"Silent Hill: Revelation" review by Chris

The first "Silent Hill" could be broken down into two parts: the first was an hour ripped straight from the video games with barely a handful of functional changes to make it work better on film. The second hour was when the film slowly deteriorated from complete fan service to a mass of confusing plots and bloody gore. "Revelations" aims to right the wrongs of the first film by diving head long into the game’s mythos while using modern horror techniques.

The result repairs the damage done to the story, but the byproduct is that it can only be understood by fans that know the games. The scary stuff also works against the plot. While the story thrives on the unknown and tries to keep you guessing, the scares focus on an abundance of shocking pop-in gimmicks and blood. This, mixed with the rushed feel of the film, decreases the value of both, leaving another muddled mess.

The score also suffers from a similar unbalance and the acting is average. Only the special effects shine as disturbingly beautiful, but it's far from enough to make this anything more than a mindless horror flick. Fans of the video games will adore the plot, but everything else will disappoint even the most diehard. If you're in the mood for an average mindless horror film, look no further, but I'd recommended renting a classic.

2 "severed arms" out of 5

Written by Chris

Edited by Aaron

"Hotel Transylvania" review by Chris

For years Dracula has been feared and hunted. To protect his daughter, Mavis, from these horrors, he built a hotel for monsters to seek refuge, but as Mavis gets older this isn't enough for her. All seems well until a human stumbles into the castle. Now Dracula must fight to keep him a secret or lose "Hotel Transylvania" and his daughter forever.

And that's about all you need to know. The plot is heartwarming but predictable; the characters are fun and the script light hearted. All the voice actors deliver and the animation is pretty. There aren't any major bumps or snags that stop this from being an enjoyable film for all ages, there just isn't anything special about it either. A couple of the jokes stand out and there's a strong "learn to let go" moral for parents, but this is a film obviously directed towards children and they will enjoy it.

If you have any interest in the classic monsters or are just looking to have a good time with your kids, you should check this film out, just don't expect to be blown away.

3 "Vampires" out of 5

 Review by Chris

Edited by Aaron

"Resident Evil: Retribution" review by Chris

I guess the time has come for yet another Resident Evil film. It's easy to brush this one off without giving it a chance, but it's actually not as bad as the last couple of films. That isn't to say it redeems the franchise or even that it's a good film, just better than its predecessors.

 Milla Jovovich returns as Alice, and despite an obvious attempt to humanize her by giving her a daughter, she remains aloof and robot-like. What makes this film better are the action and set pieces. The movie captures the video game formula by having Alice and company travel through multiple simulated environments, each reflecting a different part of the world with different monsters. Each locale represents a different video game level, giving the director a lot to work with.

 With the series’ finally returning to full videogame formula, the only problem remaining is that it still isn't a Resident Evil game. What we have here is a mindless action film that can't accept what it is. It attempts to make viewers “feel” for these characters with “emotions” but fails on every level. Part of it is that characters take so many bullet wounds and severe beatings while remaining in perfect health that often they don't even seem human anymore.

 The sound design should also be noted... as the worst part of the film. All the voices sound like they were dubbed over in editing and don't connect with mouth movements. The sound track repeats several monotonous songs, all of which are overly loud and sound like a portion of a "final fight" song looping. The only time the sound design works is when everyone shuts up and starts shooting.

 "Retribution" could have been the first film in this franchise since the original that I gave a pass too, but unnecessary plots and horrific sound work take away from the amazing action. It may work as a mindless action film for some, but it continues to drag the resident evil name through the mud. Luckily director Paul W. S. Anderson stated that the 6th and final film will only be made if "Retribution" is a success, so maybe the series will finally die here. Let’s all cross our fingers.

 

1.5 "Long Dead Corpses" out of 5

 Written by Chris

Edited by Aaron

"Paranorman" review by Chris, Illustration by Tim

Norman is a boy who can see and talk to the dead, but when his gifts make him an outcast, he can't even trust his own family to be there when he needs them. A curse from a witch and a zombie attack  drive the story forward, but Norman's struggle to be accepted is what give this film heart. The oddball collection of other characters never get their own tales, but each gives a unique perspective on Norman, which helps "Paranorman" become something more than just a children's film. 

Let's get this out of the way: I could gush over this film’s animation for days. Laika Inc. continues to show unparalleled talent for stop-motion animation, and it is simply a wonder to behold. The only way this film could fail is with poor voice acting, but the cast delivers strong performances on all fronts. With all the actors bringing their A-game, it’s hard to even pick one that stands out from the crowd.

The music and visuals hearken back classic 70's horror films, giving longtime fans of the genre something extra. The comedy is geared towards children, but there is a smattering of adult focused jokes. The story has a level of depth not seen in most animated movies, and it carries strong morals, which makes this film wonderful for all ages.

This isn't to say "Paranorman" is perfect. At several points the movie struggles with its identity: the occasional joke during a serious moment or a scare during comedic scenes show a lack of focus, but it’s still a spectacular film.

"Paranorman" is a gripping story with lots of laughs, and there's really nothing left to say but go see it.

4 "Zombies" out of 5

Written by Chris

Edited by Aaron

"The Watch" review by Chris

"The Watch" is a movie that plays out exactly as you’d expect, so I’ll keep it short and sweet: Evan, played by Ben Stiller, gathers a group of three other normal guys to search for murderous aliens. It’s a basic Ben Stiller plot with a group of screwball guys in abnormal circumstances, and while it sets up lots of opportunities for comedy, it never knows what to do with them. 

 The jokes tend to start strong, but then they linger, until their dried up husks riddle the movie from beginning to end. Interlaced with the occasional serious moment to help the audience connect with the characters, the film’s protagonists have few real problems that carry any weight with a spectator. Slowing things down further is a lack of enthusiasm from the cast — Vince Vaughn and Jonah Hill tone down their usual routine a little, but still mostly just act like themselves. Richard Ayoade at first seems like he might be a breath of fresh air, but ends up falling flat like the others.

None of this is to say that you can't find enjoyment in "The Watch." Some jokes work well, but none are enough to keep this from being an utterly forgettable waste of time.

1.5 "Neighborhood Watches" out of 5

Written by Chris

Edited by Aaron

“The Dark Knight Rises” Review & Comic by Tim

     “The Dark Knight Rises” was never going to be the cultural touchstone that its
predecessor, 2008’s “The Dark Knight” became. That said, “Rises” is an excellent
bookend to director Chris Nolan’s trilogy and a very satisfying conclusion for what I
think will be considered the definitive Batman series for the foreseeable future. Go
see it. It’s worth it. It’s easily the best “Part 3” movie I’ve ever seen. It’s awesome. It’s
great. It’s full of much of the same things that made the last two awesome and great.
It’s darn good.

     Okay. That’s that. I wanted to stress early on that I really liked “The Dark Knight
Rises” (Really, I did!). It was very enjoyable, but I also have some fundamental
problems with it.

     Christopher Nolan is known for making movies that force the audience to think. He’s
kind of a match made in heaven for a superhero who is known for his quiet,
brooding intellect. Having said that, much of 2008’s “The Dark Knight” is dedicated
to Batman grappling the morality of his mission: Is it okay to kill villains in order to
serve the greater good? Ultimately, he refuses to kill the Joker and instead he quite
literally leaves him hanging. But then in the next and final scene of the movie, he
tackles the murderous Two-Face (former do-gooder D.A. Harvey Dent) off a building
to save Commissioner Gordon’s son. Two-Face dies in the fall while Batman lives
and agrees to take the blame for Dent’s crimes. Little to no attention is paid to the
fact that Batman just killed a guy. I don’t understand — are we not supposed to
think about it?

[From here on out, SPOILER ALERT!]
     Then we open up “The Dark Knight Rises” eight years later, and Harvey Dent is still
remembered as the District Attorney who helped wipe Gotham City clean of
organized crime. The public believes that the Batman murdered Harvey Dent. But
wait, Batman DID kill Harvey Dent. I know the point is that Batman took the fall for
crimes he didn’t commit, but Harvey Dent’s murder isn’t one of them. This is,
however, an argument of semantics and fairly easy to overlook.

     In the wake of Dent’s death, Gotham has become a kind of police state, with
criminals denied parole and often unable to plead insanity. Crime is at an all-time
low and all is well in Gotham, or so it seems. The League of Shadows (the group of
balance-restoring eco-terrorists from “Batman Begins”) is back to finish the work of
Ra’s Al Ghul, who was played by Liam Neeson in “Begins.” ( This is presumably
because every good “threequel” tends to hearken back to the first film.) This time
around, the terrorists are led by Bane (Tom Hardy), a mysterious figure who was
once excommunicated from the League for his savage brutality. The plot unfolds,
thickens, and takes numerous twists and turns, yadda yadda yadda. By the way, I
LOVED the twist. You know. The big one. Not the final twist or the one before that…
but the big one. Yeah. That one.

[MAJOR SPOILERS!]
     Apart from a few pacing issues (I think the Dark Knight actually rises two or three
times in this movie), and the aforementioned logic issues, I have one more problem
with “The Dark Knight Rises.” And really, it just comes down to my own opinion.

     I know that this is the last Batman movie for Nolan and company. I know he wanted
to wrap up his (and Bruce Wayne’s) story, and I do think it’s elegantly done and
Batman couldn’t ask for a better send-off. But for my money, Bruce Wayne would
never quit being Batman. Ever. The way I see it, and I think Bruce sees it this way
through most of the film, his parent’s deaths rocked him so badly that the rest of his
life becomes a battle to the death between the Batman and crime itself. It’s very
satisfying as a moviegoer to see Bruce Wayne sort of ride off into the sunset with
Catwoman, but as a fan of Batman, I’m not so sure. After all, it’s his strong personal
drive, which is the same drive that compels him to fight crime dressed up as a bat,
and makes him such a magnetic character in the first place.

     As good as the first two? Nah, but still a great finale in its own definitive way.

4 YOU-KNOW-WHO’s out of 5!
® ® ® ® ;-)

Movie Review Catch-up by Chris

Spoiler Alert may have been off the Internet for a while, but that doesn't mean we haven't been at the theater! We might have been busy, fleeing from werewolf Swiss-banker assassins or even dead, but you’ll never know. Here are some quick reviews of a few movies we managed to catch while hiding out in theaters (they’re like kryptonite to those WSBAs).


"Brave"

While it falls slightly short of the standards set by previous Pixar films, "Brave" still delivers great comedy, thrilling action and also delivers a punch as a well executed "girl power" story. Our protagonist, Merida (Kelly Macdonald), just wants a chance to be her own woman and avoid following in the footsteps of her Mother, the Queen. Through a bizarre spell that transforms the queen into a bear, both characters begin to better understand one another as the Pixar storytellers once again prove their talent for subtly with the Queen’s wordless communication. Although lacking the grandeur of many Pixar films, "Brave" is still a beautiful movie that should be experienced.

4 "Bulls-eyes" out of 5

"Seeking a Friend for The End of the World"

Brilliant performances and a heartwarming story should have made this one for the ages, but lackluster editing and an overabundance of pointless cameos drag the film down. Director Lorene Scafaria doesn't shy away from the tougher problems that come with an apocalypse, and throughout the film Dodge (Steve Carell) and Penny (Keira Knightley) meet countless others and experience multiple ways of handling the end of the world. Without giving too much away, let’s just say several of those are very dark. The film adds some interesting perspectives on the topic, but extra characters clog it up, and keep the heartfelt story of Dodge and Penny from reaching full potential. Saved mostly by the acting, this film survives in the middle when it could have flown high, like a flaming meteor of doom.

2.5 "asteroids" out of 5

"Ted"

Thanks to a unique take on the buddy film and some solid writing, "Ted" starts strong right out the gate. Mark Wahlberg and Seth McFarlane both give it all they have, and carry the film. The remaining cast adds more humor and depth without subtracting from the absurdity. But the film also suffers from similar problems as Seth McFarlane's "Family Guy” — much of the humor is reliant on an audience’s knowledge of pop and nerd cultures, and some jokes outstay their welcome while others won't hold up to repeat viewings. Despite the minor problems, if you can't laugh at this film on your first go-around, you should have your pulse checked — you might be dead inside.

3.5 "Teddy Bears" out of 5

"Amazing Spider-man"

Spider-man is back on the big screen with a return to the beginning. Attempting to add freshness and youth, this new origin story takes on darker tones than the originals, and follows Peter (Andrew Garfield) through his teen years. This works for most parts, but falls to pieces in others. Although Peter and Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone) are both fantastic characters, their love story feels childish and fake. The story slows down at too many points, making the 136 minute length feel unexpectedly long. Spider-man’s signature quips also occasionally contrast with darker scenes and seem a little out of place. An interesting story and great action keep the film entertaining — it may not be "Amazing," but it establishes the potential for something much greater in the sequel.

3 "Web shooters" out of 5

Written by Chris
Edited by Aaron

"Prometheus" Review by Chris

Ridley Scott goes back to his roots to direct a semi-prequel to his hit film "Alien." Taking place three decades before the first film, "Prometheus" asks if our race may have its origins in the stars. To search for the answer, a team of scientists goes on an expedition to an uncharted portion of space that was mapped out by ancient civilizations. But the real question of this film is whether this a return to form for the director or just another sequel to a long dead franchise.

The story hooks you right out of the gate. Before you realize it, you're caught up in the lives of scientist Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) and Charlie Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green) and searching for answers alongside them. Along the journey you'll also meet David (Michael Fassbender), an android with a mysterious mission of his own. All the characters will keep you wondering what's coming and where their motivations lie, but Fassbender’s character steals the show with his humor and intrigue. The remaining cast all give outstanding performances, but none of them are key to the main story and are easily forgotten when it's all over.

But when it all wraps up, you'll realize the Mr. Scott forgot something: close to none of the mysteries get resolved. After the halfway point it feels like all the answers to the riddles are just around the corner, but the characters just keep going in different directions. It makes you wonder what the ending will bring, but Scott goes for a tacked on finale that does little but allude to the fact that it's a prequel to "Alien."

With such great acting, amazing visuals and an engrossing universe, it's disappointing to know the story will give you nothing. Even the plot twists are underwhelming and predictable. It’s an interesting film with unique ideas, but do yourself a favor and don’t expect the unexpected.

3 "Weyland Ships" out of 5

Written by Chris

Edited by Aaron

"Men in Black 3" Review by Chris

Because new ideas are overrated, Columbia Pictures is bringing us yet another "Men in Black" movie.  True to uninspired sequel form, this time around Agent J (Will Smith) must travel back to the past to save his partner. During his journey he'll face countless time travel clichés and plot holes. Despite the “not again” smeared all over this storyline, is there a chance that the third time's the charm?

To start, great acting has never been a problem for the "Men in Black" series. Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones roll up to this movie with all their skills hanging out. Newcomer Josh Brolin more than fills the role of Young Agent K — his portrayal of Tommy Lee Jones is terrifyingly accurate. The banter between Agent K and J is, as it's always been, the highlight of the film. Every moment they’re together you bottle your laughter to make sure you don't miss the next punch line. Jemaine Clement, who plays the toothy and villainous Boris the Animal, is less up to snuff. His story and dialogue are generic and the actor brings nothing to the role to make it unique.

The story is just as generic as the trailers imply. Agent J travels back in time to save his partner and thus prevent an alien invasion. Along the way he'll see the secrets of his partner’s past, and learn a few things about his own. There are very few surprises, but the ones that are there are enough to keep the film moving and give it heart. Time traveling also provides nonstop moments for comedy. Whether it's blatant comments on Andy Warhol's paintings or more subtle visual cues, there are plenty of laughs.

Sadly, "Men in Black 3" also has many flaws. Several of the questions early on go either unexplained or are totally underwhelming. The story isn’t friendly to new fans, and there is very little explanation of the characters. It’s best to watch to first two before seeing this one. Fans of the original will also be disappointed that some of the plot of the first two are completely ignored.

So is "Men in Black 3" the intergalactic success this series deserves? No. It fails to fill the shoes of the first film, but is light years beyond the second film. Great acting, an amazing script and bizarre situations make this a fun experience that should be seen.

3.5 "Neuralizers" out of 5

Writing and Image by Chris

Edited by Aaron

"The Avengers" review by Chris, Illustration by Tim

            There are hundreds of ways to approach a review of "The Avengers," but the most important aspect of this film is its potential to influence movies and the super hero genre as a whole. Rarely has something of this scope been attempted by Hollywood. The concept of bringing together four distinct super hero franchises into one movie that encompasses them all and more is daunting. If done correctly, this film could inspire many more like it, and change the way Hollywood functions, but if it fails it could stop anything like it from happening again.

            Luckily, Director Joss Whedon was more then up to the task. He honors each of the original five movies without lingering too long on any one. The film’s focus is on how the team interacts and slowly grows together. Whether it's the lack of communication or clashing personalities, it is clear early on that none of the heroes are going to be instant best friends. Their arguments help each character grow as a team, but also supply the humor of the film. Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.) is particularly hilarious, and hopefully this level of comedic writing will transfer into his next film.

            But never you fear: this film isn't all about drama and character interaction either. The fights are plentiful and diverse. Each character gets a chance to shine in battle, bringing their unique styles and personalities into play. Captain America's (Chris Evans) amazing agility is spectacularly over the top, and Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) brings a brutality the others can't match. Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner) is the only one left out of the spot light, but during the final fight he's entertaining enough to make you wonder what Marvel will do with him next.

            "The Avengers" isn't without it's minor flaws. There’s a not unexpected reliance on knowledge of the past films that may leave newcomers confused. All of the heroes get their moment, but none change drastically for better or worse. The comedy, although brilliantly written, is almost non-stop and comes from all sides at once, making it a bit much at points. But my gripes with this film are few and far between, and none of them keep it from being fantastic.

            Only time will tell if "The Avengers" succeeded at changing the way the genre works, but it proved the potential is there. Stellar acting, an amazing script and brilliant direction make this one of the best superhero action films to date. Fans, nerds and regular Joes get more than they could ever ask for, and I personally can't wait to see what's next.

            4.5 “Super Heroes” out of 5

Written by Chris

Edited by Aaron

Illustration by Tim

“The Pirates! Band of Misfits” Review by Tim

As I may have mentioned last year when I reviewed “Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides,” I am a lover of all things pirate (with the exception of those dudes from Somalia with machine guns who just do it wrong . . . obviously they’ve never read “Treasure Island” . . . they don’t even have parrots.) and “The Pirates! Band of Misfits” is no exception. This animated film, the latest by Aardman Animations, is based on a series of funny little books by Gideon Defoe. The books are full of anachronistic cameos and jokes, and I was glad to see the movie do the same.
The movie follows the aptly named “Pirate Captain” in his quest to earn the Pirate of the Year award from his fellow pirates. In his struggling pursuit of pirate glory, he comes across the equally struggling scientist, Charles Darwin. The two believe their friendship may be mutually beneficial when Darwin realizes the Pirate Captain’s beloved fat parrot is actually a dodo, and the Captain realizes a dodo could bring in some serious loot when presented to the scientific community. From there, the movie follows a pretty predictable trajectory of highs and lows, but it never loses heart.
“The Pirates! Band of Misfits” has several things going for it. The film does an excellent job of making the Pirate Captain a sympathetic character. It’s this story-first approach to filmmaking that makes a studio like Pixar so successful. The movie also takes a “shotgun” method to humor. The jokes can be hit or miss, but they throw so many at you that you’re bound to chuckle at something! Finally, and should all else fail, the movie is a feast for the eyes. There is nothing quite like stop-motion animation and Aardman does it as well as anyone else — and better than most. Combined with modern computer-generated movie making, I wonder why more studios don’t do it regularly. There’s so much to see in this movie, and it’s all done with such expert precision that I’ll have to see it several more times before I’m finally satisfied!
“Band of Misfits” is a very cute, well-made movie and that’s easily worth the price of admission. If you’re still on the fence about the concept of pirate movies after last year’s “On Stranger Tides,” make it a matinee and  swashbuckle the afternoon away, stop-motion style.

Four “Pirate of the Year Awards” out of Five!

"The Five Year Engagement" Review by Chris

                Starting out of the gate strong, "The Five Year Engagement" presents Tom (Jason Segel) and Violet (Emily Blunt) as a fun and loving couple who just got engaged after a year of dating. The film makes you part of their lives as you watch all the quirky reactions from their friends and family. Sadly, their wedding is put on hold when Violet is offered the job of a lifetime in a new town. Like their relationship, this is where the movie begins to suffer.

                Tom and Violet quickly go from a couple that's easy to root for to one that you don't know why they're still together. Neither seem happy, even when they're doing their mini comedy acts in every scene. The film stands in its own way by attempting to present itself as a romantic comedy, even when heavy drama makes laughing feel out of place. There are a plethora of extra characters who react more realistically than the main characters. These extras carry the comedy, but take away from the love story, and they don’t stick around, which makes it impossible to attach yourself to them.

                Jason Segel, who co-wrote the film, has proven his ability to write and perform great romantic comedies, but this film doesn't add up to the rest. After you get past the early enjoyable parts of the film, the jokes remain funny, but they don't know when to stop. Long after the audience has stopped laughing and the punch line has passed, the joke just keeps going. The story, on the other hand, will appear only briefly throughout the film. There’s also some jumping forward in time with very little explanation of what took place in the intervening period, and the characters only become more depressing after each leap forward.

                The final twenty minutes of the film conjure back the wit and lovable characters of the beginning, but it's too little, too late. If director Nicholas Stoller and Jason Segel had cut down on the drawn out jokes and added to the actual story, this could have been two hours well spent. As it stands, "The Five Year Engagement" feels like it actually takes five years to get through.

                1.5 "Engagement Rings" out of 5

 
Written by Chris
Edited by Aaron

"Lockout" review by Chris

There was once a time when the simplest plots could sell tickets, as long as the film had quality craftsmanship and was filled with action. "Lockout" harkens back to ‘80s action films with its plot, script and tough rogue hero. Snow (Guy Pearce) is a wise cracking government agent falsely accused of murder. He can clear his name only if he saves the president's daughter from prison… IN SPACE!! With that brilliantly cheesy plot in place it's up to the acting and direction to set this film apart.

Guy Pearce presents Snow with abundant charisma. His first few lines establish him as a tough yet light hearted lead who, regardless of the dangers he's facing, rarely stops making jokes. Maggie Grace, who plays the president’s daughter Emilie, starts the complete opposite. She is overly serious and runs, kicking and screaming from danger. Through her interactions with Snow, she transforms into a more entertaining and likeable character. Their scenes are easily the best parts of the film, even with all guns blazing.

Lennie James as Secret Service agent Shaw and Vincent Regan as the leader of the prisoners both give notable performances, but the gem of the side characters is Hydell (Joeseph Gilgun). Like the story, he's a villain ripped straight from the past. He's the kind of psychopath that feels like he'd blow up the world to kill a single man. He's easily hated, which is a solid counterbalance to Snow's lovable personality.

Directors James Mather and Stephen St. Leger revel in an old school feel, and cheesy plot. The action is at its best when it embraces absurdity to the extreme. Unrealistic moments, like when a prisoner’s head explodes, show enough to be understood but the film also avoids disturbing the audience. Sadly, the bizarre nature of the movie isn't always embraced. Many of the gunfights are generic, and most scenes take place in grey hallways or dark storage rooms. The film would have benefited from better use of the more open areas and a more spacious atmosphere (no pun intended… wait, yes it was).

"Lockout" isn't the kind of film that tries to be what it isn't. It's highly self-aware and playful with an intentionally generic plot and nonsensical moments. The creators had fun with it, and so will you.

3 "Space Jails" out of 5

Written by Chris
Edited by Aaron

"American Reunion" Review by Chris

Jim, Oz, Kevin, Finch and Stifler are back on the silver screen after a 13-year absence, but have they been gone too long for a sequel? The short answer is yes. After 13 years, a little maturity from adult characters is expected, but it seems like time stood still for these guys. There are plenty of cookie cutter back-stories for what each character has been doing, but their individual details form only sub plots, while "getting laid" is still the focus of the "story."

But none of that stops this from being a hilarious and raunchy film. Being a "reunion" movie, some humor references the original film, but the majority is new, while still capturing the same awkward, fan-pleasing, “American Pie” humor. The characters also hold to their classic shtick: Stifler remains an ass, Finch is mysterious, and the moments between Jim and his father (Eugene Levy) continue to steal the show. Like seeing old friends, it feels comfortable and easy to fit back into their lives.

That comfort isn't necessarily a good thing though. Despite all the new jokes, it begins to feel like we've seen this all before. The humor and story follow the same patterns of previous films, and the characters all act like desperate high school students. Things like marriage, children and careers have barely affected them. It seems like the story is picking up where it left off 13 years ago.

"American Reunion" is a hilarious film that keeps the laughs rolling. The humor is still funny today, but unlike the characters, the film’s target audience has matured and moved on with their lives. Like a real high school reunion, you'll have fun seeing everyone again and when it's over, you'll go back to your life, forget about them, and say to yourself, “thank god I got that over with.”

2.5 "Flutes" out of 5

Written by Chris
Edited by Aaron

"Wrath of the Titans" review by Chris

With the gods losing their powers, Zeus (Liam Neeson) asks his son Perseus (Sam Worthington) to save humanity from Kronos, in Jonathan Liebesman’s "Wrath of the Titans." Joining him are Queen Andromeda (Rosamund Pike) and Agenor (Toby Kebbell). Keeping the Titans from rising again and a minor story about Perseus protecting his son are all this movie has going for it plot-wise, and you’d hope the action would make up for it. You’d be disappointed.

Despite Zeus stating on multiple occasions that Perseus's human half is the most important, Worthington does a spectacular job portraying Perseus as a vacuous doornail. While Agenor exudes personality and humor, his jokes literally fade away before the punch lines are delivered. The movie also finds excuses to whisk him away, leaving Perseus alone with the other blank character slates.

Aside from a lack of development, the plot is missing several pieces throughout. Perseus meets several characters who he’s met but weren’t in the first film. While the film gives you enough information to understand the story, it assumes familiarity with Greek mythology and leaves out points that explain character motivations.

It’s fortunate the action helps drag along the film’s weaker points, or it would go entirely unredeemed. Perseus is a force to be reckoned with, and the monsters are fitting and well crafted. The film suffers from overused action clichés and overly abundant desert environments, but that doesn't keep it from being exciting.

But the sound design doesn’t add anything to the film either. Whether it's a battle or a conversation, the music is always intense. Rocks can be heard crumbling even when none can be seen. The film lacks the ups and downs necessary for drama. The constant audible tension becomes monotonous, and makes action scenes unremarkable amid a constant haze of action music.

"Wrath of the Titans" suffers from the same mistakes the first movie did: its spectacular visuals and intense action are dragged down by flat performances and an empty plot. I guess you can enjoy it as a mindless action flick, but even that’s a stretch.

1.5 "Fallen Gods" out of 5

Written by Chris
Edited by Aaron

“The Hunger Games” review by Chris

It seems again time for another wildly popular book turned moneymaking blockbuster. Suzanne Collins’s story, “The Hunger Games,” is widely loved, which makes it a low risk franchise. If this film has one thing going for it, it’s that Suzanne Collins adapted the story herself. We’ll assume it’s an accurate interpretation of the book. With her screenplay in place, it’s up to the director and actors to bring the script to life.

The story revolves around Katniss Everdeen, a teenage girl living in a dystopian future. To save her sister, she volunteers to battle other teens to the death, but this isn’t just a contest of strength — to survive, she’ll have to traverse dangerous environments and outwit her enemies. The first half of the film is spent in the lavish capital city, training the teens and finding them sponsors to help them survive the oncoming hardships.

Jennifer Lawrence fills the role of the strong and silent Katniss, whose stoicism enhances the less frequent moments of raw emotion, when things finally become too much for Katniss to bear quietly. Alongside her, Josh Hutcherson plays Peeta Mellark. Unlike Katniss, he wears his emotions on his sleeve, which gives the characters a lot to play off each other. Joining them is an all-star cast with many great performances.

Director Gary Ross captures each moment with a PG-13 rating in mind. He gives the audience enough information to establish emotion without making it unsuitable for younger viewers. This helps many scenes achieve a level more graceful than gruesome, but can work against others. The final fight in particular is so zoomed in and shaky that it’s almost impossible to tell what’s happening, and these being the final survival moments of the film, it would have been nice to feel more connected to the action.

There are other minor flaws, but “The Hunger Games” is a stunning, emotionally taxing film with brilliant acting and tense action.

4.5 “Mockingjays” out of 5

Written By Chris
Edited by Aaron

"Jeff, Who Lives at Home" review by Chris

Jeff warns viewers exactly what kind of movie “Jeff, Who Lives at Home” will be from the opening line. The motion picture begins with Jeff (Jason Segel) explaining his love the movie "Signs" — he says it’s a collection of seemingly random events that come together in the end, and that it gets better with each viewing. Jeff attempts to live his life inspired by that theme by searching for signs and connections to his life meaning. His journey often crosses paths with his brother Pat (Ed Helms), who is having troubles with his marriage. Together they attempt to find solutions in their lives.

The titular character is lovable and easy to connect to, despite his oddball nature. He hasn't let his less-than-stellar life keep him from being blindly optimistic, while his brother Pat sees only life’s negatives. The brothers have opposing philosophies that give Jason and Ed countless opportunities for comedy and drama. They mesh beautifully thanks to Segel, Helms and a brilliantly crafted script. Susan Sarandon also gives a notable performance as Sharon, their mother. She kick starts Jeff's journey by forcing him out of the house on an errand.

As stated from the beginning, the final connection is what the entire film is about, so pay attention: every piece of information has some value. The movie's short length keeps the subtle moments from muddling the larger story, which is good since much of the story is predictable. Sharon's story, although enjoyable, is the most predictable and the least related to the main thread.

This is the kind of film that makes you think about life. It reminds us to look for the magic of every moment, not brush it aside. Its story isn't anything new, but great acting and a solid script make it special. The subtle connections warrant a second viewing, but even taken only once, this is a charming journey.

4 "Signs" out of 5

Written by Chris
Edited by Aaron

"John Carter" review by Chris

In 1912 Edger Rice Burroughs released a book called "A Princess of Mars." From it sprouted a series of adventure books taking place on Mars and following the life of John Carter, a Civil War vet from Earth who had been transported to Mars. Edger's stories helped form the science fiction genre and pieces of his stories can still be seen in modern works. Disney has decided that it’s prime time to restore Edger's tales to glory with their new film "John Carter."

During John Carter’s (Taylor Kitsch) hunt for gold, he becomes magically whisked to Mars. He quickly learns its lower gravity grants him superhuman agility and strength, and this draws the attention of the four-armed natives. They help him learn their language and teach him of Barsoom, which is their name for Mars. This begins the first of the film’s small handful of flaws: there’s an absurd amount of terminology to keep track of. Moreover, the film presents each new term like it‘s important, while only about a third of it actually is. Despite this, it's easy to follow the film — just don't expect to remember every name and term your first viewing.

The pacing of the film also suffers from some dated methods. Many points in the film are slow and add nothing to the atmosphere or story. These moments aren't frequent and can be ignored, but the film could have benefited from speedier pacing to help the action. The sci-fi elements also suffer from feeling outdated and overused, even though the John Carter books are actually the progenitors to these kinds of expansive worlds. The elements that have been seen before in other films have their origin in the Barsoom books.

"John Carter" is a grand adventure. Taylor Kitsch captures the everyman, making him an easily liked and relatable character. His history as a soldier, along with the Mars environment makes his fights believable, and a highlight of the film. Despite his super strength, there's still an established fear that he may lose the next battle. The more John learns about Mars, the more it seems he may never get home, and that Mars is destined to fall into an endless war.

The visuals are stunning, and the environments are magically unique without being unrealistic. The flying technology has a simple beauty that captures the eye as the ships soar on light waves. The battles are choreographed brilliantly, and every blow feels powerful but dangerously risky, like the character himself.

"John Carter" is not a perfect film, but its flaws are small, and they shouldn't stop anyone from enjoying it. Suspend your disbelief, and get ready to enjoy a great space adventure that helped to found the genre of science fiction.

4 "Martians" out of Five

Written by Chris
Edited by Aaron

"Project X" Review by Chris

Most teens dream of having the most epic party of all time, but when 17-year-old Thomas’s (Thomas Mann) birthday party guest list goes viral, thanks mostly to his friend Costa (Oliver Cooper), he gets the chance to have that epic party. As expected, everything gets out of hand, and he'll either have to go with the flow or have his reputation ruined forever.

"Project X" is little more than a collection of youtube videos cut together to make a story. This works well for a found footage documentary feel, but video quality is sacrificed. The majority of the shots are fuzzy and wobbly, which doesn't make it a comfortable movie to watch. Around a third of the shots are of people partying that don’t add anything to the story. But this being a party film, you're not coming here for quality cinematography or a deep story.

Comedy is what "Project X" is all about. From beginning to end, this film gets progressively crazier and sets some hilarious scenes. Thomas's reactions to the events are only semi-realistic, and in contrast Costa's, are over the top. Neither actor presents a hashed out or realistic performance, but they’re adequate enough to move the movie forward. Once the party gets started, their dialogue is humorous and well planned, but in earlier scenes it feels improvised and contains mostly profanity.

The other half of the comedy is a "best of youtube" reel blown drastically out of proportion. Nut shots, car crashes and vomiting are the film’s bread and butter. Don't expect to see footage you can find on the Internet because even the simplest act is pushed to the extreme. Adding to the craziness is a collection of events that are completely implausible children with tasers and balloon-airlifted dogs are just the beginning of these shenanigans.

"Project X" is a funny and energetic film, but its comedic style, language and nudity make it suitable only for a specific audience. It will give more enjoyment to older teens and young adults, and is best seen with a group of friends who are ready to laugh at its craziness. It has no lasting appeal beyond the first viewing.

2.5 "Crazy Parties" out of 5

Written by Chris
Edited by Aaron

"Gone" Review by Chris

After her sister disappears, Jill (Amanda Seyfried) believes a serial killer from her past is back for revenge. If her past experiences have taught her anything, it’s to use her instincts, and she's going to need all of them to find her sister in time. The police believe Jill is crazy, and are hunting her to keep those around her safe, but we won’t discover the truth until we’ve watched the Heitor Dhalia directed “Gone.”

The premise behind the film is nothing new — Jill's story is far from original, but Seyfried’s portrayal seems more realistic than most films of a similar nature. She's spent the years since her kidnapping in therapy and self-defense classes. She avoids human contact and can't trust any stranger walking down the street. Her paranoia helps make her relatable, but as the movie advances this starts to change. Her investigations turn up little evidence, making it progressively easier to believe she really is insane.

And as if you need any more reason to doubt her, Jill finds her evidence though dumb luck, and it's mostly circumstantial. And every time she sees a roll of duct tape — used to restrain her during her kidnapping — she acts like she's found a huge clue. She never stops to consider that if everyone who used duct tape was a serial killer, home repair would be virtually impossible. It doesn't help that every time she finds any real evidence she undermines her own credibility by lashing out or acting crazy in some way. It seems clear that as a director, Dhalia didn't want a straightforward film, but she also succeeds in alienating the audience from Jill as she seems to become more and more insane.

Despite this, Amanda Seyfried does provide a strong lead and a solid performance. She plays the paranoid victim with skill, making it evident that the faults with her character are directorial. This becomes even more apparent when characters like Detective Hood (Wes Bently) are introduced. He's portrayed as a sinister potential suspect, but vanishes from the story almost instantly. When he's seen later, he's little more than a background extra. These extra characters appear for no reason and muddle the story

Heitor Dhalia has strong camera work throughout. At points, the action becomes difficult to discern, which helps the audience slip into Jill's shoes. The events behind the original kidnapping are slowly revealed in traditional back-story style, keeping the air of mystery alive. The sound design focuses on details like room-filling board creaks, while the music is toned down for most scenes so the subtly of the sound work can shine.

Sadly, the decent cinematography does little to save "Gone" from having bad character work and a unoriginal plot. Increasing disconnectedness from Jill makes it hard to stay attached to the film. The audience can enjoy the high tension and mystery, but once all the questions are answered, you'll never want to ask them again.

2 "Rolls of Duct Tape" out of 5

Written by Chris
Edited by Aaron

"Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance" Review by Chris

I think most would agree that the original "Ghost Rider" movie is one of the worst super hero films ever created. The characters were flat and the action was slow, to say nothing about the terrible computer graphics. Directors Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor have challenged themselves to create a sequel that repairs the damage of the first film and refreshes the franchise. Aside from mentioning Johnny Blaze's (Nicolas Cage) deal with the devil that gave him his powers, this film barely references the first film at all.

If Johnny Blaze can learn to focus his power and prevent the devils son, Danny (Fergus Riordan), from becoming the antichrist, then a priest named Moreau (Idris Elba) will help him be free of his curse. Although his ultimate goal is to stop being the Rider, the film spends huge amounts of time on the origins of the Ghost Rider’s powers before Johnny Blaze got them. The end of the film answers most of the questions presented at the beginning, but the watered down plot is clearly just a vehicle to go from one battle to another.

The lack of a decent plot in an action movie is certainly nothing new, and it doesn't make it a bad movie. But any way you look at it, an action movie with a lack of cohesive action does. The majority of the film is cuts sporadically, following music video rules more than film. The method makes some moments thrilling while it makes others impossible to follow. Every scene feels unnecessarily tense, even when the group is just sitting down for lunch. The directors are constantly cutting to unique camera angles that add to the excitement, but also make it hard to tell what's happening.

The acting and script are equally unbalanced. Most of the characters are completely flat, but in a flat sort of movie like this, they tend to serve their purpose in the story. Danny feels more like a moving statue than a thirteen year old whose life has been turned upside down. He reacts without emotion and to easily accepts the bizarre changes in his life. Nicolas Cage‘s portrayal of Johnny Blazes is also hit or miss. In some moments, he's a man struggling against a very real darkness and in the next moment you'd think he escaped from a psyche ward. As an actor, he's made many characters come alive, but Johnny Blaze isn't one of them.

It's hard to write off "Spirit of Vengeance" as a completely terrible film. When it does things right, it does them well. The good action scenes are stunning, and many of the jokes will have you laughing out of your seat. The visuals aren't always perfect, but let's just say these guys know how to set stuff on fire. Whenever the Rider comes out and transforms some new vehicle into a flaming death machine, it’s gorgeous. Sadly, for every great joke or eye popping visual, there are two childish puns and incomprehensible battles to follow it.

"Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance" is a child's interpretation of the comics. It focuses completely on visuals and has no story to make it worthwhile while it attempts to distract you by adding increasingly crazy set pieces. It sets itself apart from the first film and becomes a different experience, but manages to be equally bad in a different ways. Despite having some entertaining moments, this is one franchise that should be laid to rest for good.

1.5 "Flaming Skulls" out of 5

Written by Chris
Edited by Aaron

"The Grey" Review by Tim

            I’m going to be honest with you. I’m not a huge fan of indie cinema, but “The Grey” started out as such a strong concept (Liam Neeson goes down in a plane crash and must fight wolves n’ stuff to survive in the wilderness) that I had to give it a chance.  I mean — just typing that out made me feel like a manly man! So I went to the movies thinking this was going to be an all out slugfest between Liam Neeson and nature. What I got was a slow and gory existentialist romp in the woods with Liam Neeson, Dermot Mulroney, and a bunch of other guys I don’t know (Gosh, I wonder if they survive...).

            Much of this movie is just disturbing. In the first 15 minutes of the movie, it is established that Liam Neeson feels like he has nothing to live for because his wife “left” him. Could that possibly mean more than one thing? Anyway, he puts a gun in his mouth and is about to pull the trigger until he hears the howl of a wolf. Ok, great. I get it. Nothing like a fistfight with a wolf to make you feel alive, right? Then Neeson’s character and several others board a plane bound for civilization. The plane crashes. Well directed. Terrifying. Where are the wolves? The small band of bloodied and broken survivors unite. Still no wolves! Dude keeps having visions of his wife... FINALLY, wolves are established as the villains. The wolves see the little group of survivors as a territorial threat, and hunt them—not to feed, just to kill. You know how wolves get sometimes…

            And that’s it. That’s the rest of the movie. Run from the wolves. Build a fire. Neeson has visions of his wife. Run from the wolves again. Hide. Jump. Another fire. Damn, those wolves are smart. Run again.

            This is not to say the film is without merit. Great care is taken to illustrate parallels between the men who must work together to survive and the pack hierarchy of the wolves hunting them. Though sometimes, it just comes across as clumsy — like when the group of men hears an unseen scrap between the wolves and Liam Neeson’s character explains that whatever the challenge was, the Alpha wolf settled it. Within 30 seconds, one of the other men challenges Neeson’s character as leader of the group. OHHHHHHHHHHH I get it! Alpha… but with people… I see what you did there… The film also makes extensive use of the “BOO!”-scare, when everything goes quiet and all of a sudden something jumps out with a loud noise. The scare technique itself is fine — it’s a classic movie trick, but if you use it too much it becomes cheap and predictable. Almost as cheap as the movie’s climax, which I’ll explain next.

            So at the risk of spoiling a movie I strongly encourage you NOT to see, I’ll tell you that every character dies except for Liam Neeson’s, who finally ends up face to face with the Alpha male. They stare each other down. Neeson quickly tapes broken bottles between the fingers of one hand. In his other hand, he tapes a hunting knife. He knows this is it. His whole life has led him to this showdown. He lunges forward and so does the wolf. AAAAAAAND—Credits. Oh and his wife was dead the whole time. Those “visions” were flashbacks. She died in a hospital. I guess that’s supposed to make you feel okay that his death is imminent, but if this dude is so desperate to die, WHY DOES HE SPEND THE WHOLE MOVIE FIGHTING TO SURVIVE!?

            Oh, and be sure to stay after the credits for a super-special 5 second clip of an indiscernible mess of fur and Liam Neeson. Magical. Worst movie ever? No. Huge disappointment? Totally, though all in all I really only have one issue with this film, which is that it isn’t very good.

One Severed Dog Head out of Five

Written by Tim

Edited by Aaron

"Chronicle" Review by Chris

When three teenagers stumble upon a mysterious object, they develop telekinetic powers. Like a muscle, the more they use the powers the stronger they get, and soon they can move cars and soar through the air. They begin to question what they should do with these newfound gifts, but when it becomes clear that all three aren’t in agreement, it sets the stage for “Chronicle.”

At first glance this appears to be like any other superhero film, but it's far from the stereotypes. The main character Andrew (Dane DeHaan) has had a lonely life and lives in fear of his abusive father. Gaining powers turns everything around, and he befriends Matt (Alex Russell) and Steve (Michael B. Jordan). Together they experiment and have fun with their new gifts while the chemistry between the three actors draws you in. Like real teens would, they use their powers for pranks and don't think to be something greater.

Andrew starts as a much darker character then the other two. It becomes clear early on that he will never get past his history, and that this isn't the origin of a super hero, but a villain. His life does take a turn for the better, but even then there’s something about him that’s still a bit off. The hope for his salvation keeps you locked in your seat and sets the film apart from other Superhero stories.

Setting it further apart is the use of the "found footage" technique. The first two thirds of the film are shot predominantly from Andrew’s portable camcorder. As the story continues, more cameras are introduced, which sets up some interesting shots, but the technique really comes into its own during the final battle. Every cut to a new shot is from a different camera, and the film bounces from cell phones to security cameras, news copters and more. This technique gives you the same effect of a high budget action film but with a documentary feel, and is an exhibition of the found footage technique as something more than a gimmick.

The small collection of flaws do nothing to hinder this film. Some of the characters feel a little fake and don’t add much to the story, and not all of the visual effects are convincing. A few of the plot points are also taken straight from other films, but the movie keeps drawing you in. The writing and main characters come together perfectly, which helps you suspend your disbelief.

"Chronicle" may appear on the surface like a low budget gimmick film, but what it does with its writing and story make it unique. Other superhero movies should practice their high jumps, because this one is raising the bar.

4.5 "Telekinetic Powers" out of 5

Written By Chris
Edited by Aaron

"Journey 2: The Mysterious Island" Review By Chris

After his journey to the center of the earth, Sean (Josh Hutcherson) has spent a few years searching for his next adventure, when he receives an encoded message from his grandfather, Alexander Anderson (Michael Caine), telling him the location of Jules Verne's Mysterious Island. His stepfather Hank (Dwayne Johnson) helps him find the island in hopes of bonding with his stepson. They find the island together but become stranded, and the real adventure begins.

The first movie was a good family film, but nothing revolutionary. Its sequel makes little connection to the original, and reintroduces terms like "Vernian,” so it can stand on its own, making it more welcoming to new viewers. The beginning of the movie focuses on plot and does a good job of explaining important information to those who haven't read Jules Verne's books. When pilot Gabato (Luis Guzman) and his daughter Kailani (Venessa Hudgens) join the cast the humor goes full throttle.

The script intelligently draws bits and pieces from its source material. The added humor keeps it fresh and has a lot for all audiences. The rivalry and banter between Alexander and Hank is particularly hilarious. Whenever Gabato jumps in, it adds wackiness with a cartoon feel. Of course there's also the teen romance and family drama, but they take a back seat to comedy and adventure.

The island’s giant-sized creatures are computer-generated wonders, and are complimented by real sets. There are enough props and environments to fill a Vernian theme park. For obvious reasons, green screen techniques are used quite often, but it's hard to notice where sets end and the computer graphics begin. The 3D has some stunning moments, but is flooded with more gimmicks than jaw droppers.

"Journey 2: The Mysterious Island" is a funny and energetic family adventure. It has laughs for all ages and themes that everyone can relate too. Parents will have as many favorite moments to talk about as the kids.

4 "Giant Bees" out of 5.

Written by Chris
Edited by Aaron

"Man on a Ledge" review by Chris

When Nick Cassidy (Sam Worthington) is falsely jailed for stealing a diamond, he concocts a way for his brother Joey (Jamie Bell) to prove his innocence by stealing the diamond he was framed for stealing in the first place. Nick places himself on the ledge of a hotel building to distract attention from the diamond heist across the street. The final result is an amalgam of heist and action films.

If the premise hasn't already cued you in, "Man on a Ledge" has set itself up for a complicated and easily confusing plot. The idea that a hand full of average citizens can pull off an "Oceans 11" style heist is completely absurd, though it doesn't instantly doom the movie. What does kill this film is the abundance of plot holes. Characters practically teleport from one building to another to make the heist hang together, and don't expect an "Oceans 11" style reveal-all ending as several of these little mysteries remain unexplained.

Scattered throughout the story are subplots about each of the side characters. Most are interesting, but none get hashed out or have a real conclusion. They simply add to the complexity of the plot without successfully adding depth. For instance, Lydia Mercer (Elizabeth Banks) is chosen by Nick to talk him down from the ledge. She is reluctant because her last jumper didn't end well, but barely seems to blink before changing her mind and simply accepting Nick’s word that her instincts are solid.

Despite these problems, the movie does have several interesting aspects. The idea behind the movie is quite intriguing, if at times implausible, and actual heist is creatively staged. The climatic ending is well choreographed and has several thrilling moments, but these less mediocre moments are an ineffective salve to this gaping wound of a movie.

After first seeing "Man on a Ledge," I gave it an average rating. But the longer I’ve let the movie sink in, the more I realize what a mess it is. The redeeming aspects of this film are fleeting and the pitfalls are many.

One "Rare Diamond" out of Five

Written by Chris
Edited by Aaron

"Underworld: Awakening" review by Chris

After several years of whiny and overly sexual vampires, it feels good to be back on the action packed "team Selene." Over the top action has always taken priority over story in the "Underworld" series, despite having a deep and well thought out origin story. The series failed to explain it properly in the first trilogy, and "Underworld: Awakening" attempts to give the series a fresh start by re-establishing the rules.

The series has always been about the secret battle between lycans and vampires. When their battle is finally brought to the public eye, humans make it their mission to exterminate both species. It would have been nice to have a film depicting the particulars of this struggle, and while "Awakening" does an adequate job of establishing the history of the war, it mostly picks up at the end of the war and the resulting twelve-year coma of the main character, Selene (Kate Beckinsale). During her coma, both species have become all but extinct. Selene has unknowingly conceived a half-breed daughter named Eve (India Eisley), and the film follows Selene’s struggle to protect her daughter from the company that kept them both captive the last twelve years.

The idea of Selene having a daughter is given little context and begins the movie's confusing plot. Anyone who has not seen previous films will be missing little bits of information, so it’s wisest to view the preceding chapters. As little flaws in this film pile up, it becomes harder and harder to get lost in the vampire world. Adding to this disjunction are the characters themselves. Despite being a test subject her entire life, Eve is completely unscathed emotionally. And while all the side characters have interesting back-stories, none have enough screen time to get into any depth. Selene carries the entire story on her shoulders, and it weighs too much for one character.

Lets face it, if you're watching "Awakening" for its story, then you're missing the point. It is an action film. From beginning to end, the tension of battle never lets up, and this is what saves the film. You may not feel connected to the characters, but you never get bored. Every few minutes, either bullets are flying, something's blowing up, or someone's getting ripped to pieces. If the characters were normal humans, you'd question the realism, but with vampires and lycans you just accept it and get lost in the violence. More films should strive to have this level of fun with their fights.

"Underworld: Awakening" isn't going to be winning awards, but it’s not trying to win any either. If you can live without a developed story, you're in store for some brilliant action.

Three "Vampires" out of Five

“War Horse” Review by Aaron

Galloping across the farms and battlefields of Western Europe, Spielberg’s “War Horse” follows the harrowing journey of a down home horse, Joey, from dewy-eyed foal to a stalwart steed of war. Raised from a baby by Albert Narracott, played by Jeremy Irvine, the tale is one of abiding love between human and horse, and is based on a children’s book by Michael Morpurgo.

Opening on sweeping scenes of the English countryside, the first few minutes of “War Horse” initiate the bond between the two when Albert witnesses the foal’s birth. Albert’s father Ted, played by Peter Mullan, soon purchases the horse. Joey becomes Albert’s responsibility to train, and the two form a powerful bond, but financial troubles force Ted to sell Joey to the army when World War I breaks out. Albert cannot stand to part with his horse and enlists in the army to try and find him, which sets in motion this equine war epic.

As a protest against the violence of the First World War, “War Horse” is particularly effective because its main character (Joey) is so clearly a victim, and is bought and traded on a whim from the English countryside to the Somme. While there are certainly antagonists in the film, the roll call of characters is filled with victims of the war. Among a host of characters, circumstance is the only consistently confounding villain.

One major problem with this film is that it contains an odd dichotomy between the farm-filled fantasy land of England and the bloody battlefields of mainland Europe. The stark contrast between the two settings serves to underline the horrors of war but also makes the film seem oddly divided and conceptually incongruous. Spielberg attempts to smooth out this transition with (admittedly) beautiful cinematography work of a cavalry charge through French wheat fields, but there’s still a big thud when you fall into the trenches. It should also be noted that some moments in this film are undeniably but adorably cheesy.

I found that the cheesy moments in the movie mostly occur at the hands of Irvine, who often seems just a little too in love with his horse (granted, that’s the point of the story). Emily Watson plays Albert’s mother, Rose, as an admirable and forgiving wife and mother while David Thewlis plays their nasty landlord with distinction.

Whatever jarring moments the movie may have, “War Horse” is a stunning war epic about survival and strength of will, but also has hints of humor, like those when a British officer tells the equine Joey that, “You’re in the army now, son.” Joey’s journey through history’s most terrifying war is one that you’ll want to see in theaters for its wonderful cinematography.

Oh, and I should also mention that I tried my utmost to find a name for the horse that played Joey, but despite his obvious acting chops, he’s nowhere to be found. I’d love to see him on stage at the academy awards accepting an Oscar for this role.

Four Hooves Out Of Five

69th Annual Golden Globes!

Spoiler Alert has taken to twitter and will be bringing you live updates!
Follow along!
@SpoilerAlert247

"The Darkest Hour" Review by Chris

When two website designers find themselves trapped in Russia during an invasion of invisible aliens, they must band together with other survivors to find a way to fight back. But how can they fight an enemy they can't see? They soon figure out that the only way to locate the aliens is by their effect on electrical objects, and it is this battle with the invisible is what sets "The Darkest Hour" apart from most alien invasion films.

Emile Hirsch and Max Minghella do a admirable job as the protagonists of the film, but their dialogue would have felt more at home in a sitcom. They bounce back and forth between making situational jokes and actually trying to figure out how to survive. The remainder of the cast does equally well with what they’re given, but have far less to work with than the main characters. Most are clearly there to push the battle forward and become cannon fodder for the aliens.

The film also suffers from a lack of story consistency in its established rules, and uses very basic science to explain complicated things. They learn early on that the aliens can see electricity because they’re made of energy, and by complete happenstance they also discover that glass acts like an insulator and makes them invisible to alien sight. Later in the film, aliens attack after seeing three of the characters through glass windows, but only a few minutes later one character hides behind a glass table and is invisible. The film is riddled with these holes, but never seem to be enough to stop the plot.

The visuals for the aliens are one of the highlights of this film. Early on they can only be seen as flickers and waves, but they produce an interesting spectacle of lights when they vaporize humans into dust. Their lack of form adds to the suspense, but halfway through this effect is ruined when humans learn their weaknesses, and the aliens gain physical form. Despite being physically inconsistent, the aliens are well crafted and have a unique look to them. These invaders are the highlight of the film and the reason to keep watching.

The 3D effect is adequate, but adds nothing to the film and is generally tacked on, which is unfortunate considering most theaters are only showing it in 3D. No moment ever feels too flat, but nothing stands out as memorable. Even the fast moving aliens fail to add excitement to the 3D experience.

With its unique ideas and decent cast, "The Darkest Hour" had potential to be a different type of invasion film, but a lackluster script and little consistency drag it down. It has some new ideas but everything else is simply average.

2.5 "dusted humans" out of 5

Written by Chris
Edited by Aaron

“The Adventures of Tintin” Review by Aaron

     Tintin’s trademark is his terrific tuft, and let me tell you, Spielberg made sure to get the hair just right in his telling of “The Adventures of Tintin.” And so there it is — bouncy, reddish in color and perfectly undisturbed as Tintin and company set out on the trail of a hidden treasure, lost for centuries.

     Opening on a marketplace where Tintin, voiced by Jamie Bell, is having a street artist draw a portrait of him, the film has a star studded voice cast and a visual style that makes it seem more like Herge’s Tintin comics than the originals themselves. Thomson and Thompson, the two bumbling detectives, voiced by Nick Frost and Simon Pegg respectively, are spot on as they ineptly try to apprehend a pickpocket that has stolen each of their wallets multiple times.

     As the plot moves forward, Tintin purchases a model of the 17th century man-o-war Unicorn from a vendor, which initiates a treasure hunt across multiple continents when he discovers a clue inside the mast.

     Spielberg’s Tintin interpretation is a mash up of two of the original Herge comics, “Crab With the Golden Claws,” in which Captain Haddock (voiced by Andy Serkis) is introduced, and “Secret of the Unicorn,” which introduces Haddock’s ancestral home, Marlinspike Hall.

     The film is a beautiful homage to the Herge creation from both an artistic and a comedic standpoint, and its grasp of Tintin villains is also impressive. In “The Secret of the Unicorn” comic book for instance, the movie’s main villain, Ivanovich Sakharine, voiced by Daniel Craig, is a minor character who I’ve always thought seemed sinister. He always looked way more evil than the Bird Brothers, and more like a traditional Tintin antagonist.

     But my complaint about the film is that it’s too over the top, action wise, even for Tintin. Having a tank driving around with a building on top of it, for example, or Haddock and Sakharine sword fighting with cargo loading cranes seems unnecessary.

     For those who know little of Tintin, this film will be a hit, but for fans the film is a mixed blessing. While the feel of the movie, the voice acting and the art are fantastic, the film often seems over the top and the storyline a little too tangled between the plots of “Secret of the Unicorn” and “Crab With the Golden Claws.”

Four Blistering Barnacles Out Of Five

"Girl With A Dragon Tattoo" review by Chris

When a discredited journalist (Daniel Craig) is given a forty-year-old murder case, he enlists the aid of a girl with unique computer hacking skills and a dragon tattoo named Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara). As they put clues together and dig deeper into the mystery they face increasing danger from an anonymous killer while Lisbeth confronts the demons of her past. The danger they face helps drive the story forward, but doesn't feel real till later in the film. What makes the movie fresh and keeps you watching is Lisbeth, as she careens through the film, knocking all obstacles out of her way.

While many aspects of this movie have been seen before (the mystery is predictable and the main character, Mikael Blomkvist, is fairly standard for the genre) Lisbeth is completely unique. She is as socially awkward as she is merciless in dealing with her enemies.

Early in the film as Mikael is taking the first steps in the mystery, Lisbeth is facing twisted hardships and responding to them in equally twisted manners, and her methods are so dark that you'll find yourself wishing the story would stop cutting back to Mikael and his comparatively normal life on the frozen island of a wealthy industrialist Swedish family trying to solve a murder.

On the surface, this is a mystery about a killer of women, but "Girl With A Dragon Tattoo" is actually a character piece. Rooney Mara plays Lisbeth with dark precision and dangerous purpose and steals the focus of the film. Mikael's story, although more easily relatable, takes a back seat to Lisbeth’s, which centers on sexual abuse.

From every technical stand point this movie shines. The cinematography is well crafted and adds eeriness to every moment. It shows you enough of the most brutal moments to disturb you without overly disgusting you. The soundtrack adds even more to the creepy nature of every moment.

But everything isn't perfect in this mystery thriller. As mentioned before, many aspects of the story aren’t really new. The beginning of the movie also moves at a sluggish pace, which works well for establishing Lisbeth as a character, but makes Mikael seem slow and incompetent as an investigator. Several scenes and images are disturbingly brutal and keep this from being a movie for all audiences.

Powerful acting, great cinematography and a unique titular character make this film a great experience, but its handful of flaws and dark images will keep it from appealing to all audiences. For fans of mysteries and brutal visuals, this will be a winner.

4 "Dragon Tattoos" out of 5

Written by Chris
Edited by Aaron