming from. Yes... I have always been a huge fan of Spider-Man. I was a casual reader of the comics growing up (though I haven't read one in years), enjoyed the shows, liked most of the video games, and was a fan of the previous three movies. I loved the first film, really loved the second (my second favorite comic book movie behind Dark Knight), and thought the third was decent despite a few really stupid moments (say what you will folks, but I don't think Spider-Man 3 is as bad as it's been let on). Do I think it's kind of lame that they're retelling the origin story with the previous flicks still so fresh in people's minds... yeah kind of, but not enough to not give this film a chance. Do I hate modernizing comic book properties or re-imagining characters to fit a new theme... of course not, as long as they're done well. It can be kind of frustrating when properties are re-imagined to a point where they barely resemble their source material, BUT as long as they work in a narrative sense while honoring the themes and ideas of the original material, I'm cool with that. So I don't mind reinventing the character... in fact, I encourage it. So yeah, just wanted to get that out of the way.

So after all of that, what did I think of The Amazing Spider-Man? To be honest, I found it to be pretty damn average. It's not bad in the strictest sense as there are a number of things I did genuinely like, but there was just too much about it that I found forgettable, overly-familiar, or just plain bad. To be fair, the film boasts a great cast, promising director, and a couple of pretty cool action scenes. Unfortunately, they're all serving a narrative that is problematic from start to finish. I have no problem with the decision to set this film in high school and it's pretty cool that they decided to make Gwen Stacy the love interest instead of Mary Jane Watson (Gwen came before MJ in the comics). None of that makes up for a script full of plot holes, pacing issues, and problematic characters.

That last point I mentioned is really the biggest problem with this flick, the characters don't work, especially the lead character. I'm not critiquing the cast so much right now, but just the characters from a narrative perspective. In an effort to differentiate Andrew Garfield's Peter from Tobey Maguire's version, this flick downplays the science nerd aspects of the character and instead turns him into... actually kind of a cipher. That's not inherently a bad thing, as it can add a level of mystery to the character that might keep the story engaging as it unfolds. Unfortunately, the best way to actually describe him is something like Edward Cullen meats Bruce Wayne (as in, Bruce before he became Batman)... and no, that's not a good thing. His character is so inconsistent that we never really get a feel for who he is as a person... except that he's kind of a douchebag. At times he's an emo, at times he's a skater, and at he's a manic depressive. None of that would bother that much if they took the time to make the character likable in some way, shape, or form, but they really don't. Throughout the film, Parker is, quite frankly, kind of an asshole. The theme of his "character arc" (I use that term loosely because there's next to no character development) is less about "With great power comes great responsibility" but rather "When you get superpowers, try not to be a douche." I hate to compare this flick to the previous 2002 movie, but since the film goes out of its way to remind you of it, I can't help but think how much better it was done in the first. Take for example the scenes where Peter's Uncle Ben is murdered. In the original, Ben is killed because Peter refuses to take down a thief who robbed a guy that cheated Peter out of 3000 dollars. It was an irresponsible move on Peter's part that led to his Uncle's death, and it suddenly puts things in perspective of what Uncle Ben meant when he said "With great power comes great responsibility." He takes up the Spider-Man mantle as a means to honor his Uncle's death and his wisdom. That's a great start for a superhero and it really makes you root for the character. In this flick, Uncle Ben dies because Peter refuses to stop a thief from robbing a convenience store after the clerk refused to sell Peter a chocolate milk for being a few pennies short. Do I even need to explain why these two don't compare? To make matters even worse is that Parker created the Spidey mantle as a way to avenge his uncle's death. A movie can survive a lot of things, but a bad lead character is a tough hurdle to overcome, and unfortunately this movie struggles because of this.

Now, if there's one way to make up for a weak hero it would be a decent villain and The Lizard was a promising choice for Spidey foe. He's a Jekyll and Hyde kind of villain, an otherwise decent person who turns into an evil reptile when testing an experimental serum to regrow his lost arm. This, in it of itself, is a good setup, and Rhys Ifans is a good choice for the part. Unfortunately, the character suffers thanks to odd structure and strange motivations. Once he turns into the actual Lizard creature, he inexplicably also turns him violent and evil... a bit strange but I can buy that. Where it gets confusing is when he periodically changes back to a human and for some odd reason still retains his evil qualities. As the movie progresses it only gets more absurd. Eventually, the lizard serum not only makes him evil but also turns him into something of a "reptilian fascist" with a mission to create an all lizard society. None of this really adds up or makes much sense, especially when you consider that his only real motivation in the first place was to fix his missing arm. Once again, a promising villain totally wasted. There are a whole bunch of little plot holes and inconsistencies in the script that detract from the movie's quality. Everything from abandoned sub plots and pointless characters are here. Plus, the other major thrust of this narrative was to explore why Peter's parents disappeared, which is only barely explored and left unanswered to presumably be examined in the inevitable sequel. You can basically sum up the screenplay with this statement, promising material ruined thanks to sub-par execution.

From a technical perspective, the film is hit and miss. Spider-Man's new costume is a bit over-designed but unmistakably recognizable as Spider-Man. Fortunately, it gives Garfield the ability to move around in what are some admittedly decent action scenes. There are a couple of enjoyable hand-to-hand combat segments along with some exciting web slinging moments. From a pure geek perspective, I do have to admit that it's cool to see Spidey using the mechanic web shooters instead of the organic ones from the previous trilogy. The settings were a bit odd though. Why they had to set so many scenes in lens-flare saturated nighttime shots, I don't know (well, I guess they were trying to emulate The Dark Knight) but I don't have too many complaints on that front. Unfortunately, I do have some majors issues with the cgi used to render The Lizard... my God does he look terrible. The design is problematic, as he looks like a cross between The Lizard and those goombas from the Super Mario Bros movie. It's not helped that the cgi itself looks like a cut-scene from a mediocre video game. Their efforts to find creative angles to film him in order to make him look less awful were commendable but none managed to remedy just how awful he turned out. You know, a lot of people complained about the Green Goblin's goofy looking suit in the first movie, but I'd rather have a cheesy looking practical effect any day as opposed to sub-par cgi. If there was one thing a summer blockbuster like The Amazing Spider-Man has to get right, it's decent action and production value, and despite the Lizard, it's more-or-less mission accomplished.

Finally, we come to the cast. For the most part, I don't have much to say about the chosen actors, none were great but none were bad either. Andrew Garfield has done some great work prior to this, namely as Eduardo Saverin in The Social Network, and as Parker he does a commendable job working with such a flaky script. Emma Stone, once again, gives another strong performance as Gwen Stacy, who is both the love interest, but also manages to contribute a bit to the plot as well. Rhys Ifans does what he can as The Lizard, and despite the weird motivations, looks like he was having some fun hamming it up a bit as the villain. Martin Sheen and Sally Field were a bit on the nose as Uncle Ben and Aunt May, but they do their usual good job. The only real stand out to me was, believe it or not, Dennis Leary as Captain Stacy, Gwen's police chief father. Leary is primarily known for his comedic roles, so seeing him do a role somewhat against type worked to his advantage. He's a strong character who cares deeply for his family as the safety of New York's citizens, and at first approaches Spider-Man as a dangerous vigilante. While we know Spidey isn't evil, he nonetheless acts somewhat reckless and kind of a dipshit, so it's understandable why Stacy would be reluctant to trust him, and Leary does a good job personifying that kind of character. Overall though, I can't complain too much about the cast. Most did a solid job and managed to somewhat elevate the film.

Overall, The Amazing Spider-Man is hardly what the title implies. It's by no means amazing and not even that particularly good. It's just pretty average when you get down to it. I know this film was plagued by a rushed schedule and frequent re-writes, so hopefully the sequel will improve on this front. Overall though, I wasn't that impressed but not overly disappointed either. If it's still playing in theaters and you've managed to miss it, keep on doing that or wait for a DVD rental.

My Score: 2.5 out of 5!