Kick Ass - Review

There's an inherent risk in naming a movie Kick Ass. Namely in that if the movie doesn't "kick ass," its gonna lead to a lot of infuriating puns and wisecracks at the title's expense. So with that being said, does "Kick Ass" kick ass?

The short answer... Yes! The second question would probably be, how much ass does "Kick Ass" kick? Well, that is the real question I suppose, and it will take more than just a short statement to answer.

Overall, Kick Ass is one of the more enjoyable superhero films to be released in the last few years. Based on the graphic novel by Mark Millar and John Romita Jr, Kick Ass is one of the most amusing self-aware send ups of the superhero genre. This over-the-top and often juvenile action-comedy pokes fun at pretty much every cliche of the superhero genre, from the happy-go-lucky hero, the anti-hero vigilante, teen sidekicks, the girl next door, and the whole "with great power comes great responsibility" concept.

Aaron Johnson stars as Dave Lizewski, a shy teenager and comic book fan who gets inspired to become a superhero. Donning a scuba suit and going by the mantle Kick Ass, he takes to the streets, fighting crime, helping people, and usually getting viciously beaten up in the process. Despite his lack of powers, training, athletic ability, and general lack of skill, he becomes an Internet phenomenon and quickly becomes the target of a powerful crime syndicate. Coming to his aid is the father-daughter vigilante and far more credible duo Big Daddy, played by Nicolas Cage, and Hit Girl, played by the scene stealing Chloe Moretz.

With a relatively low budget for a superhero film, the 30 million dollars works as a double edged sword. On one hand, the lack of budget does present itself on more than one occasion. Don't get me wrong, what they accomplished with it is impressive, and I don't have too many complaints in terms of the quality of filmmaking. The benefit of having a low budget is of course more freedom. Releasing a film through an independent studio gives the filmmakers a greater range of creativity without having to worry about making back 100 million dollars. And by creativity, I mean over-the-top violence and language. Yes, Kick Ass is one of the most violent, gory, and profane superhero flicks ever made. If you enjoy any of the above, then Kick Ass is right up your alley.

With all that said, violence and cursing can only go so far. You still need good performances and a good script to make a movie entertaining, or at least make it look slightly less juvenile. The quality of acting is surprisingly good for a film of this calibre. Aaron Johnson delivers an amusing Peter Parker-esque spoof of the teenage superhero, but his good acting is unfortunately upstaged by the supporting cast. Most of the film's hype has been centered around 12-year-old Chloe Moretz as the criminal killing vigilante, Hit Girl. Every time she's on screen, she steals the show, spitting out some hilariously profane insults right before taking out some random thug. Its hard not to love Nicolas Cage's portrayal of Big Daddy too, with his Adam West inspired send up of Batman. Finally, the last performance worth mentioning is Christopher Mint-Plasse's portrayal of the mob boss's geeky son turned supervillain Chris D'Amico aka Red Mist. He once again brings his Superbad shtick to another nerdy character. I'm not totally convinced that his gimmick will work much longer after Kick Ass, but it was still entertaining nonetheless and proves that Mint-Plasse is one of the most promising young actors in the industry today.

As I mentioned before, the script takes advantage of pretty much every superhero gimmick there is. Because of the teenage-heavy cast, the film is bound to receive comparisons to Spider-Man, but there are plentiful references to the Batman legacy as well. For starters, Big Daddy's costume is clearly modeled after the Batsuit and Red Mist quotes one of the Joker's lines from the 1989 Batman adaptation. Not to mention the Big Daddy/Hit Girl duo is clearly a spoof of the Adult Hero/Kid Hero partnerships such as Batman and Robin. There is, however, one inherent problem with the script. The pacing is a bit erratic, at times it likes to focus on Kick Ass, at times Hit Girl and Big Daddy, and at times the villains without ever firmly establishing one main storyline. The film has difficulty balancing moods a bit too. It ranges from humorous and juvenile to brutally horrific. Again, the excessive violence is one thing that makes the movie fun, but when its done in a tongue-and-cheek manner. When it takes a gritty and dark approach, it just feels a little out of place and drastically changes the feel of the flick. At the same time, the film is consistently brutal, so it wasn't a huge shock.

I've heard Kick Ass described as "Superbad meets Kill Bill." That's actually a pretty accurate comparison. It has the amusing and juvenile sense of humor of a teen comedy, the gore of a grindhouse feature, and the fun factor of a superhero flick. The good performances and fun action help overlook past some of the budgetary limitations and occasionally shoddy pacing. Its been in theatres for quite a while now, I actually meant to write this review weeks ago. If you haven't seen it yet, and its still playing, I'd definitely give it a watch. If you missed it in theatres, its definitely worth picking up on DVD. To answer my earlier question, How much ass does Kick Ass kick? It kicks enough ass to warrant at least one viewing.

My Score: 3.5 out of 5

Alice in Wonderland - Review

I've always considered Tim Burton a very hit and miss director. His films can either range from the superb (Ed Wood) to the abysmal (Planet of the Apes). I generally go into his movies with neutral expectations, and because of this, am not particularly affected by the hype. So, with that being said, how does his re-imagining of "Alice in Wonderland" fair out?

While not a direct adaptation of Lewis Carrol's books or a remake of previous adaptations, Burton's version is a "sequel" of sorts. Alice is now 19 years old and living in London. Her only memories of Wonderland are in her dreams. While attending a party for Alice's engagement, she reunites with the White Rabbit, who once again leads her back to Underland. After reuniting with some familiar faces (whom Alice has only faint memories of) such as the Cheshire Cat and Absolem the caterpillar, Alice is informed that she was brought back to stop the wrath of the Red Queen, who had taken control of Underland. The Red Queen stole her sister's (The White Queen) throne with the aid of the Jabberwocky, a vicious monster whom only Alice can defeat.

The main thing I kept hearing about this production was how Burton aimed to actually create a linear story for Alice as opposed to previous versions. As many have stated, the previous stories were light on plot and were more of a series of events. Burton definitely tries to give us a story here, but he unfortunately wrote one with holes so big you could drive trucks through them. For instance, the story stems from the idea that Alice was foretold to be the only one who could defeat the Jabberwocky. First off, on top of that concept being one of the most overused cliches in movies today, the writers give very little explanation as to why, how, or where this "prophecy" came from. Only she can destroy the Jabberwocky and she needs a special sword to do it. A prophetic hero with a magic sword... how many times have we seen this concept? The rest of the movie is littered with inconsistencies that make no sense at all. One plot hole I like to joke around about is this; Alice occasionally eats a cake that makes you grow. I always thought that if they wanted to destroy the Red Queen, why not just eat a whole bunch of that cake and step on her? I guess the movie wouldn't have been as interesting, but there's a bunch of little things like that which unfortunately hold the story back.

The performances are a mixed bag as well. There was a lot of hype surrounding Johnny Depp as the Mad Hatter, but I don't feel that his performance lived up to that hype. Don't get me wrong, I think Johnny Depp is an awesome actor. I've been a big fan of his for quite a while, and I always look forward to what he brings to his characters. There are two performances of his, however, that I could just not get into. The first was his portrayal of Willy Wonka and now The Mad Hatter, whom ironically were both directed by Tim Burton. I just felt that he didn't bring anything truly special or unique to the character that we hadn't seen before. He does his usual "eccentric" routine and takes it a little too over-the-top while upstaging pretty much anyone else in the movie. Another performance that failed to impress was Anne Hathaway as the White Queen. It is difficult to explain, but she acts with a sort of "over-the-top elegance" that gets really annoying.

I never really bought Mia Wasikowska's performance as Alice either. She has no memory of Wonderland except for her dreams, and goes through a majority of the film like she is mesmerized and in awe. I have two problems with this... firstly, they never explain why she forgot about Wonderland, because how would one forget about a place like that??? Secondly, for a majority of the movie, she thinks she is in a dream, despite the fact that there are numerous occasions that prove that everything was real. This might have been due to poor direction from Tim Burton, but nonetheless its a less-than-stellar performance. The only actor that really stood out was Helena Bonham Carter as the Red Queen. Despite the fact that the screenwriters combined traits from The Queen of Hearts and the Red Queen once again, she was clearly having a fun time in the role and proved to be a decent villain.

The visual and artistic style is what keeps the movie from bombing. Despite the fact that I have mixed opinions about Burton, his films always have creative visuals. Most of the cg was quite well done, with a fine eye for detail. The worlds ranged from colorful and lively to dark and barren. There were some subtle touches I really as well. One was in the Red Queen's castle; the heads of her victims were floating it the moat (a very nice touch). The costume design and make up had their moments as well. Although I though the Mad Hatter was a little much, many of the concepts had a nice look to them and kept with the visual style. Finally, the 3D effects were extremely impressive. 3D has made quite a comeback and ever since Avatar perfect the technique, filmmakers are finally utilizing it quite well. If nothing else, I will give Alice In Wonderland this, the movie looks really nice.

Some final remarks, the movie threw in a few action segments. They were okay I suppose, the final battle certainly had its moments. Even though an action-based subplot felt really out place, the action was at least decent. The movie's attempt at humor was miserable. It didn't try to make you laugh often, but when it did, it crashed and burned. And seriously... did we REALLY need to see the Mad Hatter breakdancing??? That was just plain dumb!

Overall, Alice in Wonderland delivered in the visual department but failed in pretty much everything else! If all you look for in a movie are nice images, then you'll probably enjoy it. If you are looking for plot, good direction, or decent acting then you will be disappointed. Not a horrible movie, but not particularly good either.

My Score: 2 Out Of 5

My Thoughts On The Oscars

So the 82nd Oscars have come and gone, and even though I didn't get a chance to post a blog with my predictions about the awards, I figured I'd take the time to offer my thoughts on the event itself and a few of the awards.

:) The Hosts: Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin

These guys made for a really funny pair and awesome choices to host the Oscars. Martin is something of a veteran host. This is the third time he has hosted the Oscars and he has hosted SNL more times than anyone. This was Baldwin's first time hosting the Oscars, and ironically he is the second most frequent host of SNL. They were both very funny and charming guys and had a number of memorable moments. Some of my favorites are:

Their opening number, where they roasted most of the nominees:
- "Its that damn Helen Mirren." "That's Dame Helen Mirren Steve."
- "There are the Inglorious Basterds. And there is the crew that made the film."
- "Gabourey and I have something in common: In our first movies we were both born a poor black child."

I really got a kick out of their spoof of Paranormal Activity, with Alec and Steve sharing a bed in their haunted hotel room. Another memorable moment was when Steve Martin bug sprays the glowing Pandora bugs that show up on screen. Overall, Martin and Baldwin were very enjoyable, had fun with their role, and didn't upstage any of the nominees or presenters. Very good choices.

:) Ben Stiller Presenting The Best Make Up Award:

When Ben Stiller came out to present the award for Best Make Up, he did it dressed up as a Na'vi, with full make up and a tail held up by a string. His even started his speech in Na'vi dialect, and after switching to English, pointed out that how ironic it was that Avatar wasn't even nominated for best Make Up. One of the more amusing moments of the show... Very Nice!

The winner of the award was Star Trek, which also made me happy :)

:P The Best Costume Oscar

I actually had not seen any of the films that were nominated for Best Costume Design. Based on the clips they showed, all of the nominations looked quite impressive, but that's not what I'm commenting on. No, I was more interested in the winner, Sandy Powell's, acceptance speech. After walking on stage, the first words out of her mouth were:

"Wow, I already have two of these."

Ummm... can you say "bitch." She then went on to say how much she appreciates the costume designers that go unrecognized for contemporary designs or the low budge indie productions. That would have sounded almost decent if she didn't end with, "But I'm gonna take it home for the night." Being proud of your work is fine, theirs no reason not to accept such a prestigious award, and trying to ask someone in the film industry to show some humility will likely just get you laughed at. That being said... come on! Show a little modesty here or at least have the decency to thank the others who helped accomplish this.

:( No clips for editing, sound, or cinematography awards:

This really bugged me. I know they were trying to keep the show's run time to a minimum, but when you are presenting awards for such an achievement, a clip or two would be nice. I had actually seen most of the films nominated, but a little reminder can help put you in the right mindset. Academy, bring the clips back for next year's show!

:) The Best Director Award:

My prediction for best director was Kathryn Bigelow and I was right on the money. Her winning film was "The Hurt Locker." So Bigelow became the first woman to ever win the award for Best Director, and for a damn good film at that. I haven't written a full review for "The Hurt Locker" yet, but I did mention it in my top 10 movies of 2009 entry and placed it at #2. Its a really good movie that deserved the Oscars it won, I'll have to add that one to my collection soon.

The Best Picture Nominations:

I'm not going to offer my thoughts on every award in the event, but I would like to say somethings about the Best Picture nods.

- Avatar: I gave this movie 4 out of 5 stars when I wrote a review, and I still stand by this score. I, like most people, was in awe of the visuals but found the writing extremely bland. It deserved the awards for visual effects and cinematography, but I was glad that it didn't win for Best Picture.

- The Blind Side: Actually, I hadn't seen this one. I don't critique movies until I have actually sat and watched the whole thing. That being said, based on the clips I had seen and the reviews I had read, I'm going to go out on a limb and say I'm glad to see this one not win either. I mean, the movie looks good, and from what I've heard Sandra Bullock gives an awesome performance (hence why she won Best Actress). The storyline though seemed a bit generic and predictable though. Again, I won't judge it until I actually see it, maybe when I watch it the movie will be totally awesome and the trailers were totally misleading. I'll definitely be checking this one out sooner or later.

- District 9: I also mentioned this film on the list of my top 10 for 2009, placing it at #1. This movie totally blew me away, it was by far one of the best sci fi films I've seen in a long time and totally deserving of the nomination. Of course, I knew the academy has never been too crazy for science fiction movies except for the technical awards (VFX, Sound Editing, etc.). So to see this movie just get a nomination was awesome.

- An Education: Haven't seen this one either, nor do I know much about it. I know it got nominated for a few awards and that the critics gave it overall positive reviews. Unfortunately, it had a very limited release and finding a theatre that played it was tricky. I don't have much to say about it, I want to see it, and as soon as I can get my hands on a copy of it, I'll watch it and let you know what I thought.

- Inglorious Basterds: This was my #3 pick for 2009. I am a huge Tarantino fan, and I was glad to see another film of his get a ton of nominations. It was a really entertaining movie, with clever writing, great performances, creative editing, and nice camerawork. I would have been happy to see this one win Best Picture, but I'm not too disappointed that it didn't win either.

- Precious: Yes, I haven't seen this one either. Out of all the films nominated that I had not seen, this was the one I was most disappointed to miss. I've heard virtually nothing but praise for the movie, and the number of Oscars it won says a lot about how good it must be. I will definitely be seeing this movie when I can grab the DVD.

- A Serious Man: Didn't see this one either, it was another indie release that kind of snuck into theatres. Based on the clips I've seen, it looks really good. I'm actually very interested in seeing this one now, again I'll watch it as soon as I get a chance.

- Up: Another one I mentioned in my top 10 for 2009, I had it at the #9 spot. As the second animated movie to get nominated for Best Picture, that's quite an achievement. I thought it was a very good film, when I wrote a review for it on flixster, I gave it 4 out of 5. I loved the story, the animation, and the voice acting. The opening 30 minutes were fantastic, by far some of the best storytelling I've seen in an animated movie ever! The 2nd act however kind of left me a bit disappointed. Don't get me wrong, it wasn't bad. The action was entertaining and many of the jokes and gags were funny, but a lot of them did get kind of repetitive. I found the ending a bit predictable as well. Its just when a film has such a strong opening, and fizzles out a bit, that can be a drag. A great film, but not Pixar's best (that would be Wall-E).

- Up in the Air: I didn't mention this one in my top of 2009 because I had not seen it at the time. I did get a chance to see this one in February. If I had seen this movie before I made my top 10 list, I would have definitely included it on there, probably around #5 or 6. Witty dialogue, a clever story, and very convincing performances made this one of the most entertaining comedy/dramas of the year. I've really become a big fan of writer/director Jason Reitman. His last three movies, "Thank You For Smoking," "Juno," and "Up In the Air" have been really entertaining. Not to mention his father, Ivan Reitman, has directed some classic comedies as well, including "Stripes," "Meatballs," and my personal favorite, "Ghostbusters." I look forward to seeing what Jason Reitman brings us next.

- The Hurt Locker: The winning film was definitely worthy of the nomination and the win. I'm not a huge fan of war movies, but this one took a very interesting direction with the concept. I'm glad to see it win not only Best Picture but a number of other awards as well. If you have not seen this movie yet, go check it out, I highly recommend it.

So, those are some of my thoughts on the Oscars this year. Overall, I was quite impressed with the ceremony. Funny hosts, most of the nominations were good choices, and I agreed with a majority of the wins as well. Looking forward to next year.

My Top 10 Of 2009

I know, we're already a month into 2010 and I should have posted this as soon as the new year arrived. However, unlike all those film critics who actually make a living out of sharing their opinions of movies, I have other jobs and other means of making a living, which usually conflicts with my film reviews. Also, in regards to what I just mentioned, I didn't get a chance to see all of the years films I had originally hoped to see, but I feel like a got in a majority of them. Just to get this out of the way, I have yet to see Up in the Air and Julie and Julia. I hear those are great films, but for obvious reasons, if I haven't seen it, I can't review it. With all that being said, here are my top 10 favorite films of 2009.

10. Funny People

Opinions about Funny People were generally mixed, but I'm in the pool of critics who very much enjoyed this film. Adam Sandler gives one of his most impressive performances in years in a film that both makes you laugh and tugs at your heart strings. The supporting cast all brough their charm to the table and creating a very amusing and heartfelt move. If the editors could have trimmed 20 minutes from the runtime and director Judd Apatow didn't feel the need to give every famous comedian a cameo, I probably would have ranked this movie higher. Nonetheless, it is still a great movie and a solid #10 spot.

9. Up

When you have a film by Pixar, you can all but guarantee that the movie will be great, and Up is no exception. A lot of people I know have told me that Up is Pixar's best and one of the greatest movies ever made. Those are some strong statements, but I don't completely agree. When compared to 2008's Wall-E, Up doesn't even hold a candle. The storyline starts out extremely strong, but fizzles out a tad by the second act when it falls into kid-movie territory. That being said, the animation is still excellent, the characters are amusing, and the story is quite heart-felt. A great family movie and my pick for #9.

8. Zombieland

I was completely surprised by how funny this movie was. When I saw the trailers, I didn't think it looked bad per se, but I failed to see anything truely special about it. Zombieland, however, had some of the most creative and hilarious characters I've seen in a long time. The pacing was great, the slapstick made me laugh, the dialogue was witty, and the tributes/spoofs to classic zombie movies were right on the money. Last but not least, Bill Murray's cameo had me laughing in stitches. I'm not a huge fan of celebrity cameos, but this was by far one of the funniest guest appearances I've ever seen. A definite watch!

7. Paranormal Activity

Even though this movie technically was released in 2007, it didn't get a wide release until 09, so it still counts. I'm a huge horror movie fan, but even I will admit that the genre is generally below average. However, good horror movies are not nearly as hard to find as many people think, you just have to know where to look. Look no further than Paranormal Activity, this suspenseful thriller knew exactly how to keep you on the edge of your seat. It builds tension and terror in a way that few scary movies have even come close.

6. Avatar

Yeah, I know everyone's still talking about how this is one of the most amazing movies of all time. From a technical standpoint, this is true. The cgi, motion capture, and cinematography is absolutely mind blowing. Also, the 3D effects were by far the best I've ever seen in a feature length movie. If James Cameron just put a little more effort into the storyline and characters, I would probably ranked this #1. Still a must see though, and definitely one I'll be buying on Blu Ray.

5. Watchmen

Director Zach Snyder's adaptation of the legendary graphic novel may not have been up to the same calibre as its source material, but it still made for an awesome movie. Great cinematography, clever editing, and well done cgi made for one of the better comic adaptation in recent memory. Its no Dark Knight and the plot wasn't always perfect, but Jackie Earl Haley's performance as Rorshach was the glue that held the movie together. For any comic book fans, this is a must see.

4. Star Trek

Leave it to J.J. Abrams to reboot the iconic series into an outstanding film for a new era. Balancing the fine line between seriousness and camp has generally not been a strong point for the previous films. Don't tell me exactly how, but Abrams found that fine line and created a movie that was fun but had just enough drama to keep it from being just another stupid sci-fi flick. Was it the best in the series? Ask me again when I've seen all 11 movies and I'll let you know.

3. Inglorious Basterds
The top three films I had a really hard time trying to decide between. I was seriously tempted to give Quentin Tarantino's WWII drama the #1 spot, but I felt the next two were just a little bit better. Trying to explain a Tarantino film is next to impossible, you have to see one to know how they work. The acting is unlike anything I've ever seen, the dialogue is some of the most clever I've heard, the plots are unique and original, and the cinematography and editing is always creative and stylish. Inglorious Basterds is no exception. One thing I can say about it though, is that Christoph Waltz's portrayal of Colonel Hans Landa is one of the greatest villains I've ever seen in a movie!

2. The Hurt Locker
This one kind of snuck into theatres, but I'm really glad I got the chance to see it. Its actually one of the best war films I've ever seen. Made on a low budget with guerrilla style filmmaking, this movie breaks a lot of the genre's cliches and makes for a very unique spin on the War on Terror. If I say much more than that, I'm afraid I'll spoil the movie, so just trust me when I say go see this film.

1. District 9
This film totally blew me away, it was by far one of the most interesting sci-fi/alien films I've ever seen. While I wouldn't call the this movie "low budget," $30 Million dollars is quite low compared to all the summer blockbusters. When you figure into the fact that the cgi looks as if not more impressive than most of the highest budget cg blockbusters, thats quite an accomplishment. The animation looks very realistic and the emotions conveyed in the aliens was very powerful. On top of that, the story was excellent, the pacing was perfect, and every performance was top notch. This was a fantastic movie in every sense of the word and definitely my choice for #1.

So, those are my top films of 2009, if you haven't seen them yet, go check them out, you'll probably enjoy them.

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!