"The Thing" Review by Chris

Now days, the word “horror” is associated with gushing wounds and ripped limbs, and it seems people would rather be shocked and disgusted by disturbing images than feel the tensions of the unknown. The original "The Thing" from 1982 was a masterpiece on both sides of the coin. The disturbing puppetry and gruesome deaths were paralleled by tense moments of paranoia. Director Matthijs van Heijningen Jr. creates a prequel to honor the original, and it could be just what this horror generation needs. But is it?

"The Thing" is an alien that crashed landed on earth 100,000 years ago. While trying to escape it's ship it was frozen until it was found by a group of Norwegian scientists. They recruit Kate Lloyd (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), an American paleontologist, to help get the creature safely out of the ice. When the alien breaks free from its frozen prison and begins to kill and mimic members of the team, Kate leads competently leads a mostly forgettable cast through escalating terror. While some of the characters, such as Lars (Jorgen Langhelle), work to push Kate as a character, most are there to be fodder for the alien.

And when I say fodder, I mean it as literally as possible. The alien’s ability to mimic is reliant on its merging with the original hosts body. This leads to many gruesome deaths and bloody spectacles, but some of the CGI doesn’t exactly convince. Moreover, the creature never matches the realism of the originals puppets, diminishing the effect of the gore. This gets worse when you realize that gruesome visuals are the only scares you'll get. Even the scenes that copy tense moments from the original fail to capture any true terror.

Fans of the original will be pleased with the audio and visual references to the masterwork, but as often as not, they just make the film feel unoriginal. Many of the roars and clicks from the alien are ripped straight from the 1982 classic, and while the ending is the only moment that veers completely away from the original formula, but it borders on the frustratingly ridiculous.

Like the alien, this film’s attempts to mimic the original come close, but don’t quite measure up. It had the potential to be a strong slasher flick, unique from its predecessor, but it strays too often from homage to copycat. Whether it's the focus on gore or the awkward references, this ”Thing” is better left alone.

I give it 2.5 bloody corpses out of 5

Written by Chris
Edited by Aaron

"REAL STEEL" Review by Tim

No surprises here. In “Real Steel,” Charlie (Hugh Jackman) is a washed up ex-pugilist in a world that is fascinated by robot boxing. Charlie has failed as a fighter as well as a father, and is getting a second chance to be both — but you already know where “Real Steel” is going.

Most surprising? It takes over two hours to get there, even when the whole audience can tell it’s a robotic replica of “Rocky.” In fact, you don’t even need to watch the movie to see that. When I first saw the trailer for “Real Steel,” I jokingly suggested, “It’s ‘Rocky’ with a robots!”

Joking?

Yes I was.

Wrong?

I was not.

It could have been much shorter, but in spite of its predictability, “Real Steel” is still a very satisfying underdog story in the vein of “Rocky.” The visual effects are the bee’s knees, and I was disappointed that it was so well acted. Why? Because I was really looking forward to acting so poor I could say, “It’s hard to tell the robots apart from the people!” But no, with few exceptions, the robots serve their purpose (as fancy-shmancy props) and hardly distract from the human drama. And just like “Rocky” before it, it’s human drama that makes “Real Steel” so satisfying.

But it’s not just similar in terms of the drama — in fact, the last fight sequence of “Real Steel” is paced almost exactly the same way as the fight between Rocky Balboa and Apollo Creed. After the fight, I half-expected Hugh Jackman to say, “Yo kid, where’s your hat?” (Wait… You don’t get that joke? Come on, it’s a classic.) Anyway, the “Rocky” homage worked for me. If you’re going to borrow from inspirational movies, why not borrow from the best?

3.5  SPARE PARTS out of 5!

Written by Tim

Edited by Aaron

"50/50" review and comic by Chris

When any director takes on a comedy about a serious topic, such as cancer, they have to walk a fine line between jokes and the realities of the topic. One small slip up and you risk offending and alienating a wide audience. Can director Jonathan Levine walk this line or does he fall flat on his face?

"50/50" is loosely based on the life of Will Reiser, the writer of the movie. It tells the story of Adam who discovers he has a rare and unpronounceable form of deadly spine cancer, and is forced to face his own mortality with the help of an eccentric group of friends, family and love interests.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt gives the film a firm platform to stand on with his portrayal of Adam. In the beginning, Adam seems to remain emotionally distant from his sickness, but as the story progresses he charges through the entire reactionary spectrum. Gordon-Levitt keeps each emotion light enough for the comedy, but packs unexpected power during emotional scenes.

Elevating Gordon-Levitt's performance further is an equally powerful supporting cast. Seth Rogen, who plays Kyle, Adams childhood friend, drives the comedy constantly forward as he tries to take advantage of Adam's situation and use it to get laid. Katie, played by Anna Kendrick, is Adam’s inexperienced therapist who is adorably awkward throughout the film. Bryce Dallas Howard, who plays Adam's girlfriend, Rachael, seems to be the closest thing there is to an antagonist in this film, as she tries to decide whether she can handle having a terminally ill boyfriend and makes bad decisions over and over again.

Don't let my focus on the seriousness of the topic fool you, this is still a comedy at heart, with a script that doesn’t quit, and moments that turn from heart wrenching to hilarious in the blink of an eye. Everything isn't perfect though. Early in the film, Gordon-Levitt over emphasizes Adam’s detachment from the situation to such an extent that Adam doesn't seem bothered by having cancer. This helps the comedy and gives room for growth, but makes it unrealistic. The music selection is fitting, but is nothing to write home about. But by the time you reach the finale, all of these minor gripes will have been long forgotten.

Jonathan Levine dances on a fine line between comedy and drama but never looks down, and a smattering of minor issues don’t keep this piece from being a hilarious but dramatically heartwarming look at a serious disease.

"50/50" gets 4.5 reassuring gestures out of 5

Written by Chris
Edited by Aaron

Spoiler Alert at the "Festival of Shorts" by Chris, Illustration by Tim

"The First Time (La Primera Vez)"
"The First Time" is the first short in the Festival of Shorts, and centers on a 70 year old woman who calls on the services of a young male prostitute. What shines through most in this short is the comedy, though the film work is fairly decent all around. Most of the humor is situational. The young escort struggles to keep with his normal “work routine” while the old woman continues to ask him odd questions. Even when left alone he acts nervous with ever action. Whether it's the well written script or the great acting, you'll be laughing the entire time.

"Tapeworm"
Don't worry: this isn't about the kind of tapeworms you’re thinking it is. "Tapeworm" is a Stop-motion animated film about two pieces of tape struggling to be together. Though it starts out simple, the plot and animation become more involved as the film progresses, and the pieces of tape get themselves into bizarre situations. The animation is solid, but becomes even more impressive when you learn it was done by a fifteen year old in one day. The music selection is well thought out and really brings this heartfelt story to life.

"God of Love"
A man called Raymond Goodfellow uses magic darts to make the woman of his dreams love him in this short called “God of Love. Although the ending is predictable, the story goes in unique directions thanks to the magic darts. Like cupid’s arrows, they make the person they hit fall in love, but only for six hours, and this restriction sets up a great scenario in which Raymond has to learn about love. This quirky film takes a relaxed pace and is filled with laughs.

"The Cow Who Wanted to Be a Hamburger"
A Bill Plympton animated short about a cow that, you guessed it, wants to be a hamburger. The problem being, of course, is that the cow is too small. This short weaves a dark theme into a funny and colorful tale, but sadly the low frame rate and thick line work create a shaking effect that can be distracting. It’s a great short, but it's hard to watch something your eyes can’t focus on.

"Me Time"
This is a fun short about a man who slowly removes his friends from his life so he can finally get time to himself. The humor ranges from subtle to over the top as the director explores all the different possible reactions of the character’s friends. It's hard not to see the social commentary of our modern age, and that parallel helps make the film relatable. This movie is a winner.

"Can't Walk Anymore (Ya No Puede Caminar)"
A short film from Spain, “Can’t Walk Anymore” is about a boy who finds a unique way of dealing with his fear of creatures. This film is dark and may leave some audience members disturbed, an effect that is enhanced camera angles that capture every moment creatively. This film’s only real flaw are the misplaced dramatic tones in the sound design that leave you waiting for things that aren't there, but the dark ending makes this film a pleasure for those who enjoy the darker elements.

"20 Minutes"
This piece tells the story of an ex-convict fresh out of prison. He has twenty minutes to get to his brother’s house or miss his chance to start his life over, and in this race against time, he has to face his past with drugs, gambling and prostitution. It’s hard to stay on the side of the ex-con at some points, but the film’s flow pulls you on. With a generic soundtrack, the film is nonetheless successful at its intended goal of showing another side of life.

Finally, we'd like to thank the Film Brothers for letting us review their festival. It was a fun experience in a great atmosphere. So check out their website below for more on them and hopefully we'll see you at the next festival!
www.filmbrothers.com

Written by Chris
Edited by Aaron

"Lion King 3D" Review by Chris

If you haven't already seen "Lion King," either you've never had electricity or you were just born. Whatever your reason, you should know that it's an astounding film. The voice acting is stellar, the animation is fantastic and you'll be singing the songs for years to come. It's a magical experience that few animated films from recent years can mimic. Its themes of family, acceptance and duty are timeless lessons for all ages.

Now for what you really want to know, is the stereoscopic 3D worth the re-watch? In many shots the 3D adds such significant depth to every detail by breaking down the image into several layers and it makes the experience pop. However, in the majority of the shots the 3D is barely noticeable. It's baffling to think about the amount of work that was needed to add the 3D effect to such an old 2D classic. Each plant, animal and rock had to be pushed onto its own layer to create depth. During fast passed shots it would be harder to break down the image so you only get a small number of layers. What you're left with is several flat images that feel like pieces of paper going into the distance, not the illusion of 3D objects like the rare broken down shot.

"Lion King" is worth seeing in theaters, especially if you didn't get a chance during its first run. As for the 3D effect, it's only worth it if you appreciate the level of work needed for the effects they did achieve, but it's not a true 3D movie and adds nothing to the experience.

"Lion King" gets 5 roars out of 5
The "3D" gets 2 meows out of 5

"The Smurfs" review and illustration by Chris

Hollywood continues its dig of past ideas to create modern day movies with "The Smurfs." With all the children's films coming out lately, this one needed to be something special to shine. Can Hollywood update the Smurfs for modern cinema or was this one idea that should have been left in the past?

Neil Patrick Harris plays Patrick Winslow (creative naming right?), an advertiser on the brink of his dream job and just about to start a new family. His life is thrown upside down when six blue critters known as Smurfs crash into his life. Things only get worse when the Smurfs start being hunted by Gargamel (Hank Azaria), an evil wizard wanting to harness the Smurfs pure essence for his magic. Patrick attempts to push the Smurfs from his life, but they quickly become an inspiration to him.

Director Raja Gosnell attempts to break the children's movie formula, giving the audience a human to see the world through, by focusing on the Smurfs and Gargamel, but the formula still peeks through as real world characters become more prominent. As a result, neither set of characters is given much chance to grow. Neil Patrick Harris disappoints by giving very little energy to his role. Even at his best moments, there just isn't anything likeable about his character. Meanwhile Hank Azaria is filled with his signature energy and carries the humor on the human end. Luckily the Smurfs are much more solid characters. They all grow from their experiences in the real world, but the time spent on Patrick makes the Smurfs’ changes feel sudden.

The movie is carried by the Smurfs themselves. Their humor, although a bit dated, gets a few smiles from all ages. They’re well animated and fit into their real world environments smoothly. This is good because the best comedy of the movie is physical. Their voice actors are all brilliant and give them depth. Jonathan Winters gives a particularly good performance as Papa Smurf and is one of the few influences to Patrick that feels real. Now if only they would stop saying "smurf" to replace words, they would stop being annoying.

Maybe it's because I'm not from Belgium or because I wasn't a child of the 80's, but I'm not sure who the Smurfs movie was created for. The script is fairly dull, giving a smattering of butt jokes for the children and subtle winks for the adults, with the majority of it being slow and empty. It attempts to play off of the nostalgia in its viewers, but very few people actually care about the Smurfs. Do they? Several references to the TV series are confusing and seem to imply the movie is intended as a prequel.

By the end of "The Smurfs" movie there were a handful of good moments that lingered with me, but I was mostly bored. I took my five year old cousin and he wanted to leave an hour into it. So if this movie wasn't made for an adult or for a child, then who is it for?

One "Smurf" out of Smurf...I mean Five

"Captain America: The First Avenger" review by Chris, Illustration by Tim

This summer someone in Hollywood seems obsessed with making movies about super heroes whose comics I haven’t read. And so enters, "Captain America: The First Avenger." Is this Marvel’s newest super hero masterpiece, or just another prelude to “The Avengers?”

Don't let the "First Avenger" part of the title scare you. This movie is all about Captain America. The Avenger part is only at the beginning and end to create a framework for the coming "Avengers" movie. The remaining film length is spent following Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) in his growth from a weakling wannabe warrior to the embodiment of America. For the first hour he barely sees any action, but these movie minutes are far from wasted. His dedication to freedom pushes him into overcoming adversity and learning to control his abilities. He soon becomes a hero everyone can root for.

Helping him on his journey is Peggy Carter (Hayley Atwell), who sees the hero he can be from the very beginning. Even when Steve disappoints her, she stands by his side and ends up unwittingly inspiring him to become the hero the world desperately needs. Standing in his way is Johann Schmidt (Hugo Weaving), also known as the Red Skull. His villainous plots rival those of the Nazis he works for. The Red Skull becomes the embodiment of pure evil, making him the perfect counterpart to Captain America.

Evans, Atwell and Weaving create a solid core for this film to revolve around. Joining them is Sebastian Stan, Tommy Lee Jones, Stanley Tucci and Dominic Cooper, who all deserve mention for their performances. Although Evans could have progressed Steve as a character without them, these side characters are what give the movie heart and soul, and create the world that Steve inhabits. They do such a great job that it's disappointing that the Avengers movie takes place seventy years later because consequently, this is their only chance to shine.

Captain America stories have felt dated for years. His best moments take place during WW2 or when he's alongside the Avengers. The creators seem aware of this, and the script takes a wartime film approach with comic book style dialogue. Don't expect the same non-stop wit of earlier marvel films — although there is plenty of humor to keep you smiling, this movie is all about Steve’s personal growth.

Everything isn't perfect with this latest Avenger epic. The action is well crafted and the Captain America’s unique shield fighting style works well on screen, but the balance of story and action is off. The first half of the film is extremely story heavy causing the second half to be mostly action. Many of the battle scenes feel unnecessarily long or unnecessary. Beyond that over compensation, the overall action is solid. There are a few moments of poor pacing and random cuts that slow the film down. It also seems like the inclusion of many traditional Captain America characters comes down to fan service and adds to the overall length of the film.

"Captain America: The First Avenger" is a solid addition to Marvel’s movie portfolio. It has a great story, exciting action and a hero for the ages. Its sprinkling of flaws keeps the movie from becoming the next big comic movie, but it's still a must see for fans of super heroes, action, or fun action films.

I give it four "Star Shields" out of five.

Written by Chris
Edited by Aaron

"Winnie the Pooh" Review by Tim

“Winnie the Pooh” is an interesting mix of old and new — the film is a return
to classic 2D animation and is a sequel to the anthology film, “The Many Adventures
of Winnie the Pooh.”

The movie goes to great lengths to tap into nostalgia: even the story is a
previously un-animated tale written by “Pooh” author A. A. Milne. The artistic style
and the voices have also been tweaked to mimic earlier adaptations, but for all
its reverence to past “Poohs,” not all things are as they were in The Hundred Acre
Wood.

Made 40-some years after the originals, this “Winnie the Pooh” features voice
actors from a new generation, but Jim Cummings proves himself a worthy successor
to Sterling Holloway’s Pooh. The new cast includes John Cleese as narrator, while
animator Bud Luckey fills in as the voice of Eeyore. Craig Ferguson plays Owl, and
strangely, Spongbob Squarepants’s voice actor Tom Kenny takes on the role of
Rabbit. At first Kenny’s casting didn’t make sense, but as the movie went on, it
became apparent that the voice of Spongebob was perfect as the Hundred Acre
Wood’s most neurotic resident.

In spite of its attempts to maintain continuity with the original
cartoons, “Winnie the Pooh” does throw in some updates here and there. Most
noticeable is the soundtrack, which seems to make a point of ensuring the songs are
entirely forgettable. From Zooey Deschanel’s airy, updated theme song to a scatting
of musical numbers, they fail to compare with the classic songs of the Sherman
brothers. Where voices and animation succeed in imitation, the music simply falls
short.

The movie is barely an hour long, so if you’re a hardcore fan of Disney’s
original “Pooh” cartoons, or have little kids who enjoy Pooh’s adventures, this movie
is for you. Otherwise, go see Harry Potter again.

3.5 HUNY pots out of 5!

Written by Tim
Edited by Aaron

"Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2" review by Chris, Illustration by Tim

The Harry Potter series has been one of the highest grossing franchises of all time and has touched the hearts of many. But, fair warning: "Deathly Hallows: Part 2" does not stand without the first part, and it barely stands without knowledge of all the previous films. If you haven’t seen the earlier films, (seriously, where have you been?) go watch them. This movie was created for the fans, and idle moviegoers shouldn't waste their time.

Every actor brings their A game, but it’s difficult to feel a connection. The film relies on your previous attachment to the characters to make the big moments hit home. As much as I respect what they tried to do by dividing the film into two parts, what's been created is two half films. They don't function alone. The earlier films cut out significant chunks from the books to make them run smoothly, and this film may have fared better if they had used a similar technique. While non-readers are given most of the information they need to understand the story, small bits are still missing which can make the film a little confusing. However, the story flaws don't take away the enjoyment of the film. Harry's story gets the conclusion he deserves and most of the side character's stories do rap up nicely.

What “Part 1” lacked in action this one makes up for tenfold, and the visuals do bring Rowling’s book to life. The more magical aspects like multiplying objects and dragons are quite convincing, and tend to dazzle, while many of the spells used in battles are glorified light shows with no discernable use. But they do look pretty, and the spectacular wizarding battles are what keep this franchise magical.

The non-fans out there won’t understand perfectly what's happening, but let’s face it — by now most people are probably fans. If you’re not, you can enjoy the light show of excellent special effects. But what the lights and pretty visuals can’t cloak is how the side characters bog down the overall experience and don’t come into their own. This is an epic end to a historical franchise, but don't be surprised if you feel like you're missing something.

Three "Deathly Hallows" out of Five

"Transformers: Dark of the Moon" review by Chris

Hollywood is well known for beating dead horses, but with the "Transformers" franchise, Michael Bay started beating a dead horse before the first movie hit theaters. Can Michael Bay beat one last magical race out of the series or is "Dark of the Moon" just a zombie ready to eat up your time?

The story of "Dark of the Moon" is...well let's face it: we don't care about the story. Sam (Shia LaBeouf) returns, this time fresh out of college, but he still doesn’t connect with the audience in any meaningful way. What drives the film forward is the Decepticon invasion of the entire earth. The film wants you to believe it can be stopped, but it's clear early on that it can’t. It's all just passable. You won't love the plot, but you won't hate it either.

One thing that really kills the story is the overabundance of characters in the film. Almost every character from the first films returns, with a generous helping of new ones also thrown in. The reality is that it just becomes a movie about extras. I can't help but wonder — if we had spent the full 157 minutes with only the pivotal characters, could this story have been something special?

It's ok though, this is a Michael Bay film. As long as the jokes are funny and the actions explosive, we have a great popcorn piece. This film delivers on both, but there's still something missing. While early battles are well crafted, they are brief and infrequent, and later battles are chaotic and sometimes hard to follow. The final fight is so long you'll find yourself bored with the action. But have no fear, the robots look amazing and there are plenty of explosions.

Ehren Kruger writes a decent script. Many of the jokes had me laughing so loud I missed other bits of dialogue. The characters are less obsessed with sex humor this time around and they also interact more smoothly. Sadly, a lot of the biggest plot points come off cheesy. It also doesn't help that facts established in previous films have been abandoned to make this story flow better.

Rosie Huntington-Whiteley more than fills Megan Fox's shoes as Sam's girlfriend. Although she is given very little to do, she does it well. She does seem to be oddly comfortable with many of the events around her, but that has more to do with the script than her acting. In scenes where she takes a more active part she really shines, but the film usually fails to do her justice.

I honestly wish I could give "Dark of the Moon" higher marks. It repairs a lot of the damages of the second film and has some genuinely enjoyable moments, but it still seems like the franchise should have ended after the first film. There was potential here for a film that could have redeemed the series, but it gets bogged down with useless characters and a ponderous plot to live up to expectations. It's a fine popcorn film for action fans, but don't expect to leave the theater in awe.

Two "Autobots" out of Five

Written By Chris
Edited by Aaron

"X-men First Class" review and illustration by Chris

To get this out of the way, "First Class" makes little effort to be part of the continuity established by the first four X-men movies, but that’s one of its strengths. If you remove "X-men Origins" and "X3" from the timeline (and honestly, who would blame you?) you can maintain some continuity through the series, but it's best just to ignore what you've seen before and enjoy this adventure solo.

This movie is nothing like the comic books either, especially compared to the "X-men: First Class" series. They take character traits, powers and appearance and put them in a timeline that doesn’t exactly make sense. If, like the continuity, you can set that aside and consider this its own universe, you'll see that all the changes have made this a much more accessible film.

The story focuses on the friendship of Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) and Erik Lehnsherr (Michael Fassbender). Both desire happiness and acceptance for mutants, but in drastically different forms, and their rivaling opinions drive the story and make it difficult to decide which one is right. Their relationship alone would have been enough to build a solid movie, but side characters like Raven (Jennifer Lawrence) shine on their own as well. Although a childhood friend of Charles, Raven finds a like mind in Erik, who causes her to rethink her beliefs. Sebastian Shaw (Kevin Bacon) fills the role of villain almost to the point of overflowing. His plans manipulate humans on the global scale and an ability to absorb energy makes him almost invincible. He's the villain that you love to hate, making him the perfect counterpart for Erik who is struggling to not become a villain himself.

The other mutants are all great additions as well, despite being a little less hashed-out. None of the battles would be as exciting without them, and what battles there are. Whether it's one on one or one versus an army, each fight is brilliantly choreographed and easy to follow. None of the characters are so powerful that the fights are a breeze. Their struggles keep them feeling like, truly, the first class of x-men trying to figure it all out. The power of each character is unique and the visuals are spectacular. Whether it's red energy blasts from Havok or the stunning diamond form of Emma Frost, each has a personal flare that grabs the eye.

"X-men first class" isn't without its flaws. During a few zooms and reveals there is a weird visual warping at the edge of the shot. It's brief and doesn't ruin anything, but it is noticeable and doesn't feel intentional. There are many cameo shots, such as a glimpse at a young Storm and the cameo of Wolverine (Hugh Jackman), that are great for the fans but aren't necessary to the film. They just add to its already extensive length. These moments could have been removed for the sake of time to keep the movie more self-contained.

Despite its inaccuracy and lack of continuity, "X-men First Class" is a grand adventure that you should experience. Anyone who's seen the films or read the comics won't be surprised by the plot twists, but everything is told in a fresh way that makes it worth the time. This is a super super hero movie that sets a high bar.

Four "X genes" out of Five!

Written by Chris
Edited by Aaron

"Kung Fu Panda 2" review by Chris Testa

The original "Kung Fu Panda" introduced us to Po (Jack Black), a martial arts obsessed Panda who wants to kick some butt himself. By the end of that movie he's become a legendary martial arts master, and is loved by all. The only way to make a successful sequel to such a grand movie is to raise the bar on the action and story.

"Kung Fu Panda 2" addresses an unanswered question from the first movie: how can a Panda be the son of a Goose? Po searches for the answer while battling Lord Shen (Gary Oldman), a Peacock who's trying to destroy Kung Fu and rule china. Po's life takes a turn as memories of a dark past creep into his mind. The Furious Five join him on his journey, but aside from Tigress (Angelina Jolie), they are only there to make the action more intense. The story isn't anything special, but it creates a solid framework for the amazing battles and ridiculous humor.

DreamWorks Animation has out done itself with the animation in "Kung Fu Panda 2" and reminds us that DreamWorks isn't just about money popping sequels. They actually care about the final product. The movie starts with an enchanting Chinese shadow puppet show that tells the tale of Lord Shen's past. It adds a historical feel that really draws you into the character’s past. Although the voice actors tell the story, the CG animation gives each character unique personalities. Po displays his childish nature in his unique fighting style, and it becomes clear that he can only become a true master by finding inner peace and controlling his appetite. Po's flashbacks are told with 2D animation that sometimes makes you wish the whole movie was that way.

The battles start early and escalate as the journey continues. The final fight pits Po against a small army, and it shows that he has grown into a true kung fu master. This brings us to the movie’s only major problem: the final shot. When Po's story is concluded, it feels like this would be the perfect moment to say goodbye to the characters. But at the very last second, one shot is thrown in just to hint at the coming sequel. DreamWorks has already mentioned four more movies and a TV series in the works, but "Kung Fu Panda 2" concludes Po's story, and adding a final shot feels like a slap in the face to his entire journey.

"Kung Fu Panda 2" doesn't do anything with story we haven't seen, but the animation and humor make this a unique experience for the whole family. If you enjoyed the first movie or are a fan of martial arts films, this is a must see.

I give it a "Furious Four" out of Five

"Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides" Review and Illustration by Tim

I’m what you’d call a pirate aficionado. Treasure Island is my favorite book, I have a pirate-themed room at my parent’s vacation home, and I count 2003’s “Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl” amongst my favorite movies. 

However, the subsequent “Pirates of the Caribbean” films seem pretty polarizing. Most people either genuinely loved them, or viciously hated them. I’m a proud member of the latter group. “Dead Man’s Chest” and “At World’s End” got so wrapped up in convoluted storylines and featuring more and more of Johnny Depp’s Jack Sparrow craziness, that they missed out on that whole sense of fun and adventure that the first film has in spades. 

So when the powers-that-be acknowledged the shortcomings of the latest “Pirates” films and said the fourth installment would be a back-to-basics adventure featuring Blackbeard — who just so happens to be my favorite pirate — how could I be anything but excited?

“Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides,” carries on the tradition of the other films — it’s about an hour too long. The directing is fine, the acting (as usual) is top-notch and the special effects are downright neat. 

But just like its two predecessors, most of the movie’s problems stem from the writing. But where the first two suffered from complicated story lines, “On Stranger Tides” is the opposite. It’s almost too straightforward. 

Several times I felt like it was headed for some mind-blowing twist in the story only to discover that no, the story is really about as simple as it seems. I feel like they’re basically mistaking “story” for “exposition.” For instance, Blackbeard (Ian McShane) is a villain. How do we know this? BECAUSE EVERY SINGLE CHARACTER IN THE MOVIE MENTIONS THAT BLACKBEARD IS A VILLAIN. Even Blackbeard himself remarks, “I’m a bad man.” What does he do to show us just how “bad” he is? 

He kills a guy. 

But he doesn’t kill just any guy — that would be too easy. Instead, he kills a guy that has nothing to do with the plot. (Though, in his defense, in a movie this simple, it might have been difficult to find such a man.) But wow, that is one bad man, am I right?

Wait, isn’t this a movie about pirates? And, haven’t they all killed someone at some point?

Another example: Blackbeard commands a crew of zombies. That’s interesting, right? Right. Well, Jack Sparrow makes passing note that Blackbeard, “raises the dead in his spare time.” And he leaves it at that. I mean, seriously? I feel like the back-story to these characters would have made a more interesting movie than the movie itself.

The film is a race between three crews: England, led by Geoffrey Rush’s Barbossa, Blackbeard, and Spain. All of them are trying to reach the Fountain of Youth. And for a movie that’s all about “getting there first,” it’s incredibly slow going. There really isn’t even all that much pirating going on. There are no epic battles on the high sea, no real plundering to speak of, and there’s only one (that I caught) reference to the theme park ride that started it all! Though to be fair, turning an 8-minute attraction into a four-film, ten-hour movie franchise is an impressive feat. So the fact that there was any part of the ride left to acknowledge is pretty remarkable.

Ultimately, I had a lot of fun, and the movie is very much an improvement over the second and third piraty outings, but “Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides” still doesn’t quite recapture the fun and adventure of the first film. 

3 silver chalices out of 5


Review by Tim
Edited by Aaron

"Thor" Review by Chris, Illustration by Tim

First let me say that I don't like the "Thor" comics. As a series, "Thor" is filled with mythology and terminology that many aren't familiar with. Can the movie adaptation balance out a deep history with accessibility?

If it isn't obvious, "Thor" is about the god of thunder, Thor, and his banishment to Earth (sometimes called “Midgard”) to learn what is needed to be a king. Here he meets Jane Foster and he gains a new perspective on life. Although most of Thor's scenes take place on Midgard, a significant amount of the story is also spent in Asgard, the world of the gods. Loki, Thor's adopted brother, uses his brother’s absence to gain power and take his father's throne. The multi-world story telling helps make Thor relatable as a character, while also keeping the viewer abreast of changes in Asgard.

The visuals of "Thor" are different for each of the explored worlds, but all of them are a treat. The glowing magnificence of Asgard and its rainbow bridge shows the godly world Thor is used to. Asgard’s glory is balanced out by the vast emptiness of the New Mexico deserts of Midgard. The ice world of Niffleheim is dark and practically screams evil. The battles are brilliantly coordinated, and no motion feels wasted. Sadly, none of these visuals are enhanced by the 3D effect. A few shots gain amazing depth from 3D, but the majority will make you wish you hadn't spent the extra money.

Chris Hemsworth is the living embodiment of Thor. He looks and feels exactly like comic book super hero, but with modern touches to keep him accessible for new audiences. Natalie Portman as Jane Foster is a strong balance for Thor, but doesn't have the same depth as a character. Tom Hiddleston and Anthony Hopkins as Loki and Odin respectively keep the events in Asgard heart wrenching, even after the main character departs. Hiddleston creates a unique villain, finding a balance of simple mischievousness and true evil. Stellan Skarsgard, Kat Dennings and Clark Gregg fill out the human cast and keep information and humor flowing.

The movie keeps close to Thor's source material, and makes small changes to modernize it. The biggest change is the removal of Thor's human counterpart Donald Blake. Blake had no knowledge of being Thor and had to use a stick to transform into the god. Though fans might be angered by this change, it wouldn't have worked in the film. Fans will get plenty of hidden references in exchange, such as a cameo from Hawkeye and the Cosmic Cube. The humor heavily plays off Thor's lack of knowledge of Midgard, but about half the jokes are based on pop culture and probably won't stand the test of time.

"Thor" hasn't converted me to a fan, and I still can't recommend the comic books, but the movie is entertaining, and anyone can enjoy it. Its references to the approaching "Avengers" movie are light, keeping the focus on a solid origin story. If you like comic books or Norse mythology this movie will speak to you more, but it can be enjoyed by all.

I give it 4 "Mjolnir hammers" out of 5!

Written By Chris
Edited by Aaron
Illustration by Tim

REDBOX Movie Weekend by Chris

You saw the trailers, which filled you with doubt. Then, you read the reviews and they only confirmed your fears. You tell everyone you think they’ll be terrible, but deep down inside you have to find out, can that movie really be that bad? So you plan a clandestine red box raid in the middle of the night and head back to your house. You know the movies going to redefine terrible, but hey...it's just a dollar.

"Jonah Hex"
I haven't read any "Jonah Hex" comics, and after suffering through this movie, I don't want to. The first two minutes weave an epic tale of vengeance and betrayal. The remaining time is spent showing you the first two minutes should have been the whole movie. The mundane performances keep you from feeling connected, and the special effects are sub par. During a few shots you can even see the blue screen. The over-the-top-action could have made this a popcorn film, but it takes itself too seriously, making it laughable. The only gem I can dig from this grave is that if DC would fund this crap, then they will probably make an "Eclipso" movie.

One "Cheek Burn" out of Five

"Clash of the Titans"
Even with a banquet of special effects, but there isn't a lot of "Clashing" going on here. While I commend the filmmakers for putting in a semblance of a story, the plot is supposed to drive the chariot, not slow it to a crawl. The characters are over exaggerated and the small story is blown out of proportion. Moreover, the action is poorly choreographed, making it hard to see what's happening in the large-scale battles. It's not till the final battle that it becomes clear what's happening, but by then it's too late. The computer-generated environments are highly detailed and each creature is meticulously designed. There are enough nods and winks towards the original to give fans a false sense the movie might redeem itself, but it ultimately tumbles off a cliff and straight into the underworld, where it belongs.

Two "Bubo's" out of Five

"Cop Out"
I love Kevin Smith, but even with this film’s handful of genuinely funny moments, it's obvious no one knew what they were doing. The cuts are disjointed and events happen randomly. There are also countless stories going on at once, giving none of them enough screen time to become hashed out, while the humor draws from too many sources and feels disconnected . Each performer is great by themselves, but none of them feel like they are in the same world as each other. Bruce Willis does admiral work with what he's given, but he's forced to spend most his time reacting to the randomness of the other actors. There was potential for a great movie if only someone had forced Kevin Smith to think before he directed.

Two "Shoot outs" out of Five

"Alpha and Omega"
Take the worst porno you've ever seen, remove all the sex and cover up every sexual word with "howling" and you've got "Alpha and Omega." I'm all for hiding adult humor in kids movies, but with its lack of subtlety of any kind means any kid could figure it out. The creators loosely attempt to tell a story about a fun loving omega wolf who falls in love with a alpha wolf, but it’s bogged down by dull visuals and horrific acting. The backgrounds are flat and empty making it impossible to feel drawn in. If you can hold out till the credits, you're bombarded with storyboards and character sketches that scream "look, we tried to plan a good movie!" If you’re going to watch it, do it with friends who’ll be ready to mock it at every turn.

One "Howling Wolf" out of Five

Written by Chris
Edited by Aaron

"Sucker Punch" Review by Chris

Suspend your disbelief and know that dreams can become reality. "Sucker Punch" is an amalgam of video game storytelling and anime action. Both are known for their over the top natures, but director Zack Snyder takes them so high they hit the moon. If you have trouble with action that defies reality, then stop right now — this movie isn't for you.

Like the video games it steals its structure from, Baby Doll (Emily Browning) is a silent hero whose few lines are delivered in a monotone droll. Her past traumas have driven her unwillingly into a mental facility for women where she fights for her freedom. But until the last fifteen minutes, Baby Doll's two-dimensional personality gives no reason for you to be interested in her. What drives the story forward is two other patients: Sweet Pea and Rocket, played by Abbie Cornish and Jena Malone respectively. The stories behind their past lives and motivations for fighting inject a soul into the film. Amber and Blondie, the other important patients, add varying perspectives to the situation but do little to better the story.

Baby Doll gathers the four girls to plan their spectacular escape using their imaginations. This amounts to fighting armies of enemies through fantastic worlds to find a single object. If they can survive each of the four worlds and locate the tools they need, their freedom is guaranteed. In their dream world each character gains a new fetish outfit that seems more suited for eye candy than for battle. They perform over the top stunts that are only possible in our wildest imaginations, but are sometimes pushed to a point of such ridiculousness that it can be humorous. The story doesn't reach its potential till the very end, but the conclusion justifies the first hour of emotionless visual delights.

Zack Snyder films are well known for there heart stopping action and mind blowing visuals. "Sucker Punch" pushes his abilities to the limit and delights all the senses. His signature slow motion scenes feel better planned and technically enhanced. Each world is well thought out and has a unique visual feel. The over arching story is a delight for the mind and will keep you thinking even after the screen goes black. But it also disappoints by having nothing to keep you interested in the individual moments. Zack Snyder proves he can create innovative visuals, but without source material to work with he lacks the skills to create an equally strong story.

The sound track is great and suits the intensity of the film, but often gets lost in the explosions and gunfire. Luckily, very little dialogue is used during the battles so the story isn't lost along with the music. The script can be just as intense, but with Baby Doll’s emotionless performance you have to rely on her teammates to drive the story. The other four patients pull at your heartstrings but don't get the screen time they rightly deserve. This doesn't ruin the film but keeps it from becoming truly brilliant.

"Sucker Punch" is a spectacle to behold and has a story that comes together in the end, but the weak beginning makes it a hard journey to care about. Without a compelling main character, as a fellow filmgoer said, ‘it’s “fan service” the movie, and I'm okay with that.’

I give it 3 deadly hotties out of 5.

Written by Chris
Edited by Aaron

"Paul" Review by Chris

Let’s get this out of the way early. "Paul" has its flaws as a movie. There are countless unnecessary vulgarities that get old quick, many of the cameos feel tacked on and the story is predictable. But none of these problems bring this entertaining journey to a grinding halt, and it's a trip that should be taken, but maybe not by all crowds.

Simon Pegg and Nick Frost join together once again to play a sci-fi artist and a writer who are doing a tour of American alien landmarks. Along the way they meet Paul, an alien on the run who's voiced by Seth Rogen. From that point on it's a classic road trip movie. The cast is rounded out with several well-known faces like Jason Bateman. Each character starts out stereotypical, but they become relatable by the end of the movie.

This is Seth Rogen's best film. He utilizes his typical weed smoking, rude humored persona, but adds heart and depth to Paul that wasn’t in his previous roles. Throughout the film, Paul helps the other characters grow, and there are many surprises along the way. Director Greg Mottola also finds different ways to use Simon Pegg and Nick Frost than Edgar Wright, who directed the pair in "Hot Fuzz."

The quality of the film work isn't anything to brag about, but it does its job. What really impresses from a visual standpoint is our CG hero, Paul himself. He's highly detailed: Right down to the veins under his skin and the moister in his eyes. Every time he goes invisible or revives the dead, it's gorgeous. Rogen’s voice work becomes an integral part of Paul through seamless animation.

As I mentioned previously, this film might not be enjoyable for all. Half of the humor is crude, and more often than not, involves drugs, sex, alcohol and vulgarities. There are lots of references to drugs, sex and alcohol. With some violence mixed in with the vulgarities, this movie definitely earns it's R rating. And finally, two important warnings, first, some of the humor is meant to be understood only by my fellow nerds, and second, this movie brutally attacks people who deny evolution, so if you think we descended from heaven and not from the Great Apes, give this movie a skip. "Paul" is going to offend some, but for most it will have you laughing your way to another galaxy.

I give it Four "Mother ships" out of Five

Written by Chris
Edited by Aaron

"Paul" Review by Tim

            “Paul” is a pastiche of the alien encounter genre. Unlikely heroes come into contact with an alien and are forced to take a journey of self-discovery and outrun the government, all in order to make sure the alien gets home safely. What makes “Paul” unique is its shamelessness. The movie is funny because of how derivative it is. The movie willingly tips its hat to acknowledge its inspiration along the way, which comes from movies like, “The Day The Earth Stood Still” and “ET: The Extra-Terrestrial.”

            The cast, led by Simon Pegg and Nick Frost, turn in very funny performances. As usual, Seth Rogen, who lends his voice to the wayward alien, Paul, plays a vulgar slacker. But his lines take on a hint of bizarre wisdom when coming from the computer-generated alien.

            If you’re a fan of the alien genre, “Paul” is for you. It seems like it’s destined to become a cult-classic dissection of a reliable Hollywood formula the same way 2009’s “Fanboys” provided an esoteric examination of the “Star Wars” saga.

            This movie is rated R. I was surprised when I saw that on my ticket because nothing in the trailers gave me the impression that this is an R rated movie. But it certainly earns its rating through vulgar language. I still can’t believe how many little kids (we’re talking “under 10”) were in the audience. Parents and guardians beware: This ET has a potty-mouth.

4 UFOs out of 5!

Written by Tim

Edited by Aaron

"Rango" Review by Chris

"Rango" is a new pillar in the argument for actors losing all their screen time to animated characters. It invokes the same power of classic westerns with touches that can only be achieved through animation. The characters are real and their gritty designs fit their movie perfectly. The animation is fluid and real.

Johnny Depp is the voice of Rango, a pet lizard who dreams of being a great actor. After getting trapped in the desert he finds himself in the town of Dirt, Nev., and decides to act the role of the tough cowboy. Through his lies and a lucky accident, he's granted the title of Sheriff and given the task of finding water to save the town. Along the way, he battles outlaws and corrupted leadership. Isla Fisher plays Beans, Rango’s strong-hearted love interest while Ned Beatty and Bill Nighy provide the voices of the Mayor and Rattlesnake Jake. The cast is rounded out by countless characters who make the film adorably quirky.

The character designs and textures are true to western formulas. All the animals are covered in filth, cut up and wearing tattered rags. Every feather and scale is painstakingly crafted. The animation is gorgeous and invokes unbelievable realism while still sticking to its cartoon roots. Many of the classic western scenes are followed by over the top moments that could only be done with animation. It seems that each rock and grain of sand in the movie’s environment reacts perfectly to character movements.

The soundtrack adds to every scene, making the film feel grander through and through. The story is filled with twists and turns and addresses real issues in the world, all while the script is poetic and humorous. Most of the jokes are perfect for all ages, but bits and pieces are added in to appeal specifically to adults.

"Rango" is the kind of movie that stands the test of time. My hat goes off to Industrial Light and Magic and Director Gore Verbinski, who made the film quite a CG achievement and a must see for all moviegoers.

I give it five wind up plastic fish out of five!

Written by Chris
Edited by Aaron

"Battle: Los Angeles" Review by Chris

We’re screwed. If alien invasion movies teach us anything, it's this: if the government doesn't have a secret facility or the aliens don’t have a fatal aversion to water or country music, then we're going to go through hell before we get our planet back. Were the unthinkable to occur, would "Battle: Los Angeles" provide a different plan that might save our lives?

Aaron Eckhart plays Staff Sergeant Michael Nantz, a 20-year career soldier finishing up before retirement. Commanding a cookie cutter group of soldiers to evacuate civilians from what appears to be a meteor shower, Nantz is forced to fight the unknown when it becomes clear this is an unnatural disaster. Smashing into the West Coast, these aliens don't waste time giving warnings or hovering over our government buildings. They invade our biggest cities, and take down most of the west coast in a matter of hours. But this movie isn't about winning a war, it's about finding small victories. Nantz's only goal is to get as many survivors out as possible, but he and his group go above and beyond the call of duty, not only saving lives but finding enemy weak points to help tilt the battle in their favor.

Though the movie takes time to set up each character, it fails to connect with the audience early on, and often it's hard to tell who gets shot or killed. It's not until the numbers have thinned and their personalities develop that you start to feel involved in their lives. Epic visuals and military realism make this war devastatingly scary. Within minutes the city is burning and hope seems lost, making the comparatively small scale of Nantz’s quest that much grander. Aaron Eckhart does an excellent job as an inspiring leader, and if humanity’s forces have soldiers like him around, it bodes well for our side.

"Battle: L.A." gives a less fanciful perspective on the alien invasion, and while it takes time to get you situated into its universe, once there, you're cringing at every explosion and cheering at every conquest. It's a great movie for alien and military movie fans.

I Give it four flying saucers out of five.

Writen by Chris
Edited by Aaron

"The Last Lions" Review by Aaron Dentel-Post

It’s true: the lions are adorable. The cubs, with their golden fur and playfully splayed paws wrestle gaily while mother and father nuzzle and bask in the savannah’s setting sun. But I wouldn’t recommend seeing “The Last Lions” because the kitties are cute.

True to the form of its National Geographic heritage, the film’s frames are like shiny still shots, snatched straight from the magazine and imbued with life. Captured by Geographic’s masterful cinematographers, the African wilderness has never looked more beautiful, more alive and, in some ways, more gruesome and heartbreaking.

Shortly after the picture-perfect, family friendly introduction, the life of our main character, the lioness Ma di Tau, is thrown into disarray. When an invading pride of lions leaves her mate mutilated on the African plain with an eye missing, and she flees with their three surviving cubs and begins an epic fight for survival.

The story is brutal, from beginning to end, is graphically gruesome and often seems unkindly sad. Coupled with cinematography of epic scope, a story of this caliber speaks for itself, which makes it unfortunate that narrator Jeremy Irons does so much dramatization on his own. The script is heavy on dialogue and delves into lion psychology and characterizations more than necessary, which often bring serious scenes close to the brink of comedy.

But this isn’t to say the characters don’t convince. Quite the opposite — the heroes are inspiring, the villains bone chilling, and the crocodiles ominous. Ma di Tau’s two main antagonists are a silver-eyed rival lioness and the scar-faced leader of a water buffalo herd that she hunts to keep her cubs alive. During much of the film, our chief lioness walks a knife-edge of survival, and doesn’t always come out on top. The film is suspenseful and difficult to watch. Keep the children at home.

A cinematic experience to say the least, the movie also functions as a way to raise money for the Big Cats Initiative. While the prologue and ending credits contain conservational messages about the extinction of big cats at the hands of humans, this barely plays a part at all in the film. These informational messages come across as heavy handed attempts to guilt viewers into contributing money, in part because so little of the intended message comes across in the film.

Go see the movie. Seriously, go see it. It’s one of the few movies really worth seeing on the big screen because of its unparalleled cinematography. Just be prepared to have your heart melted, broken, re-broken, re-broken again, and then melted again.

"The Adjustment Bureau" Review by Tim

Do you believe in fate? Do you believe in choice? Do you believe in free will? Guess what? I don’t care! Want to know what I thought of “The Adjustment Bureau?” Now we’re talkin’!

 This movie follows Matt Damon as David, a youthful politician with a real shot at making it to the White House. Through a series of chance encounters, he finds his soul mate: the beautiful dancer, Elise (Emily Blunt). The two are so drawn to each other that it seems nothing can separate them. Challenge accepted! Enter: The Adjustment Bureau — a secret organization of fedora-wearing “Mad Men” wannabes (with the exception of John Slattery, who is in fact… a Mad Man) working behind the scenes to make sure we follow the path and destiny they set for us. The “Chairman,” is the one responsible for setting the plans, but he is also a thinly veiled analogy for a Judeo-Christian God. After David accidentally stumbles upon the Bureau and learns about its control of humankind, he discovers that he was never supposed to see Elise again after their initial meeting. Seeing her again would be a deviation from his plan, and he is forced to sever all communication with her. However, three years later, fate brings them together again through another random reunion. This time, David decides that nothing will keep them apart. By forcing The Adjustment Bureau’s hand, he learns that if he deviates from the plan and stays with Elise, not only would he lose his future of winning the presidency, it would also eliminate Elise’s destiny of becoming a world-famous dancer. Not willing to dash Elise’s dreams, he leaves her. Sometime later, he hears she’s getting married. Enlisting the help of a Henry, a sympathetic member of the Bureau, David plans to swoop in, stop the wedding, and live happily ever after with Elise — regardless of what the plan the bureau has in store for them.
The chemistry between Matt Damon and Emily Blunt is noteworthy. You have no problem believing these two are meant for each other. Anthony Mackie is instantly likable as a flawed (that is, “emotional”) caseworker. John Slattery and the always dependable Terrence Stamp are great as by-the-book Bureau men.
“The Adjustment Bureau” is a rare breed. It’s part chase-thriller, part love story, and part supernatural. But while it definitely has a science fiction slant, the love story is really the core of the film and it doesn’t rely on the sci-fi elements or special effects in order to keep your interest. It does, however, start off kind of slow and you’re often left wondering, “What is taking them so long?!”

I give it four fedoras out of five.


Written by Tim
Edited by Aaron

Video Game Movies by Chris

For years Hollywood has tortured my gamer side by producing terrible video game based movies that barely resemble the games they’re based on. The failure of these films is hard to understand — if writers and directors actually play the games they base their movies on, then the story should be already formed. It should also seem obvious that some games don't contain enough depth to create a movie from. Video games are an interactive medium, and as a result they can get away with simpler stories and slower character development. Is that what makes them harder to adapt than books and comics?

The history of video game movies had an inauspicious start with the movie "Super Mario Bros." Created in 1993, this film-flop was created back when Mario's story consisted of saving a princess from Bowser. That's it. But somehow its creators turned it into a story of parallel worlds, dinosaurs, and evolution. The movie itself is enjoyable in a "wow, this is just weird" sort of way, but because the title is "Super Mario Bros," everyone expected it to be, well, more like Mario. It felt like a movie someone had created by simply slapping together characters and terms from the Mario Bros. video games. For the fans, this movie was a crash-and-burn. It only made back half of what was spent creating it.

This history of lackluster adaptations continues with movies like "Double Dragon" and "Street Fighter." They left gamers wondering if the creators had ever picked up a controller or flipped through the instruction manuals. They got character names correct and some of the designs, but after that, nothing. But in 1995, gamers got their first Gem, albeit a dirty one. "Mortal Kombat" kept to the video game plot relatively intact and the designs for each character hold close to its source material. The film quality and visuals weren't great, but after early failures in adaptations it's understandable that a full effort wasn't put into it. Where "Mortal Kombat" truly fails is the dialogue. Most the lines are cheesy, and even talented actors could make anything of them. This resulted in the movie appealing more to teens than adults, but could still be enjoyed if you're ready to make fun of it with your friends.

With the years video games evolved to have more realistic graphics and deeper stories. This should have made adaptations simpler, but movies like "Lara Croft: Tomb Raider" and "Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within" proved that Hollywood had no clue what it was doing. Then "Resident Evil" came along in 2002 and was directed by Paule W. S. Anderson, one of the directors of "Mortal Kombat." You’d think experience and a bigger budget would have made the directing that much more effective. "Resident Evil" video games have in-depth, thought-out stories, and highly cinematic and scary moments. This should have been a simple adaptation, but Anderson chose to throw out all of the characters from the games and create a new one, Alice. He adds a few "Resident Evil" terms such as Umbrella and T-virus and keeps the monster designs and expects it to be good enough to deserve the "Resident Evil" title. Although it’s a good movie, it doesn’t live up to the name, and it left fans hoping the next one would be different.

"Resident Evil: Apocalypse" attempts to draw in more video game fans by adding fan favorite characters like Jill Valentine and Nemesis and borrows heavily from the third game, which those two starred in. If they had simply stuck to that formula, it would have made the movie passable. Instead, Anderson brings Alice back into the mix and the story of the first movie and third game collide in a plot explosion that leaves nothing in its wake. Yet, somehow the movie makes millions and "Resident Evil: Extinction" is born. Alice's journey continues and she meets even more video game fan favorites, but the story has already fallen so far off the rails that you can't see the plot of the games any more. But true to its zombie mold, the series keeps springing back to life and a fourth movie is created.


"Resident Evil: Afterlife" is simply a money eater. It was filmed in 3D to bring in the fans who’d go to any movie with that label. The story attempts to milk the popularity of "Resident Evil 5" by adding in monsters and characters from it, but makes no effort to explain the major changes in the way they act. Two of the best characters from the "Resident Evil" series, Chris Redfield and Albert Wesker, make appearances, but are given no back story or reason for existing in this bizarro world. Every character that isn't from the video games or Alice are only created to be zombie food. There’s no story to follow and no character to feel connected with. Jill Valentine returns at the end to set up yet another sequel, but since she has no back story in the plot of the film, it just means the finale of the film doesn’t make sense. This movie defines video game adaptations that are nothing more than moneymakers.

This isn't to say all video game movies are bad, but even the big successes have big flaws too. "Doom" does good work with the little bits supplied by the source material, but fails to capture the "solo survivor" feel and visuals from the games. "Silent Hill" succeeds at capturing the general concept and atmosphere of the first game, but the last half hour turns into gore porn to please "Saw" fans. "Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time" makes major changes to the original story, but most of them are to help bring it to the silver screen. Although fans may be able to find a lot to hate with it, it does entertain and may be the best live action video game adaptation to date. When it comes down to the wire, the best video game based movies are the animated ones — movies like "Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children" and "Resident Evil: Degeneration," but those movies require the viewer to have played the video games to understand the story.

Video game adaptations have failed on countless levels for countless reasons, but the biggest problem is always the creator. Directors and studios milk these pre-made plots for an easy buck, knowing the fans will flock to them hoping this one will be better than the last. But these days, video games have become interactive cinematic experiences and have plots and visuals that can rival most modern films. Thanks to technology and talented voice actors, the characters, too, are starting to resemble their live action counterparts. If Hollywood insists on continuing to make adaptations from video games, then they need to step their game up before fans say game over.

Writen by Chris
Edited by Aaron