Paranormal Activity 3 - Review

Hey! It's October, and that means two things. Halloween is around the corner AND a new Paranormal Activity movie is out (now taking the place of the once annual Saw series). I have to admit that I have a bit of a soft spot for these kinds of movies. If you're a frequent reader of my blog, you'll know that I'm a horror movie fan with a particular interest in ghost stories and haunted house movies. At the same time however, I've never cared much for found footage movies. Cloverfield was decent but not great, Blair Witch was overrated, and most others ranged from awful to meh. The original Paranormal Activity was probably the only found-footage horror film that I not only liked but thought was actually great. Sure, none of these movies are epic achievements in filmmaking or anything like that, but they basically deliver on what I expect out of a fun and exciting horror film for the Halloween season.

The first movie was a fun, suspenseful, and at times compelling ghost story that hooked you in with a spooky premise and delivered some memorable scares. The second film, while not as good or fresh as the first, was a surprisingly solid follow-up. It had more than a few faults, but the suspense was still there and it tied the story to it's predecessor better than expected. Does the third entry hold up or has the series worn its welcome?

Paranormal Activity 3 continues the series' chronological trend of going backwards in time. The second movie took place a few weeks before the first film while PA3 goes a couple decades back to the year 1988. Katie and Kristi (the protagonists from parts 1 and 2 respectively) are both young kids living with their mother Julie and their stepdad Dennis. Kristi (approximately age 5 or 6) has apparently made up an imaginary friend named Toby. While "Toby" seems like a harmless made up friend for Kristi at first, things start getting weird. Unexplained and seemingly paranormal occurrences start happening around the house, and the so-called Toby seems to be connected to them. Is he just a figment of Kristi's imagination or is he something else entirely???

I don't even know why I ended that plot description with a question. If you've seen any of the Paranormal Activity movies before this, you already know what's going on. There's an invisible demon that's terrorizing an unsuspecting family. He moves stuff around in the middle of the night, makes spooky and eerie noises, and on occasion attacks an unfortunate victim. This worked well in the first movie, using the"fear of the unknown" and "less is more" concepts to help the film rise above it's otherwise gimmicky premise. It didn't answer every question the viewer may have had, but it didn't need to. It stood on it's own quite well and didn't really need a sequel. This being a successful horror film, though, changed all that and a sequel came out a year after it's wide release to delve more into the mythos.

(I'm about to spoil the plots of the first two movies, but not Part 3. If you want to keep the first two movies a secret, skip ahead two paragraphs)

The first movie left most details about the entity in question under wraps. At first, the movie seemed like a simple spirit haunting... spooky and eerie but not immediately dangerous. After watching the camera footage, doing EVP tests, researching paranormal phenomenon, and conducting experiments, both the characters and the viewers learned that the entity in question wasn't a harmless ghost, but a malevolent demon bent on harming the innocent Katie. The only explanation as to why the demon was tormenting Katie was that demonic hauntings were totally random and that most of the time, they have little to no reason... a somewhat weak explanation I admit, but that didn't really matter because it gave us enough background to keep us guessing but not feel totally cheated out of an idea for what was happening.

The second film changed that a bit. It hinted that these hauntings weren't random, but they instead had something to do with their family's past. Apparently these paranormal visits were triggered by Katie and Kristi's grandmother, who made a deal with the Devil. This "deal" was only briefly hinted at from a few lines of dialogue, but no real insight or details were provided. This was the main problem with PA2 (this and that the movie was basically a retread of the first with a higher budget), it eliminated a lot of the mystery without providing any real closure. It still had some great scares and spooky moments but the ambiguity didn't work to it's advantage this time. I knew there would be more explanation in future sequels, but I still couldn't help but feel a bit cheated.

(Spoilers End here)

Unfortunately, Paranormal Activity 3 falls victim to many of the flaws of it's predecessors (especially part 2). It still feels the need to explain way more than it really needs to. The first 30 minutes were quite tedious. Treading familiar turf from the first two movies, the first act takes way more time introducing the characters and paranormal occurrences than it really needed to. I know this is a prequel and that this is (supposedly) the first time these characters are experiencing any ghostly hauntings, but the filmmakers really needed to put more thought into how the audience would have perceived the introduction. We know who Katie and Kristi are, we more or less know what the demon is capable of, and we are somewhat familiar with their backstory. I realize that some of the introductions were necessary, like the new characters and setting, but they still spent way too much time getting us reacquainted with what we already knew.

The second act was a modest improvement. This is where things were starting to get spooky and the suspense was slowly gaining momentum. Its still more of the same... the lights go out and shit starts going down. Still, you can't argue with what works. There were enough moments to keep me on the edge of my seat and deliver the expected though still effective jump-scare. I couldn't help but feel like many of these scenes were getting to be predictable, but I'd be lying if I told you that I wasn't on edge or being caught off guard constantly.

The third act is where things really started getting good. I won't spoil what happens, but make no mistake that this was by far the scariest, most suspenseful, and best part of the movie. Again without giving anything away, it tries something different and unexpected while delving into territory that the previous movies hadn't gone to yet. Some of the ads and reviews have said things along the lines that last 20 minutes will "scar you for life" or be the "scariest thing you'll ever see." I personally think thats quite over-stated, I doubt you'll loose much sleep over them, but it's pretty memorable nonetheless. There is one thing about the last part that I absolutely hated... the ending! After this super suspenseful buildup and finale, the movie just cuts away to the credits while providing hardly any closure. The whole theatre let out a collective moan as soon as the credits started rolling. I know they're setting it up for another sequel, but to just end a movie with so much buildup and no resolution is basically giving the finger to the audience. They might as well have had a producer come out and say "Thanks for watching bitches! Paranormal Activity 4 next year... gimme your 12 bucks!"

There's not really a whole lot more I have to say about Paranormal Activity 3, at least nothing that I feel like I haven't stated before. In terms of it's merits of basic filmmaking, it's fairly solid. The acting is overall believable, with effective performances from child actors Chloe Csengery and Jessica Brown as the young Katie and Kristi. The sound design is still effective too, altering between total silence and jump-worthy shocks! Also, as I mentioned before, most of the scares are still quite effective. Not much to say other than that the pieces come together and the film works. That said, if you weren't a fan of the first two, I seriously doubt this one will change your mind.

There's a part of me saying that I'm going too easy on this film after being ticked off from the ending and the series' repetitive nature, but I can't deny that Paranormal Activity 3 delivered on where it needed to. That said, I must say that the series is starting to look a bit long in the teeth by now and that the gimmicky premise is really wearing out its welcome. I'm not saying that it can't get better, and I hope it does, but they're really going to have to rethink the direction of this series in order to keep it fresh. Nonetheless, Paranormal Activity 3 is a fun and spooky horror film, light on the gore but heavy on the scares and perfect for this Halloween. If that sounds up your alley, check it out!

My Score: 3 out of 5!

Warrior - Review

Hey look! September has come and summer is over... you know what that means? Gone are the year's summer blockbusters and in comes the fall lineup of indie films and Oscar bait. First up, is the year's Rocky ripoff known as Warrior. Oh excuse me, this isn't a boxing film, the sport in focus is actually Mixed Martial Arts. Because yeah, that totally changes everything... yeah right.

Joel Edgarton and Tom Hardy star as estranged brothers, Brendan and Tommy Riordan. Neither have spoken to each other in years and the two have next to nothing in common, with two exceptions. They both resent their abusive former alcoholic father (Nick Nolte) and are expert Martial Artists. Brendan is trying to live the quiet life as a high school science teacher along with his wife and two daughters while Tommy is attempting to start a new life after being discharged from the Marines. Brendan's life is disrupted with his youngest daughter needed an expensive medical treatment which saved her life but left the family financially broke. Tommy, on the other hand, is fighting some personal demons and tragic secrets from events that transpired during his time in Iraq. Both make hasty decisions to return to the UFC cage and compete in a brutal and tournament against some of the world's most dangerous fighters for a 5 million dollar prize.

When watching a film like Warrior, I can't help but feel like I'm getting a little soft with my critiques. I really should hate movies that resort to storylines embracing nearly every cliche in the book, but sometimes they're just so freaking hard to resist. Ever since Rocky came out and solidified the already established underdog sports story, the same concept has been repeated over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over... you get my drift? The catch is that a lot of these Rocky-inspired movies have found a way to make the story seem less redundant either through likable characters, compelling performances, stylistic filmmaking, or (speaking of cliches) heart and passion. Warrior... it's definitely not breaking any boundaries with it's storytelling, but I can't deny that it just works.

The acting is probably the movie's biggest strength. Joel Edgerton does a commendable job in his role as Brendan, the do-good everyman looking out for his family. There really isn't too much to say about him other than he's convincing, at times very compelling, and that it's overall a damn good performance. Tommy (Tom Hardy) is probably the most interesting character in this movie because he has a certain darkness and mystery to his back-story that really keeps you hooked. Because of his rough childhood with his alcoholic father and tough time on the battlefield, his motives are more secretive and his outlook is bleaker. He shows that he does have a softer side, but often buries it with rage and resentment. While Brendan is a formidable fighter with a few tricks up his sleeve, Tommy is an absolute beast who easily takes down opponents significantly more threatening than him. This makes for a more interesting and mysterious character and while it doesn't exactly stray away from cliches, it keeps you interested. Supporting actors Nick Nolte, Jennifer Morrison, and others all give great performances as well. No complaints acting-wise for this movie.

For sports-driven dramas like Warrior, there are two things on which they must deliver. One is solid performances (which we've established are all great). The second is good execution of the sport in question, in this case Martial Arts. So are the fights any good? Yeah... like really good actually. The pacing of the editing, the stylistic camerawork, the top notch sound design, and the dedication from the actors is about as close to perfect as one could get. They are brutal and intense, and feel about as legitimate as you could probably ask for. If you come to Warrior expecting to see some great fights, you won't be disappointed.

This is the point where I usually pick out the movie's faults or mistakes, but to be honest, I feel like I've already hit on most of this in my opening. The movie's only real downfall is the cliche and predictable storyline. Granted it can be a pretty big problem when scriptwriters continue to repeat the exact same storyline again and again, but then again some people like familiarity. Here's how I see it... films like Warrior probably won't move the industry forward in any meaningful way or be responsible for any innovative filmmaking techniques (Raging Bull was the last film in the boxing sub-genre to do any of that) but there's nothing particularly wrong with them either. I agree than in a remake driven industry lacking in originality, something new and innovative is always encouraged, but films like Warrior are not to blame for any of that. If nothing else, they're usually passable stories that give actors the chance to showcase their acting skills as well as allowing directors, editors, cinematographers, and sound designers to try some clever techniques. If you're looking for movies to blame for being repetitive and cliche, blame the majority of romantic comedies released every year (those are way more cliched and drained for ideas than sports dramas).

So yeah, Warrior isn't exactly original but it's still a very well made, well directed, and well acted film. It's definitely worth seeing and will probably get some Oscar nominations come award season, but probably won't be remembered in any meaningful way years from now.

My Score: 4 out of 5!

Transformers: Dark of the Moon - Review

You know what is the best thing about Transformers 3? It's that this officially marks the end of the Michael Bay-directed Transformers films! (If this was a video review, this is the time you would start hearing "The Messiah" playing) Hallelujah!!! Hallelujah!!! Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the 2007 film. It was a fun and crazy over-the-top sci-fi action film. That said, despite what the massive legions of over-enthusiastic fans would say, it was nothing more than a stupid and dopey action film. In other words, the flick was big, fun, and loud but moronic on pretty much all levels of filmmaking with the exception of it's impressive special effects. It was at best a guilty pleasure. The 2009 sequel, on the other hand, entitled Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen was a disaster. An over-stuffed, over-plotted, poorly acted, horribly shot, and visually unimpressive nightmare of a film, Revenge of the Fallen stands as one of the worst sequels ever made and one of my personal worst films of all time. Even after two years I'm still spitting out it's horrible taste, so you can probably imagine that I wasn't exactly overjoyed for a third entry. Is it an upgrade over the last tragedy or is this one another broken and buggy mess of a movie?

Dark of the Moon takes place a few years after Revenge of the Fallen. Sam Witwicky (Shia Labeouf) has just recently graduated from college and is currently living with his new girlfriend Carly (Rosie Huntington-Whitely). Sam takes an entry level job with a major corporation, but finds himself having difficulty conforming to such a mundane job with his Autobot allies out defending the world. Meanwhile, trouble brews on the battlefront as the Decepticons discover a means to turn the tide of their battle with the Autobots. In the 1960s, an Autobot ship known as the Ark, carrying technology capable of rebuilding their home planet of Cybertron, crash landed on Earth's moon. Kept secret by the American government for over forty years, Decepticon leader Megatron learns of it's existance and aims to find it to rebuild their planet on Earth before Autobot commander Optimus Prime gets his hands on it and prevents Earth's destruction.

Alright, let's just get this out of the way right up front... is it as bad as Revenge of the Fallen? The answer... no, it's not as bad, but not by much. To it's credit, I didn't leave this one furious over it's poor quality like I did with ROTF, but then again I went into DOTM with really really really low expectations. I know that Michael Bay isn't out to create high art (believe me, I get that), and he's made a few films that I've really enjoyed. Movies like The Rock, Armaggeddon, and the first Transformers are, in my opinion, some of the better "pure-fun, guilty pleasure, popcorn flicks" out there. That said, Bay's disregard for the basic tenants of filmmaking are so obvious that his films, enjoyable or otherwise, come off almost as amateur as a first year student film if it had a budget of 200 million dollars. Terms like plot, character development, depth, tripod, steadicam, subtlty, have virtually no place in a Michael Bay directed film. In spite of all those criticisms... none of that would bother me much for this kind of movie had it not been so over-the-top annoying and cheesy... but that's exactly what this movie is!

Michael Bay has one particular talent that I don't think gets discussed enough... the ability to get good actors give bad performances. While Shia Labeouf has shown that he's not that bad of an actor, his choice in roles could really use some work. I can't say that I blame him for his choices... being in huge blockbuster franchises like Transformers or Indiana Jones have gotten the guy some major exposure and probably some nice paychecks too. Unfortunately, the Transformers movies are going to hang over him like a sign that reads "Don't Take Me Seriously!" In this, he has his moments and can still hold is own in the action scenes, but his tendency to overact has seriously kicked into high gear. He spends most of the movie looking paranoid and shouts what seemed like half of his lines. I really hope Shia gets some better roles soon, before his Transformers image is permanently typecast onto him.

One of the most talked about casting changes was the replacement of Megan Fox for newcomer Rosie Huntington-Whiteley. A lot of the movie's criticism has been directed toward her acting ability. In my opinion, she's not terribly awful, but just really bland. It doesn't help that her character is nothing more than a generic love interest and occasional damsel-in-distress, but her lack of any acting experience is obvious. An actress with more training could have easily brought out some emotion to the character. That said, with most of this movie's cast either playing a neverending game of "Who Can Overact The Most?", she gave a more grounded performance that was at least not painfully annoying. That's probably why I didn't hate her as much as most people did, but I can't deny that her performance doesn't really work. I suppose you have to make due with what you've got.

For the rest of the cast... this is where the whole "Michael Bay makes good actors give bad performances" notion is most apparent. John Turturro returns as Agent Simmons, once again soiling an otherwise solid filmography with another horrendously annoying Transformers performance. Veteran actor John Malkovich shows up in a mostly-pointless role as Sam's boss, Bruce Brazos, only to give a painfully annoying over-the-top performance. Speaking of painfully annoying and over-the-top performances, there's also Frances McDormand as Director of US Defense, Charlotte Mearing. She's right up there with John Malkovich in terms of over-the-top and annoying performances. Julie White and Kevin Dunn (Sam's parents), show up again to give their trademark over-the-top and unfunny schtick again... though they fortunately only had about one or two scenes (gotta appreciate the little things.)

You know what is the worst thing about the Transformers movies? Aside for those two Autobot twins from ROTF (honestly, I still can't get over just how bad that movie turned out), it's the fact that the actual Transformers play second fiddle to the human characters. For a movie that's called Transformers... that's a huge problem! It wouldn't bother me much if these movies had gripping storylines with well-written human characters that would compliment the Autobot Vs Decepticon storyline.... BUT THEY DON'T!!! I'm not even coming at this as some nostalgia-fueled fanboy. On the contrary, I never cared for the Transformers growing up. I didn't watch the show, I didn't collect the toys, and I never read the comics. I was born in 87, so I missed the Transformers generation (had I been born a few years earlier, I'm sure I would have loved them). Still, a series that is as simple and straightforward as good robots fighting bad robots shouldn't be this cluttered.

Have you noticed that the first movie was mainly a story about Shia Labeouf trying to get laid? The second movie... well, that plot was so cluttered and messy that I was barely able to comprehend what it was about. From what I remember, it had something to do with Sam getting laid in college with the Transformers story being treated more as a subplot. The third is about Sam trying to make it in the working world with the Transformers occasionally popping in to say hi. I wasn't expecting greatness or anything like that from a Transformers movie, but don't think a generic good robots vs bad robots story is too much to ask for! At the very least, can't the writers cool it with the stupid government conspiracies crap! It made no sense in the second movie about how the world governmentshad been covering up the Transformers existance for so long or how they managed to keep the whole final battle from the first movie under wraps. This whole movie centers around the the space race from the 60s being nothing more than a response to finding a Tranformer that crash landed on the moon. The movie even got Buzz Aldrin to make a cameo... no seriously, the real Buzz Aldrin is in this movie! I don't know whether to be impressed for the filmmakers attempt at bringing some authenticity to the concept or annoyed to see a genuine icon appearing in such a stupid movie. EESH!

This is the part where I'm supposed to say something along the lines of, "At least the action and special effects are good." Well, I have to admit, this is where the movie kind of works... "kind of" being the key phrase in that sentence. I remember being seriously impressed by the cgi in the first movie, calling it some of the best ever. Watching the robot designs in this one... well, let's just say they haven't gotten better with age. That might be because there's not much diversity in the designs, particularly in the Decepticons. Most of them look so alike, that you can't tell one another apart except for the close ups. As for whether they look convincing... let's say they look flawed yet decent. Still, they do look like a lot of work was put into them, and despite their imperfections, it is still some of the more impressive cgi out there.

The action is still hit and miss, but fortunately it hits more often than it misses. The finale is where it especially works. It's still generic Michael Bay action, if you've seen any one of his movies, you know what to expect. Explosions, guns, explosions, lens flares, explosions, shots of the sunset, explosions, helicopters, explosions, and tanks... the standard. Did I mention there were explosions? I just wish it didn't take so long with the tedious Shia Laboeuf plot to get to the action. Unfortunaely like ROTF, the said plot didn't spend enough time developing enough of the said supporting characters, so you feel no real emotional connection to anyone in the final battle. The 3D effects were surprisingly very well done, making this movie one of the few movies were the 3D actually improved on the overall moviegoing experience. It's not up there with the Avatar or Tron Legacy 3D effects, but it does it's job well. It's your standard Michael Bay action fare... crazy and erratic but for what it is, it's not too shabby.

Odds are if you're seeing a Michael Bay movie, you're probably expecting little more than crazy action. If that's all your looking for, then yeah, you'll probably leave more or less satisfied. It is an improvement over the second but it still lacks the fun factor from the original. It's been in theatres forever now, so you've already decided when/if you are going to see it or have seen it already. Granted, this movie is best seen on the big screen, but still I'm going to say you can probably skip it unless you really really really want to check it out.

My Score: 2 out of 5!

Captain America: The First Avenger - Review

Out of all the Marvel comic movies, I think Captain America has probably had the toughest time transitioning into film. It's not hard to see why... a patriot-themed superhero comes off as a bit campy, especially in a time where America isn't exactly seen in a particularly positive light these days. The character actually been adapted to film 4 times before. The first of which was a 1944 serial. It was decent for it's time I suppose, but like most serieals from the time period, it hasn't aged well. 1979 saw two forgettable made-for-TV adaptations that made little to no impact on audiences. Of course, the most infamous adaptation was the 1990 film, simply called Captain America. This low budget abomination went straight to video and is often considered one of the worst superhero films ever made. So yeah, the Captain's film history hasn't exactly been stellar, that's for sure. Is director Joe Johnston's film adaptation, Captain America: The First Avenger, the one to change all that?

This World War II themed superhero flick begins in the city of Brooklyn in the year 1942. Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) is a young man who wants nothing more than to serve his country as a soldier in the US Army. However, due to his lack of physical strength, his asthma, and general poor health, he is deemed unfit for military service. That all changes when rogers meets Dr. Abraham Erskine (Stanley Tucci), a military scientist who after recognizing Rogers' perseverance and good nature, selects him as a candidate for his super soldier program. The experimental procedure would change Rogers from an asthmatic weakling to super-strengthened fighter and the prime American soldier. The experiment is a success, but when the program is sabotaged by Nazi spies, the government shuts down plans to create a super-powered army and instead turns Rogers into a costumed character known as Captain America. He is then treated as a gimmick, paraded around USO shows selling bonds and boosting soldier morale. Not content with simply being a sideshow attraction, Rogers takes to the battlefield as Captain America and stumbles onto a heinous Nazi organization known as Hydra, led by an equally powerful Nazi known as the Red Skull. With Hydra becoming stronger everyday and the Skull's hunger for world domination increasing, Captain America becomes the world's only chance of stopping them and saving the world.

Eep! I hate it when I give away that much plot information, but every time I tried to cut it off, I felt like I was selling this movie short. This movie really has a lot going on in it, both as it's own film and it's role in the continuity of the Marvel movie universe. It's a superhero film, it's a WWII epic, it's a prelude to the Avengers, and it's a prequel to Iron Man, Thor, and The Incredible Hulk. What's funny about all that though is that the story itself is essentially a straightforward comic book plot, the basic good-natured hero vs evil villain, albeit with patriotic overtones. Still, almost everything in this movie works... like really well. The storyline is engaging, the characters are fun, and the action is awesome. It's one of those movies that feels as if I shouldn't have liked it as much as I did... but everything comes together so nicely. Seriously, there's next to nothing in this flick that doesn't work.

Probably the biggest success comes from the perfect casting of nearly every character in the movie. Chris Evans (The Human Torch in the Fantastic Four movies) tones down his usual snarky attitude and rather plays the Captain with a likable and rateable demeanor. Unlike many disturbed (Iron Man), troubled (Spider-Man), or borderline psychotic superheroes (Batman), Captain America is one of the more straightforward comic books heroes. He's a good natured, friendly, and overall decent guy who loves his country. This doesn't mean he's stale or underdeveloped, in fact I'd say his good guy demeanor actually makes him one of the more refreshing superheroes in recent memory. Sure, one might still see him as little more than a glorified boy scout, but I personally think there's more to the character. He starts off as a weak man who becomes a national hero that's based less on his physical ability and more on his passionate yet not arrogant patriotism. If nothing else, he's an incredibly fun character that's a blast to watch.

Speaking of fun characters that are a blast to watch, the movie also features Hugo Weaving as the film's central villain, Johann Schmidt aka The Red Skull. The depiction of the character bares many similarities to his comic book counterpart, the best of which is his spot on appearance. One element of the Skull's backstory that was cleverly reinvented for the movie was this. He starts off as a prominent Nazi official (like the comic) and head of Hydra, the Nazi advanced weapon manufacturing division. Soon after the movie starts, Hydra succeeds from Nazi affiliation due to the fact that Hitler consider Schmidt to be too evil... Wow! Overall, I found Weaving to be incredibly entertaining as the red faced villain, finding a perfect balance between camp and seriousness. There are also great supporting performances from Haylee Atwell as the female lead Peggy Carter, Dominic Cooper as Howard Stark (Iron Man's father), Stanley Tucci is great as always as the scientist Dr. Abraham Erskine, as is Tommy Lee Jones as Col. Chester Phillips. Overall, it's a great cast!

Of course for any summer blockbuster, especially a superhero movie, one would expect some great action scenes and special effects. If that's all you come to this movie expecting to see, then I can all but guarantee you'll leave happy. Aside from some a few dodgy cgi shots, I'd go as far to call the action scenes perfect... or at least as great as one can expect. There's the usual hero vs villain fights, but there's also a Bourne style on-foot chase scenes (minus the erratic camera) and some well shot WWII battle scenes. Like I said, there were a few cgi shots that could have been rendered a little better. The most apparent one would have to be Chris Evans pre-experimented body, digitally made shorter and weaker. At times it looks real, but more often that not it looked like a digital effect. Granted those are nitpicks that didn't take me out of the movie. It delivered on all levels as an over-the-top summer blockbuster, a War film, and a fun superhero flick.

If Captain America was simply a fun summer blockbuster with cool action and fun characters, I probably would have been fine with that. Apparently, that wasn't enough for the filmmakers and director Joe Johnston. In addition to the action and characters, this movie features top notch production design, amazing costumes, a great musical score from Alan Silvestri, and an engaging story. It's one of the few superhero films to find a great balance between camp and seriousness while never loosing track of basic solid filmmaking. The 40s setting gave the filmmakers a great opportunity to play with some fun retro themes. It kind of reminded me of Joe Johnston's earlier and very underrated WWII superhero film, The Rocketeer. The sets compliment the 40s vibes and gives the movie a really stellar look. I also dug the tinted old-film inspired color correction, again aiding in it's retro appeal.

My favorite element of the production design had to be the costumes. All of the outfits are extremely well made and seem to be authentic, but it's the main hero's costume that really did it for me. Captain America's costume is about as perfect as you can get. It honors it's source material, updates it appropriately, and appears to be a fully functional costume for it's actor. In other words, Evans is able to move around and pull off the action scenes without looking stiff or robotic. Honestly, if this movie doesn't have the best superhero costumes of all time, it's definitely in the top 5. It's right up there with Spider-Man and Iron Man.

It's so refreshing to see a great superhero film made by passionate filmmakers, especially coming off of the disappointing Green Lantern. It goes to show that when you have a great director, cast, and team all pouring their heart and soul into any movie, especially one as difficult to adapt as Captain America, the results can be awesome. Let me just make this clear... do NOT miss this movie! It's awesome! Not quite Dark Knight or Spider-Man 2 awesome, but definitely my favorite out of the connected Marvel movies (Cap, Thor, Iron Man, and The Increidble Hulk) and somewhere in my Top 10 favorite superhero movies. Now bring on the Avengers!

My Score: 4.5 Out of 5!

Thoughts On The Teaser For The Amazing Spider-Man

Let's try something a little different today... instead of a movie review, how about a movie trailer review. Today, the teaser trailer for the newest Spider-Man movie, entitled "The Amazing Spider-Man," was released. If you don't know, this flick is a complete series reboot with absolutely no connection to the previous Spidey flicks directed by Sam Raimi and starring Tobey Maguire. Instead, this movie will be directed by Marc Webb (500 Days of Summer) and stars Andrew Garfield (The Social Network) as Peter Parker/Spider-Man. The main difference is that this movie will take place during entirely during Parker's high school years, when he first gets bit by the radioactive spider responsible for making him super-powered.

Here's the teaser... My review after the jump.



My thoughts... I've been skeptical about this movie ever since I first heard about it. I enjoy Sam Raimi's take on the Spider-Man series (yes, I even kind of liked the third one) and was actually looking forward to a fourth entry... but that got scrapped when Sam Raimi had creative differences with the studio. This teaser actually gives credence to something I've been concerned about since this movie was announced... that it would either be too similar to Twilight or a mediocre teen sci-fi show on the CW. Eep!

The Good:
I will say that I'm glad that they're taking this movie in a different direction than the previous movies, simply because I like to see a different filmmaker try different things. The apparent darker and more dramatic style is just fine with me. It also looks like that it's trying to keep it character-driven and less action-focused, which in theory could be a good thing (don't get me wrong, action is important too though). Plus, the high school setting doesn't bother me too much seeing as many Spidey comics took place during his teenage years anyways. It's also nice to see them actually using Gwen Stacey as the love interest in her proper setting (ie, not shoe-horned into the story for the convenience of a love triangle a la Spider-Man 3). The cast is quite good as well, Andrew Garfield as Spidey, Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy, Martin Sheen as Uncle Ben, Sally Field as Aunt May, Dennis Leary as Captain Stacy, and Rhys Ifans as The Lizard... yeah I have no problem with this cast. So yeah, there's barely enough to keep me hopeful.

The Bad:
Eeeesh... this teaser reeks of Twilight and WB bullshit. I really don't mind the high school setting, but I'm hoping and praying that this doesn't end up being a half-rate love story with flat dialogue, stale performances, questionable morals, and shitty abstinence messages. I might have been able to somewhat take solace in all that had the trailer featured some cool action or neat displays of superpowers, but nope! Instead, we get a weird first-person cg running segment that looks like a cut scene out from a mediocre video game. The cgi in that 30 seconds is pretty awful. I know I know... it's just a teaser trailer and they've got a whole year to fix up the effects (which they probably will), but it's just not boasting me with much confidence right now. Not to mention, we only barely get a glimpse of Parker in the costume. Granted, that's not a huge concern but it's just kind of a bummer.

Overall:
Yeah, this trailer isn't exactly doing it for me. Yes, it's only a teaser and it's still way too soon to judge, but if Sony is going to get the nay-sayers to come around for this flick, they'll have to do much better than this.

Green Lantern - Review

One thing that I found a bit interesting about the Green Lantern movie is that it represents something of a minor turning point for Warner Bros. Since 2001, the studio has had the luxury of distributing the Harry Potter movies, a stream of popular, well-made, and lucrative blockbusters that were all but guaranteed to be mega-hits. Now with Potter series on it's final legs, Warner Bros has been on the lookout for a new blockbuster franchise to take it's Place. So the first up to bat is Green Lantern, a movie based on the long running DC comic book. As the first live action feature based on the series, expectations were high. Is this Warner's newest multi-million dollar franchise or is it back to the drawing board.

Green Lantern stars Ryan Reynolds as Hal Jordan, a cocky test pilot facing some personal demons from his past. One night, he comes across an alien named Abin Sur who crash landed on Earth. Abin Sur is a member of an intergalactic peace keeping alliance known as the Green Lantern Corp, who came to Earth in search of someone to take his place on the Lantern Corp before he dies. He bestows Jordan with his power ring, an item that bestows the wearer with the power to turn thought into reality. Jordan learns to master his new found powers right as a near-unstoppable force called Parrallax makes it's way to Earth with it's sights set on planetary destruction.

I do enjoy comic books and superhero movies, but I was never that big of a fan of Green Lantern. I've never had anything against the series or the character, it was just never my cup of tea. It seemed like a cool idea though, and if nothing else I admired it from afar... enough at least to look forward to seeing this movie. I only mention this so you know that when I say the movie is disappointing, I'm not coming at this as an upset fanboy. All I know of the character is the basic format, the general mythos, and most of the main characters. As far as the nit-picky details as for how well it follows it's source material... I'm not the one to ask about that. It's just a very mediocre sci-fi action film with more than it's share of flaws.

One thing that got me excited for this flick was that it was being directed by Martin Campbell. This was the filmmaker behind some solid and fun action films including Vertical Limit and The Mask of Zorro. For me though, his work on the 007 movies are his great accomplishment, directing two of the franchise's best entries, Casino Royale and Goldeneye. Unfortunately, Campbell's direction is ultimately what killed this movie. It seemed like he had no interest on set in what he was directing. What we ultimately get is a string of scenes featuring lost actors, sub par special effects, uninspired action, and weak humor. Granted the finale had it's moments, but the rest was about as bland as it gets. It's basically like he was directing on autopilot the whole time. What a disappointment...

One could theorize that the direction was so poor due in part for Campbell not being satisfied with the script... and I really wouldn't be surprised if that was the case, because the writing is awful! The worst part about it that it includes bits and pieces of a quality flick, but cops out on almost every bit of promise it had. The mythos behind the character is very cool... a plot about legion of super powered aliens who protect the universe has all kinds of potential. First problem though, they neglect many aspects of the Green Lantern Corps to focus almost exclusively on the personality-drained Hal Jordan. On top of his character having more in common with Tom Cruise in Top Gun, there's just nothing that hasn't been done before. He receives a great power, nearly budges from the responsibility,and then overcomes it to save the day in the end... haven't seen that a million times before. Meanwhile the far more interesting characters like the other Green Lanterns or the villainous Hector Hammond (played by Peter Sarsgaard) are left underutilized and underdeveloped. As for the rest of the movie... be prepared for lots of exposition, massive plot holes, unfunny jokes, and cliche after cliche.

Now, let's focus on the casting... oh the casting. Ryan Reynolds stars in the title role as Hal Jordan aka Green Lantern. Let's make one thing clear... I like Ryan Reynolds. He's a talented actor with good range, solid comic timing, and the ability to take on different roles. If you don't believe me on that, go watch Buried and see for yourself. His depiction of Hal Jordan, however, is just all wrong. It's partly due to the weak script and direction, but I can't totally let Reynolds off the hook. For the most part, he looks like he's in a daze or just lost. Blake Lively plays Jordan's love interest Carol Ferris. I don't have much to say about her other than that she has absolutely no range whatever in this. Peter Saarsgard as Hector Hammond was actually the only one who comes close to salvaging this movie. His character is largely irrelevant the plot and totally underdeveloped, but his character arc almost works and even though his acting at times borders on campy, he was the only one who actually showed some personality. Not much else to say about the casting other than that it usually doesn't work.

I might have been willing to forgive some of Green Lantern's many problems if the film's technical aspects were better, but sadly they're not. Let's start with the effects... in short, they're not that good. First off is the The Green Lantern costume. It is created not through fabrics or linens, but through cgi. The logic was that the outfit is created by energy, and that a traditional costume wouldn't give it the animated or alien look that was desired. In theory that makes sense, but the costume's cgi looked totally unfinished and unconvincing. Many times, it looked like Reynolds head was just floating around, especially in the scenes set in space. The rest of the action was for the most part just meh. The finale had it's moments, but the rest are ridiculously stupid. The introductory scene for Jordan is a generic dogfight between Jordan and a military drone in a scene that is all to reminiscent of Top Gun. Hell, I expected to start hearing Highway To The Danger Zone while watching it. If that's not bad enough, halfway through there's a scene where Jordan saves a failing helicopter by creating a giant toy car ramp with his ring... even for comic book standards, that is corny. That could actually be said for pretty much every scene in the flick. It's too campy to take seriously but not nearly fun enough to enjoy on an ironic level.

The worst part about Green Lantern is that between the decades of comic storylines and mythos, a previously successful director, and a promising cast, this could have been something really good. It's not the worst comic book movie ever, and I wouldn't go as far to call it the disaster it's being made out to be, but it just made too many mistakes for me to give it a recommendation. If you haven't seen it yet, don't bother.

My Score: 2 out of 5!

Super 8 - Review

Super 8 is one of those movies that I can't help but chuckle at. It's not a bad movie, it's just that it tries so incredibly hard to strike at the nostalgia of those who grew up in the 80s and early 90s that it comes off as less of a movie and more of a laughably over passionate love letter to my generation's childhood. While one could make a reasonable argument that originality is overrated, or that the current generation probably wouldn't recognize most of Super 8's movie references, there is definitely something to say about why a credible filmmaker like J.J. Abrams would feel compelled to rip off nearly every Spielbergian trick and cliche in the book. Yeah, I know this was produced by Spielberg, but nonetheless I stand by my opinion. Still, I guess if you had to rip off a filmmaker, there are worse choices than Spielberg. Is the movie a new summer classic or a forgettable dud?

Super 8 centers around a group of kids living in a small Ohio town in 1979. One summer night, they sneak out to film a short movie by an old train station. In the midst of the filming, they witness a catastrophic train accident when a car drives onto the railroad tracks and causes it to derail. Soon afterward, they realize that the train belonged to the US Air Force and was carrying a creature unlike anything they've ever seen. Now, with a giant alien wrecking havoc around town, the kids are forced to take action and stop it.

Like I was saying, Super 8 tries... boy does it try hard. To me, it comes off as this movie that feels if it includes references to every Spielberg movie it can, that it will go on to be this timeless summer classic. To be fair though, many great movies are mainly homages. Star Wars, for instance, was basically a salute to sci-fi serials of the 50s. Then there's Indiana Jones... an homage to adventure serials of the 30s. Ridley Scott's Alien was essentially a big budget B-Movie from the 50s. The list goes on. The main difference between classics like that and Super 8 is this... Super 8 intentionally targets your nostalgia and goes out of it's way to remind you of the classics. Sure the other films mentioned may have been nostalgic, but they had their own unique touch to separate them from their inspirations. Super 8 has scenes that wholeheartedly rip off nearly every movie directed or produced by Spielberg. There are scenes taken from Jaws, War of the Worlds, Indiana Jones, Jurassic Park, Gremlins, The Goonies, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, even Schindler's List. Not mention there are small tributes to non-Spielberg filmmakers like John Carpenter and George Romero. Though hands down the most prevalent tribute is ET, going out of it's way to include a plot with an alien and even scenes that were almost completely remade from the classic. As a result, Super 8 comes off simply as a nostalgic piece with little originality and practically no lasting value.

Despite those criticisms, Super 8 does a lot of thing right. The first of which is the acting. Super 8 boasts one of the better child casts I've seen in quite a while. In fact, it's one of the rare occasions where the kids outshine the adults. Not so much because the adults are bad actors, but simply that the kids are more engaging characters. They have diverse personalities, fun characteristics, and some memorable comedic moments. I won't critique all of them, but I will say that Super 8 will likely be remembered as the star-making vehicle for actors' Elle Fanning and Joel Courtney.

Probably the most frustrating thing about Super 8, though, is the fact that the story doesn't take advantage of it's child characters as well as it could have. As I mentioned before, Super 8 has a promising script with an intriguing concept and fun characters, but unfortunately it also has a boatload of problems. It switches every so often between the main plot with the kids, and two subplots - one of which involves a government conspiracy involving the alien (a la ET) and another involving Joe's (the main character) neglectful father coming to grips with his recently deceased wife (a la... too many Spielberg movies to name).

The story has a great first act... with a solid setup, promising exposition, and one of the best train derailment scenes I've ever seen. The second act is when the movie starts feeling cluttered and overstuffed, struggling to balance it's multiple stories. By the time the third act rolls around, not much has changed. The finale is appropriately exciting, but it's also predictable as hell. Plus, when the alien's appearance is finally revealed... it's pretty ho-hum. Not awful but a minor letdown after the great buildup. Though I do have to mention the hilarious post-credit scene. That alone makes Super 8 worth seeing.

From a technical side, Super 8 works. The special effects are appropriately adequate, the cinematography is decent, and it had enough visual flair to keep me interested. As I mentioned, the train derailment scene is very cool, arguably the best train accident ever depicted on screen. You've also got some suspenseful and exciting scenes with the alien reigning chaos on the town. While the camerawork was overall decent, many of the shots had multiple lens flares that got really distracting. Plus, there's the less-than-stellar appearance of the alien, as I mentioned before. Overall, it works but aside from the train scene, I can't think of much that will be especially memorable.

What's frustrating about Super 8 is that it makes as many wrong choices as it does right choices. It's just when it work... it really works, but when it doesn't... it falls pretty hard. In the end, I think the pros outweigh the cons enough to see it once in theatres, but with all of the film's positive qualities, it should have been much better. It's too bad... this could have been a new classic. Still worth a watch though.

My Score: 3.5 out of 5!