The Hunger Games: Catching Fire - Review

Ugh! I really need to post these reviews sooner. This film has been in theaters for over a month now and I've waited too long for this post this thing... oh well. Now it's time for Part II of the super-popular Hunger Games series, based on the equally-popular young adult novels by author Suzanne Collins. Can't say I have personally bought into their hype... mainly because I was one of the few movie-goers who considered the first film an overrated letdown. Back in March of 2012, I wrote what was arguably my most controversial review, giving the first film only 2 out of 5 stars with a relatively scathing send-up. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate what this series is at least trying to do, the first film had some ambitious ideas (for a young adult series anyways), a strong female lead helming a generally solid cast, and one or two stand-out moments. Unfortunately it was let down by questionable direction, derivative story elements, hit-and-miss pacing, underdeveloped characters, terrible camerawork, sub-par special effects, and bland action. After two repeat viewings plus reading the first novel (which, by the way, is just okay) to see if there was something I missed, my opinion hasn't changed. I can't quite call the film terrible... but I was not impressed. I knew this would be a controversial opinion, as was soon proven by the abundance of hate mail I received, but I stand by it. So yeah, can't say I've been looking forward to it's sequel, Catching Fire, but I was willing to give it a shot, namely because of some new and more promising story elements plus a new director who actually knows how to direct action. Now after finally seeing the thing, here are my thoughts...

The film takes place one year after the events of it's predecessor. After winning the 74th annual Hunger Games, Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) and Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson) have been touring the twelve lower-class Districts in the upper class Capital's mandatory "Victor's Tour." Both Katniss and Peeta reluctantly continue to stage their "love story relationship" for the masses, despite Katniss having a real love, Peeta genuinely having feelings for Katniss, and that many District residents never bought into the charade in the first place. Fearing an uprising, President Snow (Donald Sutherland) threatens Katniss into continuing the act, meanwhile scheming against her to destroy her influence among the District residents. He plans to do so at the 75th Hunger Games, where instead of kids/teens fighting to the death, instead recruits previous Hunger Games victors and pits them in a sort of Tournament of Champions to the death... Katniss and Peeta included. Now, they all must re-train, make friends, make enemies, and fight for their lives.

So right up front, is the film good or is it another let down? Well, unlike the time I saw the first movie, in which I pretty much disliked from the get-go, I've been feeling more conflicted about Catching Fire. I'll admit that there are some parts of this film I genuinely liked, though there were more than a few bits that left me saying, "Really... that's it?" In the end, it ultimately culminates to be a generally decent film, but I'm still not quite sold on the series as a whole. I will say this much, I actually really liked the basic set-up. The first act gets you hooked, the stakes are higher, the satire is better developed, and the way in which the games were set up this time around had some real promise. Unfortunately, it all culminates to a disappointing finale plus some lingering problems from it's predecessor that still haven't been resolved. Ugh... I hate it when that happens. It's not like I went into this film with high expectations or anything like that, but I was genuinely surprised to see just how, despite an abundance of storytelling issues, I found myself invested in the premise... until we actually got to the games themselves. That almost makes me even more upset than I was about the first flick. Sure I didn't like the first one, but it never did much to get me interested in the first place, so I didn't feel that "let down" per se. Catching Fire actually got my hopes up for a bit and then just shot them down... damn!

Okay, so I mentioned that there were some lingering issues from the predecessor that still plagued this sequel. As I mentioned in my review of the original, I was never a fan of how it chose to frame the "good" and "evil" characters. By this I'm referring to the fact that the "good" characters are portrayed as these working class, traditional, or salt of the Earth-like normal folk while the "evil" Capitol citizens are all portrayed as goofy, campy, foppish, and dressed in these over-the-top outfits. Out of all the hate-mail I received, those bits of criticism were probably thrown back in my face the most. I've tried to wrap my around why this kind of storytelling might work, but I'm sorry, no matter how I look at it, I still think it's an incredibly cheap and lazy way to portray it's characters. Not only does it fail to bring any real depth to the characters, but it's just a cheap way to divide the line between good and evil. Plus, the way it portrays "normal" or "down to earth" characters as good while the those portrayed as flamboyant or goofy as evil (or at least misguided) has some really unfortunate implications on how we as people view society. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but it's there.

As I did mention before, there are some things in the flick that I really did enjoy. The whole setup and first act are good... damn good actually. Okay, well the political and social aspects of the flick still feel more than a bit flawed, but the way in which it continues the story and attempts to further explore it's themes and messages was commendable. The whole "Tournament of Champions" concept, unfortunately, did basically serve as a means to just re-tread the basic plot of it's predecessor, but Katniss competing with a bunch of seasoned veterans at least served as a logical means to raise the stakes. Plus... I really dug the tributes this time around, and how each of them had some unique personality trait or skill. One of my biggest complains with the previous film was how most of the tributes were basically just personality-deprived victim fodder for the games, with even less character than you're typical slasher flick line-up. Here, that's different... you have a tribute that files her teeth into sharp fangs to bite her target, there are two tech-wizards that kill people with science, there's a mute old lady who rides on the back of her younger male companion, and the list goes on. The film also scores hugely once again thanks to the efforts of it's stellar cast, namely Jennifer Lawrence. Lawrence was solid in the previous flick, don't get me wrong, but she totally hit it out of the park here, delivering an even more moving and intense performance as Katniss, capturing the trauma of someone who experienced great pain but with the strength to push through whatever challenges come before her. If nothing else, between a great cast and a stellar first act, I found myself hyped to see what would happen next. Unfortunately, what would come next was not nearly as awesome as I had hoped.

If there was one thing that actually did get me kind of excited about Catching Fire, it was Francis Lawrence directing. While Lawrence is by no means a great director, he's at least shown that he has a good eye for directing stylized action scenes, as evidence by two of his previous films, the underrated Constantine and the overrated I Am Legend (not a good film, but not without it's stylish moments). Once the film actually gets to the Games... I couldn't have felt more let down. Most of the said tributes bite it off screen, and don't really get to show off their special skills/traits. Plus, it ultimately culminates into a predictable pattern consisting of an obstacle followed by a chase. The obstacles range from a poison fog, killer baboons, crazy birds, and a few others, but generally come off as uninspired. I suppose these scenes are a step up from the first, namely how this time there's not as much shaky cam and they at they least came up with obstacles slightly more creative than the poorly rendered Zuul dogs from the first. At the very least, the film ended on a pretty exciting cliffhanger that I have no doubt will get all the fans stoked for the next one. Granted, there was one big character reveal/twist that was hardly a surprise, but that's a minor gripe I suppose. Still, with all the hype and great buildup in the first half, I expected way more than what we got in the finale.

So overall, how was the movie? As I mentioned before, it's a decent film.... not great but not bad. I'm not going to say that I've become a fan of this series, but I will give it credit for at least delivering some strong moments and ambitious satire even if the writing is still flawed and the third act was the very definition of anti-climactic. Still, I'll take what I can get, and what we got here was, at the very least, watchable. I'll take that over the mediocrity of it's predecessor any day.

My Score: 3 out of 5

Carrie - Review

I'll be first to admit that I've had it out for the remake of Carrie since I first heard about it's development. In this remake-laden era of Hollywood and filmmaking, it's becoming harder and harder to get even remotely excited about the variety of remakes, reboots, or re-whatevers. However, I've been particularly cynical about this one, since the original is not only one of the few horror films to receive widespread acclaim from both audiences, critics, and film snobs, but also because it happens to be one of my all-time favorite movies. Yes, the original 1976 film is awesome... it scores across the board as a compelling character drama, a thrilling suspense/thriller, a poignant examination of teen bullying, and (of course) a genuinely frightening horror film. I often credit the film as being the first horror film to truly make me a fan of the genre. With so many half-assed or shallow remakes of classic horror films that have recently plagued theaters, I was worried that Carrie would end up being another forgettable cash-in. Not to mention, the original was already followed by other disappointing reiterations of the story. There was a belated sequel (sucked), a made-for-TV remake (also not very good), and a Broadway musical (never seen it, but it's reputation as one of Broadway's most infamous bombs kind of speaks for itself). Part of me, however, became almost somewhat optimistic (though not enough to come around) when I heard of the talent the film was attracting. Actors like Chloë Grace Moretz, Julianne Moore, and director Kimberly Peirce are all among some of the better talents working today, and could, in theory, assemble a respectable remake. After finally seeing the damn thing... here are my thoughts.

Based on the novel by Stephen King, Carrie tells the story of the teenage outcast, Carrie White (Chloë Grace Moretz). The painfully shy and awkward Carrie lives a troubled life, being tormented by her high school peers and abused by her psychotic religious zealot mother, Margaret White (Julianne Moore). When Carrie has a panic attack after receiving her first period during gym class, her classmates pull a particularly cruel prank on her and post in online. Shortly after the incident, Carrie discovers that she now possesses telekinetic powers, and over time learns to develop and control them. Once Carrie's classmates are punished for their prank, they decide to enact a revenge scheme by pulling an even more vile prank on poor Carrie at the upcoming prom. With that said prom right around the corner, it's going to be a night to remember... for everyone.

So it pretty much goes without saying, but yeah... the movie ins't good. While I can't say that this surprises me, at all really, I have to admit that there were a few times while watching it where it seemed like the film started to do something kind of interesting... only to be disappointed when that was not the case. While it was initially believed that this remake was going to be a more faithful adaptation of Stephen King's novel, that turned out not be true. With the exception of one or two minor deviations, the film is basically a note-for-note retelling of the 1976 Brian De Palma film, albeit with some modern updates. It's not as egregious as the infamous shot-for-shot remake of Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho, but it's close. I don't want to spend this whole review comparing the remake to it's far superior original (since that's not fair), but it's almost impossible to ignore how much it fails in comparison. While the original was a legitimately shocking, moving, and tragic adaptation of it's (good but not great) source material, this new version feels like a dull, soulless, and generally flat re-creation coasting mainly off the memories of it's predecessor despite lacking it's style, flair, and poignancy. I'm not saying the original was totally without ANY flaws, but it's raw emotional drive made it one hell of an experience, while the remake almost put me to sleep.

The film's opening scene actually started with a fairly decent hook. If there's one flaw I could levy against the 1976 film, it's that the character of Margaret White (previously played by Piper Laurie) is kind of one-note. While Laurie was unforgettable in the role, her character was never really explored beyond being just a fairly straightforward religious nutjob (this was an issue in the book as well), despite featuring a few scenes that hinted at something more interesting happening in her that was never really explored. In this version, the film opens with Margaret White giving birth Carrie alone in her bedroom right before contemplating whether she should kill her newborn daughter or not. At first I thought that the film might actually shift the focus more to Margaret herself instead of Carrie. Plus, it also attempts to portray her as more a sympathetic villain, driven to insanity by either her religious values or tragic events in her past. Unfortunately, the film never really follows through on it's attempts and instead once again portrays Margaret as another straightforward antagonist that only hints at something more interesting going on. Damn you movie for actually teasing us with something potentially intriguing!

Cast-wise, the film is a mixed bag that is admittedly slightly elevated by it's two leads. It couldn't have been easy for Chloë Grace Moretz to follow in the footsteps of Sissy Spacek's Oscar-nominated role, and while I won't say she's perfect, she generally does a serviceable job. Moretz is one of cinema's most talented and charismatic young actors working today, and I could tell that she was putting her all into this role. While she does overplay what should have been some of the more subdued scenes, she nonetheless demonstrates some real emotional heft in a few standout moments. That said, I typically had a hard time buying that someone who doesn't look all that different from the supposedly "prettier" teens would be considered an outcast. While I admit that the original's Sissy Spacek was an attractive person, she had a slightly more off-kilter or country-ish appearance that helped sell her image as an outcast yet could pull off her prom scene transformation as well. Putting Moretz in a unfashionable outfit and hairstyle does little to sell her image as a "freak" and kind of ruins the effect. It's hard to levy that against Moretz herself, so I'll give her a pass in this case. Julianne Moore is the standout as Margaret White. I've already gone into detail about her character, so I won't say much more than I already have. Moore is definitely more subdued compared to Piper Laurie's screen-chewing performance in the original, but she does a generally good job with the role, showcasing some real emotional range and typically running off with the film's few effective scenes. The teenage actors this time around don't leave much of an impression. Granted they do look more like actual teenagers (unlike the 20 somethings in the original), but do little to elevate the film in any way. I also will say that I did enjoy the underrated Judy Greer as Carrie's supportive gym teacher, Miss Desjardin. Hopefully, Greer will get a part real soon that will really let her show off her talent (fingers crossed).

Considering that this is a horror film, you might be wondering why I haven't said anything about it's actual scariness. Unfortunately, that's because it's really not all that scary. It has a adequately slick look with appropriately modern filmmaking sensibilities, but it's basically as flat and empty as anything else. I will admit that there are a couple scenes between Carrie and her mother that actually do have a somewhat creepy vibe to them and were some of the few times I was genuinely intrigued. That said, aside for those few exceptions, the movie pretty much breezes through the first two acts so it can get to the infamous prom climax. The prom scene itself, however, is even kind of a letdown. While there are a few adequately gut-wrenching moments, it felt once again felt like a paltry restating of the original scene. There's a little more gore this time around, a couple decent money shots, plus the updated effects, but the obvious use of cgi and some questionable direction destroyed any chance of the scene feeling any more than just plain adequate. None of this is helped by the mostly lifeless cinematography and questionable editing. That's another thing, the film was chalk full of continuity errors, questionable stylistic choices, and odd cuts... don't really know what they were going for. In the long run, this version of Carrie feels less like a character-driven horror film but more like an uninspired by-the-numbers revenge flick. To some, that might be enough, but I was hoping for more.

So that's Carrie... and it's not worth your time. I asked myself if I was being too hard on it due to my love for the original. My response... somewhat maybe, but that still wouldn't change the fact that remake is at best, a mediocre horror film. Despite a few decent performances, it's a flat, uninspired, and often boring film that only hints at being something better. Saying a film is boring is probably the worst label you could ever put on a film, as Carrie isn't really terrible, because then it might have been somewhat memorable, but instead is just plain forgettable. Whether you're a fan of the original or not... this is one you can skip.

My Score: 2 out of 5

Escape From Tomorrow - Review

I've mentioned in previous reviews that I don't get as hyped about upcoming releases as often as I used to. That's not to say that there aren't films I get excited about or that my passion for the medium has diminished, it's just that in an era of 24/7 media coverage, gossip, rumors, and other behind-the-scenes production news plus a noticeable lack of originality or creativity has made it harder and harder to get hyped. Of course when the film, Escape From Tomorrow, stirred a bit of controversy at Sundance this year, it managed to pique my interest. For starters, the film had a pretty awesome concept, a surreal David Lynch-inspired horror/thriller about a man having violent and freaking hallucinations while vacationing with his family at Disney World. However, it was the manner of which it was filmed that really got me... most of it was secretly filmed guerrilla style at Disney World with neither the consent or permission from Disney... that is freaking insane! I'm not coming at this like I'm anti-Disney or anti-corporation (because I'm not either of those). I've been to both Disney World and Disneyland, and have many fond memories of those trips. It's just the fact that writer/director Randy Moore actually had the audacity to take on one of the biggest and most protective companies on the planet is a pretty incredible feat. Not to mention, the fact that a film like this got made and released is an example of some of the most creative and challenging out-of-the-box filmmaking that has been mostly absent from cinema in recent years. So yeah... this was an awesome idea and ballsy concept, but is the film itself any good?

Walt Disney World, a land built on imagination, has entertained millions of visitors since it opened in 1971... but does the so-called "Happiest Place on Earth" have a dark side? Tourist Jim White (Roy Abramsohn) is about to find out. On the last day of his Disney vacation with his wife, Emily (Elena Schuber), and two kids, Elliot and Sara (Jack Dalton and Katelynn Rodriguez), gets an unfortunate phone call from his employer telling him that his job won't be waiting for him when he returns home. To avoid ruining the trip, he keeps this news from his family. This, however, creates a strain between him and his two rambunctious kids and a wife who clearly doesn't think too fondly of him anymore. While spending the day in the park, Jim starts experiencing violent visions and hallucinations (or are they?) twisting the normally happy-go-lucky image of the park. He also starts oggling the scantily clad women that keep walking by, namely two very underage French teenagers with whom he keeps crossing paths. Things continue to go from bad to worse, and the day's events only become crazier and Jim starts to wonder if the park is as twisted as it seems or if he's just loosing his mind.

So I've mentioned that the concept is intriguing and the production was audacious, but gimmicks can only get you so far. From a completely objective viewpoint, how did the film out? Honestly, it's... pretty mediocre. It's by no means terrible, and I'm still blown away by the fact that a film like this even exists, but if I'm going to be totally honest, it is kind of a letdown. Theoretically, it all sounds pretty fantastic. The film has been compared to the works of many surreal filmmakers, namely David Lynch and his experimental classic, Eraserhead. Both featured similar themes and styles by both being shot in black and white, both dealing with themes of the horrors of parenthood and relationships, and both featuring a main character who is slowly loosing his mind. Whenever Escape From Tomorrow focuses strictly on the surreal horror and trippy visuals, it's pretty damn awesome. The black and white camerawork is a brilliant contrast to the typically hyper-colorized Disney landscapes, and works to the film's tone. Also just try to get some of the images out of your head, from the demonic transformations of the "It's a Small World" dummies or Epcot's Spaceship Earth dismantling and rolling over hundreds of people. Most of the movie was clearly set at Disney World (or Disneyland, they filmed at both locations), but some of it was filmed in a studio, in front of a green screen. Unfortunately, whenever that happened, it was painfully obvious. The screen keying could have been done much better, and some of the cgi throughout the film wasn't always on par. Considering the low budget, it's generally a pretty nice looking movie, but far from perfect.

Story-wise, the movie is a complete mixed bag. I've already mentioned how the premise kicks ass, and the way some of it comes together is kind of interesting. The way it kind of plays with Disney's perception of constant manufactured happiness and turns it on it's head is kind of clever. It has some intriguing insights into both the corporate mindset of Disney as well. I also got a kick out of the allusions to some classic Disney World urban legends. I won't spoil them, but the most memorable, in my opinion, has to be the one involving the Disney princesses (you'll know it when you see it). Unfortunately, the movie suffers from some noticeable pacing issues, even at only 90 minutes. For every interesting scene, there's another dull and lifeless one. It's hard to have any sympathy for these characters too. I'm not sure if we were supposed to relate to anyone, but when you get right down it, Jim is a neglectful father who spends most of his time checking out the nearby girls at the expense of his family. Not to mention, Jim's wife, Emily, is portrayed as cold, nagging, and bitchy... maybe justified given the quality of her husband's supposed character, but considering that none of these characters are particularly deep, interesting, or explored, they just come off as one-note and unlikable. Plus, the quality of the acting leaves A LOT to be desired. It's kind of understandable that the performances wouldn't be totally up to par considering the drastic way in which the movie was filmed, but even in the non-Disney world scenes, the actors are painfully flat. This ends up being Escape From Tomorrow's Achilles's heel, as the sub-par acting really takes you out of the movie and comes dangerously close to ruining it entirely. Basically, it's a film with some really clever ideas but only occasional success with it's execution.

I was initially curious as to why Disney decided to leave this one alone rather than pursue legal action, but now after seeing it, I can see why. The truth is, leaving it alone was the best way to go. Stirring up publicity for a pretty mediocre film (neither really good or really bad) would just draw more attention to the flick instead of letting it fade into obscurity. There's a possibility this one might survive as an underground cult classic, but even that seems like a stretch at this point. It's a creative idea and ballsy production that ultimately culminates into a very so-so final result. I'm kind of tempted to give it a recommendation just to support the low budget filmmaker and his clever methods, but I can't quite do that. If the idea sounds up your alley, maybe you can check it out on VOD (or theaters if it's playing in your area)... and you might appreciate it more than I did. For everyone else... it's a skip.

My Score: 2.5 out of 5!

Kick Ass 2 - Review

I have to admit, I find it a bit surprising that someone decided to make a sequel to the 2010 comic book film, Kick Ass. While the film made made money at the box office, received mostly positive reviews from critics, and generally struck a chord with it's target audience... it's obscene violence, unique ideas, and mostly stand-alone story seemed more like it would be seen as a cult classic or midnight movie instead of a franchise starter with mainstream appeal. Well... if there's a potential profit to be made, I guess anything is possible. When I reviewed the original film back in 2010, I gave it 3.5 stars out of 5. Looking back, I think I might have been a little tough on it. While I still don't think it's a perfect film, the enjoyable cast, gleefully immature tone, great action and obscenely over-the-top violence made Kick Ass one hell of a, well, "kick ass" movie. A four out of five would have been a more appropriate score. Don't know why I was so critical for that one, since those are usually the kinds of films I tend to be too lenient toward (maybe I was trying to avoid that). But whatever, what's done is done, and repeat viewings have made me appreciate the original more than I did before. So... with all that said, here's Kick Ass 2...

Kick Ass 2 picks up 3 years after it's predecessor. High School senior Dave Lizewski aka Kick Ass (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) has mostly retired from his superhero days and instead focused on his everyday life. Despite this, his previous stint as Kick Ass has inspired dozens of everyday citizens to take up their own superhero mantles and clean up the streets. Because of this, Dave puts back on his Kick Ass costume and allies with a local group of costumed heroes led by Colonel Stars and Stripes (Jim Carrey), all of whom have dedicated their lives to fighting crime and making the city a better place. Meanwhile, Mindy Macready aka Hit Girl (Chloë Grace Moretz), has struggled to adjust to a normal life after the death of her father, Big Daddy. She reluctantly retires her costume in an effort to become a normal teenager, but struggles to deal with the hardships of teen life. Things suddenly get more serious for both Kick Ass and Hit Girl when Chris D'Amico (Christopher Mintz-Plasse) takes on the mantra of a new super-villain known as "The Motherfucker" and assembles a team of costumed villains to avenge the death of his father (whom Kick Ass killed in the previous film). Now with a team of psychotic villains wrecking havoc on the city, Kick Ass and Hit Girl assemble all the costumed crime fighters they can find in order to put an end to the Motherfucker's reign of terror.

Kick Ass 2 is an interesting case... while watching it, I can honestly say that I was having a good time. That said, the more I think about it, the more I think about it's many flaws. Does that make it a good or a bad movie though? Honestly, I'm not totally sure right now. On one hand, despite the change in directors, it still manages to retain the same style of colorful costumes, gleefully over-the-top violence, and juvenile humor. That said, if you weren't a fan of the original or what I just mentioned, this one probably won't covert you. Plus, the cast is still game, with Chloe Grace Moretz once again stealing the show and adding another strong performance to her small but very impressive filmography. The lack of Nicolas Cage's Big Daddy is an unfortunate absence, but fortunately Jim Carrey's Colonel Stars and Stripes manages to pick up a bit of the slack with some of the movie's funniest scenes. There's also a number of new heroes and villains, most of whom have a neat gimmick and colorful costume, adding to the film's fun factor. One of the standout villains is Mother Russia (played by female bodybuilder Olga Kurkulina), an ex-KGB agent and ex-con, who serves as the Motherfucker's most physically formidable team member. Kurkulina is great the role as a naturally intimidating presence and formidable fighter. She also runs off with what is easily the film's most memorable and exciting action sequence. There's a lot in Kick Ass 2 that works, and if nothing else, the film usually works as a straight-forward action flick.

Unfortunately, with the good comes the bad, and there's plenty to nitpick here. While I will give the film credit for not being a simple retelling of it's predecessor, it does still tread some familiar turf. A couple scenes from this film feel like basic re-stagings of scenes from the previous film, namely one where Dave sets himself up to be attacked by a bunch of thugs and needs to be rescued by Hit Girl again. Only this time, it's not nearly as surprising, shocking, or memorable. There were also a couple of scenes where Dave argues with his father, in what was clearly intended to be a major dramatic point for the film and Dave's character. Unfortunately, they never set up that dynamic very well and those scenes come off as more flat, rushed, and oddly cold-hearted. Moretz's story-line, however, fares a bit better as Mindy attempts to retire her costumed persona and struggles to adjust to a life as a normal teenage girl. Some of her sub-plot's elements come off as more than a bit cliche'd but Moretz is a good enough actress to make them work, plus it does lead to what is easily the film's most effective bits of drama (and a few laughs too). The movie all works toward the expected giant good vs evil final battle, and while generally effective is quite predictable and hardly anything unique. It's definitely a far cry from the first film, which was one crazy twist and insane antic after the other, that it kept you on the edge of your seat wanting to know what would happen next. This one, it's pretty straightforward... not inherently a bad thing, but nothing special either.

If this review feels like it is among my shorter write-ups, it's because there's not much more to say about it. If you enjoyed the first film, I'm reasonably certain you'll find something to enjoy in this one, but it probably won't have the same effect as it's predecessor. I was thinking whether I should give the movie 2.5 or 3 stars, and since I went a little to hard on the first Kick Ass, I'm going to give this one the benefit of the doubt and give it 3 stars. A little generous... maybe, but I can't say that I didn't get some legitimate enjoyment out of the flick. If it sounds good to you, check it out.

10 Upcoming Remakes That Will Probably Suck

Despite what people may tell you (or what's implied by my reviews), I don't think of myself as a negative person. While I'm sure there are more than a few critics that like to comb through every film they see on the lookout for flaws... that's not really me, or at least, that's not who I try to be. I didn't start this blog for the purpose of tearing apart bad movies, I started it because I have a genuine love for the art of filmmaking and I want to see the industry continue to move forward. Unfortunately, given the industry's tendencies to focus on brand-names, spin-offs, reboots, remakes, and re-whatevers, it's been getting harder to remain positive. Even though this summer has actually been a bit better on the originality front than previous years (at least we got Pacific Rim, The Conjuring, Elysium, and a few others), it seems like we're still getting bombarded with remake after remake. So... yeah, today I'm going to be more cynical than usual and gripe about 10 upcoming remakes that will almost definitely suck. Now... I could be wrong about these films, and I'm hoping I am, but I'm not holding my breath. So without further, here are ten films that will (probably) end up sucking.

Honorable Mention: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
- I'm not including this one on the list because it's less of a remake and more of a reboot and because I haven't really cared much for TMNT since I was like 8 years old. That said, every time I hear news about this film's production, it's sounding more and more like it's going to be a massive train wreck. I mean, come on... Megan Fox as April O'Neil, making Shredder a white guy, and supposedly turning the Turtles into aliens... this film is just going to suck so bad.

10. Godzilla
- I put this one low on the list because despite my reservations, some of the early details about the film have actually looked somewhat promising. Unfortunately, I'm still very much on the fence for two reasons. First off, we already received an American remake of Japan's famous movie monster in 1998... and it was more horrendous than anyone could have imagined. Secondly, the film is being directed by Gareth Edwards, and his debut film, Monsters, was a huge letdown. Yes I know the film was low-budget and tried to tell a good story, but I'm sorry! Monsters was an incredibly overrated effort, that despite it's good intentions, suffered from unlikable leads, dull pacing, on-the-nose symbolism, and a huge letdown of an ending. Plus, the original Godzilla is one of my favorite sci-fi films of all time, and I know that I'm not alone on that... so let's hope for the best.


9. Poltergeist
- It's somewhat re-assuring that Sam Raimi is the one producing the film, but I'm still not sold on remaking Poltergeist. The original 1982 horror flick still holds up as an incredibly spooky haunted house film featuring strong performances, a tight story, and memorable scares. It's two sequels, however, didn't quite cut it. Besides, we've actually gotten a number of original haunted house movies the last few years, and a lot were quite good. So, because of that, remaking Poltergeist just seems like a step backwards. Also... isn't this series cursed? All the more reasons to let this series be.



8. Dirty Dancing
- The original Dirty Dancing may not be high art, but it's an enjoyable love story that's still remembered by a strong and vocal fanbase. I'll even admit, that it's one I personally enjoy. In the long run, I just can't think of any logical reason to update this one for reasons other than to draw people in for the title's name recognition. In that case, it might actually make a little profit at the box office, but I can't imagine the studio will see this one as anything more than a quick cash-grab. If you had the time of your life with the 1982 film... I wouldn't count on that happening with the remake.



7. A Star is Born
- Eeesh... how many times can you remake a movie??? The original was made in 1937, was followed by a remake in 1954 (which was actually superior), and was remade again in 1976. It was originally reported than this remake would star Tom Cruise and Beyoncé Knowles, but apparently they both withdrew. So, maybe plans for this remake will fall through, but who knows. Personally, I just think making a film four times is overkill. Just watch the original(s) instead, we don't need four versions of the same movie.




6. Point Break
- I'm not saying that the original Point Break isn't an enjoyable flick, but honestly, I'm just having a hard time figuring out why someone decided it deserved the remake treatment. I mean, when you get right down to it, Point Break is a fun but incredibly cheesy action movie best remembered primarily by a steadily declining fanbase. The 90s appeal is there, and it's incredibly well shot, but aside from it's corny fun factor, there's nothing about this that screams "remake-able." I don't deny it's enjoyabilty or it's cult following, but I just don't see how they can improve this one without dramatically changing around the story to a point where it only somewhat resembles the original... in which case, why bother remaking it at all? Let this one be and make something else.

5. Scarface
- Like A Star Is Born, Scarface is on this list simply because of the redundancy of remaking a film that's already been remade. Both the 1932 film and Brian De Palma's 1983 remake are considered classics of the gangster genre thanks to well-written stories, enjoyable actors, and shocking violence (well, the 1932 film was fairly shocking for it's time). Once again, this one will apparently update the time period to the modern day. That, in itself, doesn't bother me much, but I'm still not convinced that it could work again. I mean, lightning rarely strikes twice for these kinds of things... three times is pushing it.



4. American Psycho
- Ummmmm.... no. Apparently another film adaptation of Bret Easton Ellis' satirical novel is in the works... with a modern setting and a grittier style. Yeah... this is not a good idea. For starters, the last film came out in 2000, which really isn't that long ago when you get right down to it. Also, by updating the setting from the 80s to the present makes me think they're going to totally botch the book's (and the previous film's) poignant themes and dark satire. Whether you see the 2000 film as a bloody horror/thriller, an incredibly bleak dark comedy, or an intelligent analysis of male vanity and greed... it's pretty damn awesome. I just don't see that happening with a remake.


3. Videodrome
- No! No! No! There is NO reason why anyone should make Videodrome. Okay... yes, the original is a bit dated, but in my opinion, any of it's 80s vibes that don't jive as well today are totally forgiven thanks to it's clever story, bleak tone, over-the-top gore, and incredible special effects. David Cronenberg is master of body horror, and I can't think of anyone that could recapture that same vibe. It's only made worse by the fact that the film's currently attached screenwriter was one of the writers for Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen... yeah, this one is going to really suck! I imagine they'll update this one and replace killer videotapes and cable stations with downloads and computer viruses. Yeah, that's not nearly as fun. All I can say is, "Death to the Videodrome!"

2. Carrie
- Well, maybe this one won't be so bad. I mean, Chloe Grace Moretz is a good actress, some of the teenage characters actually look more teenagers this time, and most of the actors have done good work before, so mayb-... DAMMIT NO!!! WHY DID THEY HAVE TO REMAKE CARRIE!!! The original is so good! I don't care if it's 70's tone seems a bit out of place, the MESSAGE HOLDS UP!!! Also, the original was already followed with a belated sequel, a made-for-TV remake, and even a Broadway Musical... AND THEY ALL SUCKED!!! STOP BEATING THIS DEAD HORSE!!! Carrie was never something that was meant to be a series or franchise. It stands on it's own... LET IT BE!!! Like I said, some of the actors in this upcoming remake are pretty good, but the lackluster trailers are doing very little to boost my confidence. I'm hoping and praying this movie won't suck as much it's looking like it will... but I'm not holding out hope.

1. Robocop
- How do you remake one of the Sci-Fi genre's most thrilling, funny, smartest and flat-out best entries? Well... not by making it a watered down PG-13 retelling with Robocop in black Batman-like armor. I admit that details are still scarce, so maybe it's a little early to freak out, but so far everything that has happened with this film has made me nervous. They have said that the film will honor the same kind of themes and satire from the original... but I've heard that song and dance before, and it generally means shit. The film has already had a pretty rocky production, going through different actors and directors just barely after it got off the ground. Fingers crossed that this one won't suck... but boy this one I just can't see how it could work.

I hate to judge anything before I see it, or at something like a trailer or clip. Still, sometimes it's just unavoidable. Hopefully I'm wrong about these films... but don't count on it.

Pacific Rim - Review

Boy I really got spend more time working on this blog. This film came out what seems like forever ago, so this review is seriously overdue. Oh well. There's no two ways around this folks, Guillermo Del Toro is one hell of a filmmaker. While I'm not quite willing to call him a master director yet, I will say that there are few directors working today whose films are as consistently effective and entertaining. His obvious affinity for genre films and cult classics shines in his works, and even though he's only had one or two films that could be honestly considered near-masterpieces, nearly every one of his movies demonstrates the guy's vast array of talents. Whether we're talking a slow-brooding horror film, a subtle fantasy, or a big scale sci-fi/action epic like Pacific Rim, it's obvious that he has a broad range of skills and knowledge of film-lore. His newest film, Pacific Rim, isn't going to be considered a masterpiece by anyone, but it's nonetheless a well-made film that's so far arguably the best flat-out "pure fun" summer blockbuster of the season.

Sometime in the near future, a cross-dimensional portal at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean is opened, releasing a dozens of giant alien monsters known as Kaiju that wreck havoc all over the world. Humanity, facing the possibility of total destruction, develops giant humanoid war machines known as Jaegers to combat the Kaiju. The program succeeds at first, as the formidable Jaegers are able to easily take out the attacking Kaiju. Once the Kaiju are able to adapt to the Jaeger's fighting style and attack methods, the Jaeger's start dropping like flies. Once again faced with planetary destruction, humanity turns to an underground league of Kaiju fighters, primarily disgraced Jaeger pilot Raleigh Becket (Charlie Hunnam) and the untested rookie Mako Mori (Rinko Kikuchi)... both of whom are haunted by past events. With a seemingly unending number of Kaiju popping up all over the world, Mako and Raleigh must overcome their demons in order to save the world from a Kaiju takeover.

Pacific Rim has been called many different things, and has been compared to a number of films. Films and shows ranging from Godzilla, Independence Day, Power Rangers, Voltron, Professional Wrestling, Transformers, the works of Ray Harryhausen, and others have all been points of comparison. Now I'm not 100% on exactly where Del Toro drew his inspiration, but it seems like the Kaiju designs are essentially digitized versions of classic "guy-in-rubber-suit" monsters featured in the Godzilla series and other classic Japanese monster flicks. There's definitely a bit of Ray Harryhausen influence in there as well. All of that is set against a story structure that, probably not coincidentally, is greatly reminiscent of Independence Day... or at least contains the fun factor of that film. Only this time, the characters are a bit more creative, better developed, and more interesting. I'm sure there are other movie buffs that could pick out other references, shout-outs, or tributes to various shows, movies, comics, and other sources, but that's most of what I was able to find. At the very least, Pacific Rim is one of those films that's a celebration of pretty much all things nerd, and for that, I freakin' love it!

This film isn't any kind of movie that's going to change your life or offer anything particularly challenging, but it's nonetheless an example of a more-or-less mindless blockbuster done right. Take this for instance... the plot isn't particularly intelligent but it doesn't make you feel stupider after watching it (like say the Transformers movies for instance), the characters aren't particularly deep but they're not one-dimensional either, and while the story itself isn't exactly profound, it's at least a generally engaging flick that's well paced and constantly entertaining. Some of the characters don't exactly steer away from the usual sci-fi archetypes, but there's generally enough going on to make them work. The ending doesn't have any huge shocks, but there are enough little twists and developments to keep you invested. To no surprise, none of the actors are especially Oscar-worthy or anything like that, but they get the job done. Overall, there isn't much of Pacific Rim that's going to change one's perception of story or film narrative, but the movie at least doesn't feel the need to half-ass it's script and at least does provide some decent storytelling. Take that as you will.

Now with all that said, if there's one thing a movie like Pacific Rim needs to deliver, it's kick ass action. If that's what you're looking for, Pacific Rim has plenty for ya! In terms of straight-forward sci-fi/action blockbusters, Pacific Rim is hands down the best of the summer. For starters, the cgi is some of the best I've seen in a while. The Kaiju creatures all have creative and interesting designs with top notch cgi to boot. The Jaeger look pretty awesome too, with well detailed robotic designs and movements, they do their job well. In terms of action... there's pretty much everything you could want and more. Big ass monster fights, huge explosions, and mass building destruction... yeah there's a bit of everything. Out of all the films I've seen this summer, Pacific Rim's action has got to be the best. Add in some top notch sound design and camerawork, and you've got yourself a winner. For all the action junkies, this one pretty much has it all.

So that's Pacific Rim for you. While by no means a perfect film, it's got pretty much everything you could want in a straightforward summer blockbuster. Great effects, great action, and an enjoyable concept... that's Pacific Rim. I know I waited a long time to post this review, but if you haven't seen it and it's still playing, check it out! If not, it'll definitely make a good Blu-Ray watch down the line.

The Lone Ranger - Review

Every once in a while, a film comes along with such inconceivably stupid, offensive, and horrendous ideas, that you ask yourself... is this a joke? The Lone Ranger is one of those films. I'm not saying that Disney's ill-advised reboot of the classic franchise was inherently a bad thing. Actually, I can think of many ways you could re-imagine The Lone Ranger for modern audiences. A movie about a former Texas Ranger who allies with a local Native, both of whom fight crime and evil while following a strict code of non-killing and using violence ONLY as an absolute last option could work. Plus, in an era of gritty and dark anti-heroes, borderline villains, and psychopaths, a movie with some uplifting qualities could have actually brightened up such a dour and depressing movie season. Now, after following the film's production plus seeing the trailers, I knew this movie wasn't going to be any good, but I'm genuinely shocked by just how terrible it turned out. How bad you ask? Let me tell you...

The starts off with John Reid (Armie Hammer), an idealistic lawyer who moves to Colby, Texas. After reuniting with his brother Dan, a Texas Ranger, John is recruited to join his brother and his band of Rangers to help take down the vicious criminal, Butch Cavendish (William Fichtner). Despite John's strict non-violence and non-killing policies, he nonetheless joins the band because of his equally strong dedication to justice. After an ambush leaves all the Texas Rangers dead, with John on the brink of death, he is saved by an eccentric Native named Tonto (Johnny Depp), who claims that Reid is a spirit walker who cannot be killed in battle. Because his enemies believe him to be dead, Reid takes on the alias of "The Lone Ranger" and starts wearing a mask to conceal his identity. Reid and Tonto then agree to join forces to take down Butch and his band of outlaws. What follows is adventure of betrayal, deception, and thrills as both Reid and Tonto make a number of startling discoveries.

Okay, let's address the most glaring issue present in this turd of a film... Johnny Depp as Tonto. I honestly don't even know where to start with this. I mean... WHAT THE HELL WERE YOU THINKING JOHNNY!!! Better yet, what the Hell was Disney thinking? Surely, there must have been some point during the production of this film that someone must have said something along the lines of, "Geez, this might be a little... or rather, REALLY offensive." Simply the fact that a white actor is playing a Native character in the year 2013 is egregious enough (I know Johnny Depp claims to be something like 1/16 Native, but I'm sorry that's not enough), but it's made all the more shocking by just how this character has been re-imagined. Tonto here is portrayed an eccentric outcast who wears a dead crow on his head and claims to have some sort of mystical connection to spirits (it's later revealed that he might just be crazy... never was explained very well). Here's the thing about Tonto, he was never a very PC character to begin with. When actor Jay Silverheels played the character in the 1950s, he drew some criticism for being something of an insensitive stereotype. Tonto's stilted speech patterns (which by the way is still present in Depp's version) plus his clear role being second fiddle to the Ranger and less of an equal partner would definitely raise a few eyebrows today. That said, the fact that they had Jay Silverheels, a legitimate First Nations actor, playing such a prominent role in an era in which minorities rarely received such opportunities, was a step in the right direction. Johnny Depp's portrayal doesn't move the character forward, but rather takes a few steps back. Over the course of Depp's career, he has made a living taking chances with risky, innovative, and daring characters, most of which have payed off. Whatever Depp was trying to do here has clearly backfired, and is likely to be a stain on his otherwise mostly solid filmography. I can only hope the backlash surrounding this unfortunate casting decision will lead Hollywood producers to stop whitewashing minority characters.

I really wish I could say that the Tonto issue was the film's only problem... unfortunately that isn't the case. Gore Verbinski is a good director, let's get that out of the way. Yeah, his Pirates sequels didn't really live up to the original, but Verbinski has enough stylish flair and eye for action to make films like the first Pirates of the Caribbean, Rango, or The Ring average out to be pretty good. His attempts to give The Lone Ranger that same dynamic look and energy as his previous hits was commendable, but sadly his efforts were in vain. The horrendous script did Verbinski (and everyone else for that matter) absolutely no favors. For starters, it pretty much spits on the legacy of The Lone Ranger, by trying to distance itself as much as it can from the previous shows. While I'm not necessarily against the way it re-imagined the property in such dark fashion (though I'm not on board with it either), it pretty much abandons the themes and ideas that defined the character in the first place. The Ranger here is less of a moral crusader for good, and rather re-imagined as a clumsy goof who gets by on dumb luck more than anything. Yeah, he still refuses to kill, but through a number of badly set up slapstick gags, he ends up doing just that anyways. The film actually centers more around Tonto than the Ranger as well. In theory that could have been an interesting idea, but because of Tonto's aforementioned character flaws, that didn't work either. The rest just doesn't work... the villains bare a striking resemblance to Barbossa's crew from the Pirates movies, the film never finds a consistent tone, and it's full of plot holes and inconsistencies that continue to add up. In short... kind of a disaster.

Acting wise... actually I don't have much to say on that front. When you're working with a script this bad, it's almost impossible to expect the actors (whether good or bad) to give a decent performance. Armie Hammer is probably the cast's most unfortunate victim as The Lone Ranger. While he's already got a few solid roles under his belt, the guy hasn't quite gotten out of his "up-and-coming" status, and missteps like this might really hurt his career. There were times I felt like he was trying, but more often than not, he looked incredibly embarrassed and uneasy in the role. Both he and Depp barely had any kind of chemistry as well, something that could have really helped elevate the film. William Fichtner was trying, I could tell, but with such a sloppy character, his strong efforts just weren't enough. It's too bad, because that guy is actually a pretty good actor, but his choice in roles really need some work. Helena Bonham Carter gives an enjoyable performance as the one-legged brothel madam who assists Reid and Tonto, but her character is so underdeveloped and pushed aside that I kept forgetting she was in the damn thing. The rest... well, there's not much else to say. None of the actors are particularly terrible (Depp excluded) but none are good enough to help this film in any way.

This is the point where I'm supposed to say something along the lines of, "At least the action was good." To that I say... yeah, it's okay. Gore Verbinski is good enough of a director to at least provide the film with a handful of passable action sequences. There was nothing that particularly stood out, but I can't say it looked that bad either. The opening scene had a half decent fight/chase that started the film with something of a bang. Unfortunately, after that, most of the movie is just Reid and Tonto bickering with one another. By the time the finale rolled around, that was the first time the film actually picked up a bit. It finally embraced some of the fun factor of it's source material, ending in an admittedly exciting action sequence. Unfortunately, by that point, the damage was done and I had totally stop caring. Those are really the only major action scenes over the course of the film's 2.5 hour runtime (by the way, the film is WAY too damn long), and even if they were incredible, I'd still be hard-pressed to give this film a passable score. If you're looking for your blockbuster action fix for the summer... find something else.

So that's The Lone Ranger... so far the biggest dud of the summer. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if this piece of crap ended up becoming the worst film of 2013. I know it's been out for a while, and odds are it's not playing in your theater anymore, but if the opportunity to see it does happen to present itself... just keep on skipping it.

My Score: 1.5 out of 5!