Twilight - Review

Whenever a novel comes out and makes a huge impact on either teen or preteen audiences, I generally approach them with caution. Twilight made such a huge splash on pop culture, that a film adaptation was inevitable. Like the novel, the movie made an equal if not greater impact on the film industry, bringing in oceans of box office revenue despite receiving extremely mixed reviews.

It was those mixed reviews that made me weary of this movie, and after seeing a few clips I failed to see why exactly nearly every girl was freaking out about how much they loved this movie. Well... I realize that when you have a romantic story with good looking characters, that will generally catch some attention. Nonetheless, I still couldn't put my finger on why this series was the one that everyone obsessed over. So, after months and months of avoiding to watch Twilight, I decided to give in and just see what all the hype was about. After watching it, I've come to this conclusion... TWILIGHT IS ONE OF THE WORST MOVIES I HAVE EVER SEEN!!!!!! Seriously!!! This movie was one of the most painful movie going experiences I've ever been through. Its one of the few movies that has honestly made me angry while watching it!

The plot centers around young Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart) who moves to the small town of Forks, Washington to live with her father. Her first day at her new high school, she meets Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson), and immediately falls in love with him. Edward, however, is hiding a dark secret from Bella, he is a vampire. The two fall in love, despite disapproval from Edward's "family" and Edward's lust for blood.

I'm kind of embarrassed to review this movie. I'm actually quite ashamed to admit that I actually watched the whole damn thing from start to finish. Generally when I watch movies, I can usually find something that I enjoyed and with the odd exception can focus on that enough to get through a below-average flick. Twilight, however, was one of those odd movies that I was cringing from start to finish. There were even a few times I ended up banging my head against the wall because it was so horrendous. My expectations weren't high by any means. On the contrary, I was expecting this movie to suck hard and I at least thought I was prepared for the worst... but nope. So why does this movie reek? If I only knew where to start...

I guess the best place to start would be the plot... or lack thereof. When I first heard of Twilight's story, I thought it sounded like a standard generic teen romance/fantasy plot... and it is. The plot itself wasn't God-awful, but the way it was executed was just so poorly done. The love story is the main focus, but there is an ongoing subplot involving a gang of three evil vampires who sent their sights on Bella. This subplot feels so tacked on and shows up so abruptly that it feels quite unnecessary. When you also throw in some pointless drama between Bella and her estranged father, you essentially have a soap opera-caliber storyline... and believe me, that's not a good thing. To add to the weird stories, the writers also decided to throw in some of the worst and most cringe-worthy lines I have ever heard! I haven't heard such laughable romance dialogue since the love scenes in the Star Wars prequels. No matter how you look at it, it just sucks!

One scene that absolutely drove me crazy is the scene where Edward reveals to Bella that he is a vampire. The scene takes place in a forest out in the middle of nowhere, and Edward is going on about how he much he wants Bella's blood, while Bella is just standing there not bothered by this at all. First off, why isn't that she was not terrified right there? All I know is that if someone revealed to me that they were a bloodthirsty monster and they wanted to kill me, I'd be freaking out! She had just met him, and their relationship up to that point consisted of mainly awkward silences and two word conversations... so why trust this guy so much. Sure, Edward may have saved Bella from getting hit by another car, but the writings on the wall. That scene just confused me... it threw logic out the window in favor of some overdone romance movie cliches. Immediately afterwards, the story progressed to the infamous "sparkle scene." I knew that was going to be cheesy and stupid... but OH GOD!!! I thought at least the worst was done. There's no way it could get any dumber than a sparkling vampire... until they got to the vampire baseball scene. Do I really need to say any more than that?

When you have bad writing, what usually follows is bad acting. Twilight is no exception. Generally, I might give the actors the benefit of the doubt and say that you can only do so much with a bad script, but not this time. Since everyone plays second fiddle to the two main leads, I'm only going to focus on Edward and Bella. First you have Kristin Stewart as Bella Swan. She has some of the most awkward facial expressions I've ever seen from an actor. I know her character is supposed to be out of her comfort zone, but she looks totally confused and uncomfortable throughout the whole movie. For nearly every take, it looked she was thinking "Get me out of here! Get me out of here! Now!!!" Of course, if I acted in a movie like this, I would probably be thinking the same thing.

Then you have Robert Pattinson as Edward. I guess he's mainly there as eye candy for the girls, because he sure didn't deliver with a performance. What disappoints me the most is that when I watch this movie, I feel like that Pattinson has the ability to give a decent performance, but for whatever reason he just doesn't. Nearly every one of his lines are delivered with soap opera staccato and goes beyond the realms of melodrama every time the camera focuses on him. This is a problem with both Edward and Bella, and could have easily been improved had Catherine Hardwicke (the director) just given a little more direction to her actors.

Now the million dollar question... was there anything in the film I liked??? Well, I will admit the cinematography wasn't bad. The scenery was okay and the camera crew at least took the time to create a decent-looking movie. Don't get me wrong, its nothing amazing, but I will give credit to DoP and Hardwicke for making a little effort. For that alone, it doesn't deserve a zero star rating.

With that being said, I really can't think of anything else I enjoyed about this movie. I knew this was going to suck, but WOW! This was one of the first movies in years that has actually made me furious. I actually stood up on more than one occasion and shouted, "WHO THE HELL WROTE THIS S***!!!" If you're reading this, you're probably in one of two different classes. You probably either hate Twilight as well and agree with everything I've written. On the other hand, you might enjoy the series and think I'm just nitpicking, I didn't watch this with the right mindset, or I just don't understand because I'm a guy and this movie wasn't aimed toward a male demographic. First off, I may nitpick more often than not, but I am most definitely not the kind of critic who lets little hiccups here and there ruin the movie-going experience. When I give a bad review, its because I found A LOT of serious problems. As for not watching this movie with the right mindset... I set my standards extremely low, and prepared for the worst. For the movie to not meet my really really really low expectations, that means its really bad. Finally, even though this is a romance movie geared toward teen girls, I have seen tons of chick flicks a million times better than this. I may not be a huge romantic film fan, but I still know a crappy movie when I see one.

As I mentioned before, the movie may have a semi-decent look to it, but that just barely disguises the fact that this movie is nothing more than a glorified soap opera! Twilight is by far one of the most poorly written, overacted, and stupid movies I have ever seen. It was a total waste of my time and I can only hope that this stupid fad dies down soon so that this series can become nothing more than a dumb pop culture relic of the past!

My review: Half Star out of 5!!!

Avatar - Review

James Cameron's Avatar has been in theatres for about a month now, and has already astonished audiences and is well on its way to becoming the highest grossing film of all time. Will it finally be the film to out gross Cameron's previous blockbuster and highest grossing film of all time, Titanic? Maybe, maybe not, but one thing for sure, Avatar is definitely a monumental film for one reason or another.

The film takes place in the 22nd century on the distant world of Pandora, a lush forest planet crawling with life. The planet is inhabited by a species known as the Na'vi, blue skinned feline-like humanoids standing at nine feet tall. They live in harmony with nature, worshipping their mother Goddess, Enya. When the RDA corporation from Earth makes their way to Pandora, they set their sights on mining the world for valuable minerals, but the Na'vi refuse allow such an action. In order to negotiate with the Na'vi, the RDA authorizes the Avatar program, headed by Dr. Grace Augustine (Sigourney Weaver), which involves growing a Na'vi body with no conscious that could be mentally controlled by a genetically-linked human. The human-controlled Na'vi avatars could then infiltrate the tribe and negotiate terms to move and allow the RDA to mine the land.

Three volunteers control the avatars, Dr. Augustine, biologist Norm Spellman (Joel Moore), and paraplegic marine Jack Sully (Sam Worthington). Sully volunteered for the program under the agreement from military Colonel Miles Quaritch, that after completing the assignment, Sully would receive surgery to fix his paralysis. After a few missions in the avatar, Sully is nearly is killed by some of Pandora's local wildlife, but is rescued by Neytiri, a female Na'vi and member of the local tribe known as the Omaticaya. After being introduced to the tribe, the elders agree to make Jake a member, and assign Neytiri to teach him the ways and methods of their species. Jake then begins to grow attached to the Omaticaya and their ways, but increasing pressure from the RDA and military create tension between humans the Na'vi.

So, what is there to say about Avatar? Well, I'll start off with something that everyone has already been saying... This is by far, one of the nicest looking films I have ever seen. In today's age of movies and blockbusters, cgi is all-too-familiar. You see it everywhere in films these days, sometimes its impressive and sometimes its so fake looking that it can ruin the film. Audiences have become very critical of CG too. When it was first used on a massive scale in films like Terminator 2, Jurassic Park, or Independence Day, audiences were wowed by the photo realistic look the cgi provided. Of course, as time went on, and cgi went from a novelty to a cliche, audiences were less than impressed, especially when filmmakers began putting less effort into the effects. So with an onslaught of cgi-laden blockbusters and more critical film goers, it takes a truly impressive film to amaze audiences. So, with all that in mind, Avatar seriously has some of the most amazing cgi and digital motion capture I've ever seen.

Its a little premature to call Avatar's cgi THE best, but its definitely in the Top 5. The character animations alone are incredible. The motion capture convey the actors' facial expressions and emotions to a point that I often forgot they were a digital effect. The world of Pandora was brought to life in glorious fashion via the amazing effects team as well. The planet seems so familiar yet it feels so different at the same time. The creatures were all very creative and usually incredible to watch. On top of all that, you have some absolutely gorgeous cinematography and thrilling action sequences. I've never said this about a film before, but I seriously recommend seeing this movie in 3D. I've generally considered 3D a bit of a gimmick. It wasn't until recently, with the innovation of digital 3D, that the technology progressed enough to rise above the "gimmicky" level. Between the camerawork, photo realistic cg and immersive 3D effects, this was one of the few films that I honestly felt like I was actually in the movie. On top of that, you got some solid performances from a good cast and a creative musical score. Avatar really has a lot going for it, and will likely stand the test of time as one of the best-looking movies ever made.

Unfortunately, with the good comes the bad, and I didn't have to look far to find fault in Avatar. Cameron has established himself time and time again as an impressive visionary, but a very mediocre storyteller. Sure, some of his movies have decent writing, but Avatar is not one of them. Its not the worst script I've ever seen, but a lot of the movie falls into the category of generic, bland, or too familiar. First off, most of the characters are about as generic as you can get. For instance, Stephen Lang's character, Colonel Quaritch, feels like just another stereotypical military general. He's mean, loud, over-the-top and cares more about himself and kicking ass than he does about others. Its not that Lang's acting was bad or anything, on the contrary I thought he did a fine performance, its just that we've seen that persona so many times, they might as well have named his character, Generic Military Official #37. I think the same can be said for pretty much everyone in the movie. The Na'vi again were cool to look at (SO AWESOME!) but despite their incredible appearance, even their personalities felt a bit too familiar.

As everyone and their Grandmother has already stated, Avatar practically forces down environmental messages down your throat. Don't get me wrong, I strongly encourage environmental awareness, in fact you could probably call me an environmentalist of sorts. Its just when films begin to come off as preachy that it gets a little frustrating. That is a relatively minor gripe, but something worth noting. Lastly, the story was just waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too predictable. There were no surprises, twists, or turns anywhere in the movie that I didn't see coming from a mile away. I didn't watch any trailers for the movie, didn't even see too many TV commercials, so I had the luxury of going into this movie with little knowledge of what I would expect. Unfortunately, 15 minutes into it, I could see exactly where it was going. It was not just the ending either. Every plot point, development, or attempted turn is incredibly predictable. I won't spoil anything, but rather just say, don't go in expecting any great leaps in storytelling.

The lack of story is a bit disappointing for a few reasons. First off, this movie had been in development for about 10 years, so its hard to understand why Cameron or his writers could not come up with more clever writing. I know they spent a lot of time working on the look of the movie, but if they put just a little more effort into the movie, this could have easily been a 5-star movie. My last little gripe is that I feel like the only way to get the full Avatar experience would be seeing this movie in theatres in 3D. So, watching this at home definitely would not be the same. That being said, I will definitely be buying this movie on Blu Ray. I would even consider upgrading my home theatre set up just for this movie alone.

So overall, is Avatar a good movie? In short... YES! Like I said, the script isn't likely to win any screenplay awards, but the overall look and feel of the movie more than makes it worth the price of a movie ticket. Come time for the Academy Awards, this movie will be a shoe-in for the Best Visual Effects award and should stand a good chance of winning most of the other technical achievements like SFX or cinematography. Go See It!!!

My Review: 4 Stars out of 5!!!

Back To The Future Part III - Review

Audiences did not have to wait long for the third entry in the Back to the Future trilogy. Since Part II and III were filmed back-to-back, Part III was released only one year after Part II. Once again picking up immediately after the previous film, Marty and Doc find themselves on another thrilling and humorous time traveling adventure.

Part II's abrupt ending showed the Delorean getting struck by lightening in 1955. Immediately after seeing the time machine zapped, Marty gets a 70 year old letter written by Doc delivered to him, informing him that the lightening bolt sent him back to the year 1885. In the letter, he informs Marty that he had hidden the time machine in a cave by a cemetery. There it would remain undisturbed for 70 years and would allow Marty to return to 1985. While retrieving the Delorean, Marty stumbles upon Doc's grave from 1885, indicating that he was shot and killed by Buford "Mad Dog" Tannen (Biff's ancestor) one week after he wrote the letter. Determined to save Doc from his fate, Marty takes the time machine back to 1885. Unfortunately, as soon as Marty goes back, the gas tank is ruptured. The time circuits are still functional and Mr. Fusion can still power the flux capacitor, but without gas the car cannot run and therefore cannot get up to 88 mph. So now, with time against them, Marty and Doc must find a way to move the time machine and return back to the future.

Personally, I enjoyed the change in scenery. The western setting certainly does make this film come off as the black sheep of the trilogy, but I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing. It still feels like an authentic entry and is very much a continuation/conclusion of the story arch. Since the first movies took place in 1955, seeing that again would have been kind of boring. The logical thing to do was to have the movie take place in a completely new era, and it might as well have been the 1800s. Besides, westerns are always fun, and that fun is implemented into the BTTF continuity quite well. The fish-out-of-water humor is quite amusing, and the way Marty and Doc interact and work in the time period adds to the enjoyability.

One thing I've always commended the Back to the Future series for doing is expanding the series' characters and settings. We've seen the Mcfly family, Biff, and a number of supporting characters portrayed through various time periods, ages, and alternate realities. With the western setting, we not only see Hill Valley in its early years, but also many ancestors of the aforementioned characters. Biff's ancestor, Buford "Mad Dog" Tannen is the notorious outlaw and gunslinger of Hill Valley. Marty's relatives live on a farm on the outskirts of the town. We also, get glimpses of Mr. Strickland's (the disciplinarian from the high school) ancestor, who is the Marshall of Hill Valley. Seeing Hill Valley's origins and to see different incarnates of familiar characters is definitely part of what makes this movie enjoyable.

The movie's main appeal is once again Doc and Marty. I've already explained why they're such an entertaining duo in my review of the first movie, so I won't go into that too much again. What is interesting about the two in this movie is that they have a bit of a role reversal. In the previous two films, Marty has generally been pretty careless and irresponsible about time travelling. Whether he's screwing up his parents' first meeting or trying to cheat at gambling, Marty has not always been too concerned about the risks of time travel. Now, Marty is a bit more cautious while Doc begins to let his guard down a little. As example of this, there's even an amusing moment when Doc and Marty switch catchphrases. Marty utters "Great Scott!" and Doc exclaims, "This is heavy!" Still, they do retain their personalities and core values but add just enough to their characters to keep the movie interesting.

One of the biggest changes the film made was the addition of a love interest for Doc. In fact, Doc gets the most character development out of everyone in the movie. Just like the first focused on Marty and the Mcfly's, the second focused more on Biff, the third movie belongs to Doc. Mary Steenburgen plays Clara Clayton, a school teacher whom Doc saves from a runway wagon that goes off a cliff. Unfortunately, this is where the movie's biggest faults lie. The romantic subplot is mediocre at best, and Clara often comes off as little more than a third wheel in the overall story. On top of her character being somewhat flat, her character adds little more to the story other than some pointless drama and unoriginal plot devices. Steenburgen's acting is not necessarily bad though, if her character was better written I probably would have been more forgiving to the subplot. Its not the worst love story I've ever seen, and it does have a few mildly amusing scenes, but it seriously slows down the movie's pacing.

Also, another few faults I find in this movie is once again a lack of originality. While I enjoyed the new setting and seeing the history of the town and characters was interesting, many of the new characters were fairly bland. Buford is essentially an angrier Biff. Seeing as he's once again played by Thomas F. Wilson, he is pretty much another dim-witted and ill tempered bully/villain. You also have the Mcfly family, Marshall Strickland, and a few others, many of whom conform to the typical western archetype but with a shred of their future-counterpart's personalities. It was fun seeing the new characters, but given the setting you would think the writers could have gotten a little more creative with them. Also, once again, the movie reuses many of the same gags and scenes from the first. There's another, "There there now" scene and Biff/Buford crashes into manure again. There is enough originality to keep the movie entertaining, but it definitely loses some points for the occasional lack of creativity.

When the love story isn't slowing the movie down, it is a lot of fun. When compared to the first, its definitely a step down, but still good. When compared to Part II, I think they're about equal. Part II had a bunch of little faults the hurt its score, while Part III has fewer faults but the one's it has are much more severe. Nonetheless, it still has a ton of hilarious lines and thrilling scenes. The finale alone makes this movie worth a watch. The way the movie ends can only be described as satisfying. It wraps up the story very nicely with no loose ends or cliffhangers.

Overall: A very fun movie and great ending to a great series. 3.5 out of 5!

Back To The Future Part II - Review

This review has been long overdue. Now its time for the second entry in this classic trilogy, Back To The Future Part II. Robert Zemeckis stated in the first film's DVD commentary that he had no interest in making a second film, but the cliffhanger ending suggested otherwise. Part II picks up immediately after the first film ended, proceeding to another thrilling and humorous adventure.

Doc returns back to the year 1985, now with his new hover-converted/fusion generating time machine DeLorean. He takes Marty and his girlfriend (future wife) Jennifer to the year 2015 to save their future children from ruining their lives. While in the future, Marty buys a sports statistics almanac after getting the idea of using it to place wages on sports games, knowing the outcome of the game ahead of time. Unfortunately, when Biff overhears Marty's idea, he borrows the time machine, goes into the past, and alters the space-time continuum creating a Hell-ish 1985 Hill Valley. Now Doc and Marty must go back to the past once again and stop Biff from destroying the future.

Since the first Back to the Future was such a great film, following it with a sequel would have definitely been a tough job. I have to say, Part II is a solid second entry to a great series. Most of the original cast returns for the sequel. Michael J. Fox as Marty, Christopher Lloyd as Doc, Thomas F. Wilson as Biff, and Lea Thompson as Loraine all are back. The only major actor to not return unfortunately is Crispin Glover as George. All the characters are still very amusing, Doc and Marty still have their charm, Biff is a complete jerk once again, and Loraine is very likeable despite her multitude of personal problems. One thing I've always commended the BTTF series for doing is expanding its characters personalities. Biff is the best example of this. In the first movie, he was little more than a bully... an over-the-top and disgusting character, but still just a schoolyard bully. Now, he's become a full-fledged villain. Not only is he mean, but he's an evil, powerful, ruthless, almost dictator-like character. Actually, the movie itself is centered around Biff more than the Mcfly family, an interesting change in direction.

The pacing of the sequel is just as good as the first. It has some very exciting action sequences and the comedic timing is still dead on. I always get a chuckle out of Biff's line, "Why don't you make like a tree and get outta here." The scenes in 2015 are pretty cool looking, if not a bit silly. Nonetheless, their fun scenes to watch and in part keep the movie entertaining. Personally I enjoyed how the production designers created the alternate 1985 Hill Valley, after Biff came to power and ruined a once nice town. The special effects still look pretty dang good. I'm sure they were pretty incredible at the time of the movie's release. At times, they do come off as a bit dated, but overall they still get the job done.

As enjoyable as the movie is, there are quite a few noticeable faults. First off, the script has holes so big you could drive trucks through them. The first had quite a few inconsistencies, but the sequel is much worse. Once again, I must reiterate that time travel does not exist and therefore there are no set rules to abide by, but they still need to follow some basic trend of logic. Also like the first, Part II is plagued by an abundance of product placement, only this time they make little to no effort to make any jokes out of it. The future scenes, while having a nice look to them, come off as very silly and outlandish today. 2015 is only five years away, and this movie predicted that we would all be driving flying cars, riding on hover boards, watching holographic movies, eating dehydrated food, and being served by robots. Of course, if technology catches up to this movie in 5 years, the joke will be on me.

Another minor thing to note is concerning Marty's character. In the first act, Marty reveals that he gets upset and confrontational whenever someone calls him chicken. This character flaw becomes a major subplot in both this movie and the third, but little to no explanation is given as to why this suddenly comes up. The only serious problem I have with this movie is that it borrows a little too much from the first. For instance, the hover board chase sequence is ripped straight off from the skate board scene in the first movie. Not to mention, a lot of the first film's gags and jokes are repeated and rehashed. The film, however, does retain enough originality to differentiate it from the first.

Overall, I think Back to the Future Part II is a great sequel. Despite all the flaws I've nitpicked, the movie has enough going for it to keep it entertaining. It still has the charm, wit, and timing of the first, and serves as a great second installment in a great series.

My Score: 3.5 out of 5.

Back To The Future Review

Now after having done a few single reviews, here's my first series' review. To start, I decided on one of my favorite trilogies', "Back to the Future." To start off, here's my review of the series' first film.

Oh the 1980s, how I wish I could have experienced that decade first hand. I was born in 1987, so my brief memories 80s culture was limited to the leftovers from the early 90s. You know, Ninja Turtles, Vanilla Ice, MC Hammer, etc. But we'll always have 80s movies, many of which were colorful campy productions with amusingly over-the-top art direction. Even the worst of the 80s flicks could generally amount to a guilty pleasure (not all, but quite a few). Of course, some of the greatest movies and franchises came out of the 80s. Some of my personal favorites include Ghostbusters, Amadeus, Indiana Jones, A Christmas Story, and many more. Of course, one of the quint-essential 80s flicks has to be none other than "Back to the Future." As cliche as this saying may be, the movie really does have something for everyone. The genre of the movie would probably be considered a sci-fi/comedy, but its littered with various thrills, action, adventure, and even some romance.

The story follows 17-year-old Marty Mcfly living in the year 1985. He is a cool and hip high school student and aspiring musician. He has a good circle of friends and is in love with his girlfriend, Jennifer. Unlike Marty, his family is almost the complete opposite. His father, George, is and always has been a gutless dweeb still being taunted by his high school bully Biff Tannen, his mother, Lorianne, is an alcoholic, his brother works a dead-end job with absolutely no ambitions in life, and his sister is a hopeless romantic. Marty couldn't have fallen any further from the tree. Marty is also friends with a wacky old scientist, Dr. Emmett Brown, whom Marty affectionately refers to as "Doc." On one fateful 1985 evening, Doc reveals to Marty his latest and greatest invention, a time machine made from a DeLorean automobile. After demonstrating the vehicle he reveals its time travelling fuel, Plutoneom. Doc then reveals that he stole the Plutonium from a group of Libyan terrorists. After finding the two at the mall, the Libyans shoot and kill Doc, while Marty jumps in the time machine and accidentally goes back to the year 1955 while attempting to outrun the Libyans. Now stuck in the year 1955, without any Plutonium, Marty encounters numerous problems. First, after running into his 17 year old parents, he accidentally prevents them from meeting, and therefore preventing his own existence unless he gets them to fall in love again in one week. Also, after he tracks down Doc, the two desperately attempt to find a way for Marty to return back to the future.

Okay, I love this movie. I've seen in dozens of times and it just gets better with age. It has its nostalgic value but the film just stands on its own so well. First off, the characters are great. Michael J. Fox portrays Marty in such a clever way. He's a very likable character whom you really want to see succeed by the end of the film. At the same time, Crispin Glover as George is dead on. Glover is well known for playing odd and eccentric characters, and this is probably his most well known. You appreciate the character, but you can't help but pity him sometimes. He can be so pathetic but very likeable at the same time. Lea Thompson is good as well as Lorianne. You want to see George and Lorianne hook up by the end, not just for Marty's sake, but for their's as well. The two stand out performances are Christopher Lloyd as Doc and Thomas F. Wilson as Biff. Lloyd plays Doc with such eccentricity and character that you can't forget. He doesn't really overact, but he does it with just the right amount of "crazy scientist" personality in a way that its funny, effective, and very memorable. I really did enjoy Thomas F. Wilson as Biff Tannen, the dim-witted bully. His character is such a unlikable asshole that while clearly an antagonist and crucial to the character development, never really ascends into the territory of "villain" until the sequels. Still, his performance is spot on, and totally works with the cast. Its a shame the actor didn't get much recognition beyond this series, because he did a very good job.

The characters are great in their own right but they clash brilliantly, especially Marty and Doc. A cool 17-year-old with little interest in science and a wacky old man with few social skills would probably be the least likely duo ever, but thats why it works. Their friendship provides some great comedic moments and keep the story flowing nicely. Speaking of which, there's never a dull moment in this movie. Every second there's either something exciting, funny, or thrilling happening on screen. The time travel concept is really interesting and the way the setting and timeline progresses across 30 years is a pleasure to see. Director Robert Zemeckis and his production team assembled some great sets and props that compliment their respective time periods. The DeLorean/Time Machine looks awesome and seeing it speeding up to 88 mph and traveling across time is awesome to watch. Composer Alan Silvestri's musical score is amazing as well, totally complimenting the action every second of the film. I could go on and on talking about everything I love in this movie, because there is a lot more, but that should be enough.

With the good, however, comes the bad. This is one of my favorite films, and I would prefer to ignore its flaws. Unfortunately, there are some things I just can't escape. Every movie I've seen involving time travel has numerous plot holes, and unfortunately, Back to the Future is no exception. Granted its a fictional concept with no set rules obviously, but it still leaves a lot for the viewer to comprehend. While Marty is back in time, he changes the future (makes sense) but the rules of altering time change periodically according to the story. Its never explained thoroughly and unless you've seen the movie it's extremely hard to explain. They don't bother me much, but they're impossible to ignore. The other complaint I have is pretty minor, but noticeable. The movie's use of product placement is quite excessive. Pepsi, Toyota, Calvin Klein, etc. Granted they're not that noticeable and many of the film's product references provide some of the movie's more clever jokes, so I can let that one slide. The 80s nostalgia might get overlooked by some viewers not born in the 80s as well. For instance, there is a scene where Marty is at a 50s cafe, and orders a Tab and then a Pepsi Free. The joke is humorous if you get the reference, but seeing as both Tab and Pepsi Free either are not as popular or don't even exist will likely result in a missed joke. Again, none of the film's flaws ruin the movie, but they're impossible not to notice.

Overall, I'll always consider this one of my favorite movies. I really really really really really really really want to give it a perfect 5 star score, but with those little flaws I mentioned, I just can't bring myself to do so. For just entertainment value, its a 5 star film, for overall quality of film making, its a 4.5 star film. Either way, if you haven't seen this film, go watch it now!!! If you have seen it, go watch it again!!!

The Men Who Stare At Goats - Review

Its always a shame to see a movie like this... one with a great concept that is ultimately unrealized. "The Men Who Stare At Goats" is a loose adaptation of Jon Ronson's nonfictional book of the same name. Both the book and the movie examine the United States Military's attempts to use Psychic abilities in the War on Terror.

To no surprise, the movie is full of satirical themes with attempts of dark and quirky humor. Unfortunately, "attempts" was the key word in that sentence. It starts off promising, with an amusing scene involving an army official running into a wall with the hopes of being able to run through it. It then introduces the main character, reporter Bob Wilton (Ewan Macgregor), who after a bitter divorce from his wife, runs off to Iraq in the hopes of finding a decent story. We are then introduced the other main character, Lyn Cassady (George Clooney). Lyn is a soldier that was once part of an the Army's experimental New Age division known as (and I'm not joking about this) the Jedi Knights. There they attempted to develop psychic superpowers in hopes of neutralizing their enemies through peaceful means.

The main premise is simple enough, but unfortunately the filmmakers felt the need to tack on way too much. Lyn and Bob travel through the Middle East on a mission, while periodically cutting to flashbacks of the Jedi's past. It details the beginnings of the Jedi, attempts to explain the origin of their powers, and the numerous struggles they endured.

The concept is clever enough and the film occasionally presents some witty satire, but not nearly enough to make the movie that entertaining. The whole script was very mediocre. Too many subplots, too little character development, and not enough wit. It has a decent concept that is never fully realized. For instance, the "Jedi" concept comes off as cheap and lazy writing rather than a clever reference. The Jedi jokes are also ridiculously overplayed and are milked to a point where they become more annoying than funny.

The only actor that really stands out is George Clooney as Lyn. Ewan Macgregor isn't horrible but never that impressive. The only reason he was cast was for the inside Jedi jokes (Macgregor played Obi Wan Kenobi in the Star Wars prequels). Even a great supporting cast of Jeff Bridges, Kevin Spacey, and Robert Patrick can't help this unimpressive movie. None of the acting is bad per say, but there were no amazing performances.

The key word for "The Men Who Stare At Goats" is disappointing. Its not a good movie, but its not a horrible one either. It takes a decent original concept but tries to accomplish way too much. For a premise so original it resorts to uninspired writing and lackluster performances. There are a few legitimate chuckles here and there but it could have been much better.

Overall: Probably should wait to rent this one on DVD. 2 Stars out of 5.

The Blair Witch Project Review

I know its about 10 years late for the party, but here's my review of "The Blair Witch Project." This indie horror flick made a big impact on moviegoers in 1999, but I do find this movie somewhat overrated. Its not bad, but it definitely doesn't deserve its glowing reputation.

The movie centers around three film students who venture into woods, filming a documentary about the fabled "Blair Witch." The film is presented as "lost film footage" that was found after the three died while filming (don't worry, thats not a spoiler, they tell you that as soon as the movie starts).

This movie was pretty hyped when it was first released. The concept seemed original enough and the way it was marketed was very clever. For almost a year, the filmmakers started spreading rumors about the failed expedition, presenting the film as if it was true. I understand why it did so well at the box office, but what I don't understand is why critics loved it so much. The movie isn't horrible, but it doesn't deserve its glowing reputation.

At times, the movie does an adequate job at building suspense. Every now and then, the crew will stumble upon a clue or an item that grabs your attention. The camerawork does maintain the feel of guerrilla filmmaking for which they were aiming.

Unfortunately, the movie's cons outweigh the pros. As original as the concept seemed at the time, it was preceded by another film with a near identical plot and style called "The Last Broadcast" released a year earlier. The presentation is sometimes ruined by the fact that there was some obvious editing, which killed the illusion of "found footage." The acting never comes off as natural and the gratuitous use of profanity becomes really annoying. Most of the movie was improvised and the plot was, as expected, not 100% tight. This did not bother me too much, but ending leaves far too many elements unresolved.

Overall, "The Blair Witch Project" is far from the worst film I've seen but its nothing amazing. Its worth a watch for its decent concept and the occasional moment of suspense. That being said, it is very overrated and definitely doesn't live up to the critical praise it received.

My Review: 2.5/5