The Colony

The Colony directed by Jeff Renfroe starring Laurence Fishburne and Bill Paxton.

The worst thing about this movie is that it doesn't even try to add anything new to the genre its fit itself into and instead just wants to be a standard thriller/horror movie.  Even that I wouldn't say it achieves well.  Characters aren't established with any level of sympathy at all, besides the standard cliche ridden ones and even the cliches seem more like cliches as I didn't really care about anyone in this movie.  Even the situations the characters found themselves were oh-so predictable in how the characters would respond to the situation: Bill Paxton's character taking over the colony - I mean who didn't see that one coming, Laurence Fishburne sacrificing himself to save a life - who didn't see that one coming as well, and they just kind of keep stacking up as the movie rolls along.  I found myself rolling my eyes for at least 1/2 of the movie because the writer didn't even try to do something new as he just rode on the coat tails of every kind of movie that's been done like this before, not even attempting to be different.  I could at least appreciate the attempt at trying something new, even if it failed - the attempt would be nice.

The one saving factor of this movie is the run time at 90 minutes it's not that long of an investment if you're looking for a movie to kill the time and be somewhat amused.  But other than that this is a been there seen that and done that kind of movie, which adds nothing new or inventive to its genre.

Black Orchid

Black Orchid written by Neil Gaiman and illustrated by Dave McKean.

I know this is one of Gaiman's earliest works and shows.  It doesn't have near the focus or world building of Sandman and it reads as a very virgin work of his, thus I can't much compare it with his later works because of this.  Another thing about this story is that it shows the influence Alan Moore had in Gaiman's life as a writer.  Not only does this story have Swamp Thing in it (which is one of the superheroes that Moore helped to transform the comics scene with) but the story also has a Swamp Thing feel to it.  I can't blame Gaiman for this because I remember when I started writing and how I tried to copy ever author I knew.  I can't fault him for this.

This story reads very much like Swap Thing, the cliff notes version, as it deals with transformation and metamorphosis, plants and flowers play a big part in the story.  There's not really much to say about this book other than I'd recommend it for any fan of Gaiman who wants to read through his whole comic writing out put or if you're just in the mood for something that's technically a comic but doesn't read like your normal super hero comic. 

The artwork by Dave McKean is completely different from anything in the mainstream comic world and would be worth the read just to see his work in a comic instead of the many cover designs he's done in his career. 

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen: 1910, 1969, 2009

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen written by Alan Moore and illustrated by Kevin O'Neill.

First off I'll get this off my chest these books are no where near on the level of brilliance as the first two volumes of The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen comic.  And basically these three books tell one story.  The first book is the weakest by far as it doesn't really do much but set up the next books. I didn't find the story that engaging nor did it do much to set the characters up as engaging either.  Out of the mass of things I've read by Alan Moore this is one of is weakest written comics, by far. 

The one thing for sure I did take from this book is that as Moore has gotten older he's gotten more perverted on the sexual scale and it doesn't serve any part in the story but for a perverts stand point.  Don't get me wrong there were moments like that in the original League but I didn't feel that it overshadowed the story like it does in these three volumes. 

I think the one mistake Moore made in this series is not focusing on the character of Orlando.  In the final volume he does but by then it is way to late.  Orlando is a fascinating character with a rich history that isn't mined at all but is more or less just tossed around in flippant on liners that aren't explored but only washed out to sea forgotten the moment they were written.  I think having Orlando, as old as he/she is would have been a great focal point for this story that spans hundreds of years.  I really liked the third volume the best as Orlando totally helped to draw me into the story, where as the other volumes lacked this viewpoint.

The one thing these volumes do well is still establish Moore as the total anti-comic writer because he's not afraid to just have two or three people talking about things for pages and have those things have meaning not just people talking about nothing.  And he's not afraid to not have action scenes every other page or big splash pages every other page.  I've always liked this about him and it's one of the reasons I've always found his comics so interesting.  I mean his League is one of the reasons I started collecting comics again but then I found myself in a pickle of not being able to finding anything that would match the caliber of his written word. 

As the days have gone by since I read these I've found myself forgetting what they were about as the story just didn't resonate with me like the League did.  The League story has stuck with me over the years since I've read it.  I also didn't find the level of detail to be as rich and rewarding as it was for the two League volumes, there was just something missing this time around.

Even Kevin O'Neill's artwork didn't have the same passion and detail as it did the first time around.  Both the writing and illustration seemed to have suffered from something.  I would only recommend these for fans of the first two volumes as they do somewhat continue the story but other than that you're not missing much by skipping them.

The Lone Ranger

The Lone Ranger directed by Gore Verbinski, starring Johnny Depp, Armie Hammer, Williams Fichtner, Tom Wilkinson, and Helena Bonham Carter.

Bottom line if you liked The Pirates of the Caribbean movies you should enjoy this movie, it's produced and directed by the same people who made those movies and it stars Johnny Depp.  I didn't like any of The Pirates movies therefore you should know where I stand on this movie.

First off Mr. Depp hasn't done any really acting since he took on the mantle of Jack Sparrow.  Ever since he put on Jack Sparrow every movie character he's taken on has seemed - at least to me - like some kind of variation on Jack Sparrow.  As if Jack Sparrow was acting in that movie, not Johnny Depp, which when I think about it that way, it's like Depp has somehow channeled the spirit of Andy Kaufman and turned a persona of his into an actual actor.  That's one interesting thought that I will have to think about because if he has pulled that off, he's just showing how insane Hollywood really is as it churns out movies with little regard to the actual product.  Only the bottom line matters, nothing else is taken into consideration. 

This being a Jerry Bruckheimer produced film, you should already know what kind of movie you're going to see.  I'm firmly convinced Bruckheimer comes up with an idea for a movie and then goes about setting up the action scenes for said movie.  And when he has those actions settled on, then he goes about fashioning a story line based around those actions.  This movie shows this in about every frame.

Little time is spent on character development or actual plot as cliches run a muck in about every scene and frame.  The only part of the story line I found interesting was when Tonto referred to himself as a wendigo hunter and was hunting William Fichtner's character.  This idea had a lot mythological aspects to it as well as historical implications but instead of exploring this idea the screenplay just went on to another cliched thing leaving an interesting thing behind in it's damaged wake.

The Purge

The Purge directed by James DeMonaco, starring Ethan Hawke and Lena Headey.

This movie works well for what it is, which is basically an action/horror/thriller story with a gimmick that the movie never fully explores.  One of the best things about this movie is the run time which comes in just under an hour and half, so no matter what you might think of the movie, when you get done watching it, the investment of time in the movie isn't that large of an amount. 

The gimmick?  One day a year our county shuts down all law enforcement, fire departments, and emergency services and allows any form of murder and killing for a 12 hour period with no consequences.  This is called the Purge.  It's a great gem of an idea but like I said before it's never fully explored as the movie just dives straight into the standard action/horror/thriller genre instead of really diving into the beautiful idea of the Purge and how it would affect people on a sociological and cultural level, which I think would have a been rather fascinating.

Another good thing about this movie is that it's very a slick and stylishly polished production that makes everything which happens on screen easy to look at.  The pacing of the whole movie moves fast with never an dull moment and  never a moment wasted.  A large part of this can be credited to the director James DeMonanco who keeps everything moving along with a pace afforded to this kind of film.

But for me it was Ethan Hawke and Lena Headey who really helped to make this movie more than sum of its parts.  They fully bought into the story and really helped to make the actions scenes flourish.  They infused their characters with more personality by just how they invested into them and helped to me care about them.  It was them that helped me to buy into this movie.

V for Vendetta

V For Vendetta written by Alan Moore and illustrated by David Lloyd.

I can't even express how much better and different this book is from the movie that was spawned from it.  The comparisons are striking and a bit said when I consider how a screenplay writer could mess up a story as good as this and turn it into the muck of a movie it became.  I find the comparisons even more striking when compared to Moore's even more complicated work Watchmen, which funneled out a component film on that very layered book.  The movie of V for Vendetta pared the book down into an action film where the message or political statement seemed to justify everything that happened.  Where as the book had actually plot and characterization, while letting the political statements serve their purpose without bogging anything down.  It also had enough of a mystery that helped to keep the story progressing at a good pace. 

Considering how old this story is, it's relevance is still apparent in a story where Big Brother has taken control of everything in a world where fascism is the ruling power and there is only the poor and rich in society.  Government serves the people with an iron fist all in the name of compassion.  It is into this shackled world where the character known as "V" comes to wreck his, ultimately, vengenance on a gonvernment that has oppressed the people long enough.

This book actually dared to somewhat get into the history of what made a man turn into V.  I can't for the life of me figure out why the movie would reject this plot in favor of actions scenes because the history of V is so paramount to not only him but also to the ruling government and other characters in the story.  Not only that I found his history quite a riveting narrative in it's right, proving once again what a master of storytelling Moore can be.  I've read a lot if his comics just so you know my background when writing about Moore: Watchmen, Promethea, The Saga of the Swampthing (his entire run), The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (all of them written so far), Tom Strong vol 1 - 3, Batman: The Killing Joke, From Hell and Top 10 Comics vol 1 -2.  So I have a good foundation when I write about Moore and his storytelling style.  This goes without saying, this is one of best stories that he's written, it also shows how he has grown as a writer of comics, and why he's one of the best comic writers ever to write for comics.

In the comic Moore invests a lot more time with the historical aspect of not only V but also the main character Evey as we follow her transformation from an enslaved subject of a fascism government to a person inspired to create a new world.  This is one of the most brilliant things Moore does with the story as he gives the reader enough of background of V's history for the reader to see where he came from but then he mirrors Evey's metamorphosis and V's.  By doing this he shows how similar their change was so that the reader can fill in the pieces without feeling like questions weren't answered.  Let me tell you that is a great logical way to fill in gaps and reveal things without having to actually reveal things, a great many people could learn from this.

Another thing that makes this an interesting comic is the art by David Lloyd.  This is not the typical art found in comic books, this at first is quite jarring. as it took me awhile to get used to because the art is that different.  But the style does work well with the story as this isn't a typical nerd comic with spandex, superheroes, or giant ideas .  Lloyd's art is detailed without being distracting and his characterization of the people is his strongest suit as this is a very character driven story.  Even the angles he draws in certain scenes are bold and very effective as they give the comic a movie type of feel just by the choice of "shots" within the page.

This is one of Moore's first big comic works that he did and the genesis of his amazing panel layouts have their early roots in this comic book and came to their full fruition with Watchmen and Promethea.  V for Vendetta is populated in various places page by page with the panel layout I've seen in his later works but only certain scenes march out with his future panel flare and I think story works better without that flare.  There's a certain realism he's working with within this story that the flare of panel layouts later one would only intrude and distract from his message, I think.  By sticking with the typical panel layouts found in comics at the time Moore is using the tools and conventions of the superhero comics to unleash his vendetta on the spandex powers he so despised.  Then by throwing in his unusual panel layouts in various places he was showing the comic powers that be what their comics could accomplish if they chose to think outside of the box.  Make no mistake this is an outside of the box comic in all of it's glorious ways.

It does start slow but once it gets rolling I found myself thoroughly engrossed in the story being told as the characters and plot enfolded around me with its cocoon shell only to have itself emerge with beautiful and intricate wings when it broke free.  How the movie could have messed this story up will puzzle me for a long time because there is so much here to enjoy from a storytelling stand point that it belittles everything to reduce it all down to an typical action movie. 

Eternals

Eternals written by Neil Gaiman illustrated by John Romita, Jr.

The concept behind this story is interesting but I never felt the execution of it lived up to everything that it was supporting it. I'm a huge fan of Neil Gaiman's comic book stuff but this isn't one of his better efforts and seemed more like just any other writer, wrote this comic. 

The ideas in this book are huge and deal with, more or less, gods, Gaiman does his best to make these gods relate-able but I never really connected with any one of them.  Another problem I had with the story is that there wasn't a main character.  It started out with one but then the focus shifted to another person and from then on out the focal point shifted to another character than what the comic originally started with, which really doesn't help a reader to relate to the story when there is so much jumping around on point of view. 

This comic book is very forgettable, even as I write this review, the fact I read this comic is slipping from my mind.  I can't remember much from it and it wasn't that interesting, to me it just seemed like any other comic on the shelf.  And coming from a comic written by Gaiman, that just shouldn't be.  I  just wish Gaiman had explained more things about the Eternals, the Celestials, and their origins because when he did start talking about their mythology it was interesting but flew by so fast I got the feeling he was bored with them.  I don't know why he didn't explore those wild and insane mythologies because would have made things way more interesting than the normal story he ended up writing.  I just hate things that have a bunch of interesting ideas with little or no pay off for anything, I end up thinking I've wasted my time (Lost and X-Files being prime examples of this).  I really hate that feeling.

I will say this though the art by John Romita, Jr was top notch and made the lack of story at least visually pleasing to the eyes.  His concepts of the alien tech, the Eternals, and Celestials were inspiring.  I've always liked his style and it blended well here with the story being told, I just wish Romita had a better story to combine with his are like he did with Frank Miller's Daredevil mini series.  He's always an interesting artists to get for a project.

The Wolverine

The Wolverine directed by James Mangold, starring Hugh Jackman, Rila Fukushima, a lot of Asian people, and one Russian model/actress (don't they all seem to be now-a-days that is a model turned actress).  Oh, there's also a wicked cameo after the credits that's almost better than the whole movie.

Before I go any further into the review of this movie I will say I really like the poster design for The Wolverine.  I thought they got it completely right as it totally sets the tone for the movie and shows this is going to be a different movie than the first time around.  I really like the simplicity of the poster above mixed with the black and white color, works extremely well.  Even after saying all of that I don't think the movie lived up to the campaign built up of the poster as I will share below.

I don't fully know what to make of this movie.  I like the concept behind what they were doing but it was the execution of it that failed.  They were aiming for a more character based storyline that wholly focused on Wolverine and they delivered on that part but somewhere in between the focus got lost again, which is a shame because this time around there's a good story line lurking beneath the depths of this movie.

Whereas the first movie played so fast and furious with the storyline that the action and secondary characters made sure the story line was the least focused on from everything in that movie.  Here, the fast and furious pace of the first movie becomes replaced with slow as a turtle for this movie, there just doesn't seem to be a good balance here.  The Wolverine is a lot more focused in the story line department this time around but there still doesn't seem to be a lot room to let the character breath like in Nolan's Batman movies (which will be a comparison I will forever be making when watching a comic book movie from now on).   Most of the action scenes in this movie don't fit in with the tone of the movie and had me laughing at how ludicrous and over-the-top they were compared with the story line that was trying to be serious.  There was only one action scene that fit in with the tone and concept of the movie and didn't feel like it was added just to add an action scene.  It was the first action scene at the funeral, where the action and fight scene was blended so well into the movie and character of Wolverine that the organic quality of it never felt forced, I just wish more of them had been of this high quality because as the movie progressed it became everything became worse and worse.

The Wolverine started out well and had a good first act, I just wish the rest of the movie had been as focused as the first part.  I think they should have just stayed focused on Wolverine and the samurai way with the concept of the ronin floating behind everything as the Japanese culture seemed to fit him better than the Western culture.  I do mean they lost their way in the second and third act, the second act is one slow plod through boredom as they don't give the audience much of anything to explore Wolverine character, like Nolan did with Bruce Wayne as he made him interesting.  They don't do that with Logan and for some reason he comes off as rather boring when the second act starts rolling along.  I can't understand how they could lose their way as he is a fascinating character and there's a lot things they could explore that would make the audience care more about him.  The action scenes they blend into the second and third acts don't help their cause any either as they seem way more forced then the previous one.

I will say this though Hugh Jackman is the Wolverine much like Robert Downey, Jr is Iron Man, they both their characters and alter egos perfectly.  I can't really see anyone else taking over for those parts.  I also liked the actress who played the Asian girl who helps Logan along.  She did a great job and I was expecting her to annoying, but they didn't writer her that way and she played her with some gusto and flair.  The story actually made her interesting and I like the fact she stays with Logan when the movie ended.  Here's hoping they keep her in other movies. 

  

Red 2

Red 2 starring Bruce Willis, Mary-Louise Parker, John Malkovich, Helen Mirren, Catherine Zeat-Jones, Anthony Hopkins, Brian Cox and Byung-hun Lee.

Well I can say this, this movie wasn't as good as the first one, not by any comparison, but it was still highly entertaining and there is one reason why: the actors in this movie.  First off I would like to say this movie did suffer from not having Karl Urban in it.  I really liked his character in the first movie but I didn't fully realize how much he impacted the story line until I saw Red 2.  His presence was sorely missed this time around.

The main reason, and really the only reason, to see this movie is because of the cast list, which was the main reason I wanted to see the first movie, and it delivered on everything it promised.  This movie suffers in the the story department from something that I can't quite put my finger on, but the cast elevates everything in it to give the audience a rock and rolling good time.  They deliver on every bit of their talent. 

Helen Mirren is once again a total delight to see kicking but and taking names.  There's just something about her holding a gun, blowing things, and doing action that fully justifies Brian Cox's character total love towards her.  I get it completely, the whole head over heels for her and I never thought it would work, but Mirren pulls it off in wonderful, wild ways that a movie based on her character, doesn't seem like a bad idea.  Her scenes with Malkovich and, the Asian actor, Lee are some of the best scenes in the movie and made me wanting more of her.

I've never been a big Malkovich fan but this is one of the best roles he's ever played that fully utilizes his eccentric behavior to full effect, without it  becoming some sort of parody.  He seems completely at home and comfortable playing this character.  His choice of wardrobe only further helps to make his character embody the oddness and conspiracy laden character he is.  The screenplay servers his character right by giving him small doses throughout the movie and never letting him take full center stage, by doing this he never over stays his welcome and becomes a very memorable character because of it.  His character is best served in small doses.

I don't where this Byung-hun Lee came from but he certainly brought some much needed youthful energy to the movie and I never felt his character got out of control.  He held his own with the more seasoned actors in this movie, though he didn't have much acting to do, but his screen presence alone made his character interesting.  Lee did a lot of acting with facial expressions, not so much his voice, but his expressions did the job well.  His scene with Mirren and the car was delightful and funny.  I wouldn't  mind seeing those two pair up again later on.

Mary-Louise Parker as always is doing what she does best, bringing her A game to the table and acting it up the good actors surrounding her.  She more than holds her own, just like she did in the first movie, and just like she does in everything shes acts in.  Since her characters isn't a deadly assassin or a crack killer, she brings the outsider perspective to the movie, only this time around it isn't as a wide eyed wonder but more someone who wants to participate in adventure of the people around her.  This time around she knows what she's getting into and actually wants to go on that adventure. 

Bruce Willis is probably the only one that I would say that doesn't really do anything new here.  He's just playing a character he's played in every action movie he's been in before.  But then again Willis does this kind of thing in all of his action movie, so he's not really stretching himself here, and he knows it.  So he does what he does best and does it well.  One could make the argument, this is John McClane, if he had joined the spy world.

Here's hoping they bring back Karl Urban if they do a third movie as I think he teaming up with everyone else would be a good thing.

Dreams and Shadows

Dreams and Shadows by C. Robert Cargill.

What an interesting take on the fantasy genre and quite a refreshing one.  This is not typical Tolkien or fantasy at all.  I would classify this as Urban Fantasy, with the emphasis heavily on Urban. 

Most of the time fairies and their immortal folk are treated with honor and reverence as the pinnacle of some sort of evolution.  The only book I've read so far about them as I think their nature would actually be is by Jim Butcher in his Dresden series: and that is their view on life, time, mortality, and immortality would be completely opposite from that of mortals.  It was refreshing to read this book as it treated these immortal beings and their perspective like the Dresden series.  This story is violent, blood drenched, vicious, brutal, sadistic, and very bloody, also it's all the better for it.  Fairy folk are not to be trifled with and blood is a currency they constantly deal with and deal with in delight.

This is also a story that plays around with "the Chose One" scenario and does some very interesting things with it, ones I was pleasantly surprised about.  The story revolves around two mortal boys who meet when they are young, that meeting forms the foundation of everything that follows later in the story when the boys get older.  I'm not going to go into detail on everything as it was fun to watch the story unfold as I read it. 

But I will drop some teases: there is a very powerful wizard but not in the vain of Gandalf or Harry Potter, more in the vein of the character from Neil Gaiman's Books of Magic, as this story plays around with magical themes ultimate power and ultimate knowledge and who those two things can shape a person.  There is also a genie who grants some wishes to a boy, then the story follows the consequences of those wishes.  There are all kinds of magical fairy creatures as Cargill introduces all manner of fairy folk with some crazy, wild ideas that just set my mind ablaze with the concepts.  

Speaking of Neil Gaiman, this book is the book he's been trying to write for years but I don't think has.  After reading some of Gaiman's books (his novels not his graphic novels because his style of writing seems to fit more with comics than it does with novels and his Sandman series is hands down one of the best series I've ever read) Cargill's writing style is very similar to Gaiman's but his storytelling abilities are a lot more focused.  Gaiman's writing style for novels seems to be rather schizophrenic I've noticed.  I think his mind seems more at home in comic medium, which is completely fine with me.  Cargill has found the balance Gaiman has been looking for as his writing and pacing are great, making this book a good read and well worth your time.

Bad Teacher

Bad Teacher directed by Jake Kasdan, starring Cameron Diaz, Justin Timberlake, and Jason Segel.

This was a first time in a long time I had a comedy weekend of watching movies.  For those of you who don't know I'm not that huge a fan of comedies, especially comedies made now-a-days because they seem to rely too much on shock or gross-out humor instead of subtly and wit.  I watched This is The End, The Heat, and Bad Teacher.  The worst one by far was Bad Teacher, while the other two were well worth the time it took to watch them, with The Heat being the best of the three.  But back to the focus of the review and I can tell you why I didn't fully buy into this movie.

The main reason is the main character Cameron Diaz plays.  I could never sympathize with her throughout the movie.  Her character had nothing I liked about her and I couldn't understand her character from the viewpoint of the movie.  She was a school teacher yet acted nothing like a college educated person and I couldn't really tell what she taught.  I think it was English, in fact the more I think about now, I'm sure it was English, but from what I know about English majors and Literature majors, Cameron Diaz didn't act like one at all.  I wonder how she even graduated from college, because, like I said above, she didn't act like teacher or even someone who had a four year degree.  She was shallow and extremely superficial, to a fault.  She cheated, stole, and manipulated without any form of scruples or conscience.  I felt more sorry for the so called "villain" of the movie because at least her motivation was justified for the good despite the fact she was supposed to be working against the main "hero".  

One of the easiest movies to compare this film with is School of Rock and I feel the comparisons are justified.  The story line is somewhat similar, only in School of Rock Jack Black's character actually wanted to help the kids he was teaching, and in Bad Teacher Diaz seems to do everything but teach the students in her class.  In fact the screenplay goes to great lengths to show how much she doesn't care, and I can say this, if she doesn't care, that was the same feeling I had towards her.  This can be contrasted with Black's character because when he started to care for the students in his class, it helped me care for him.  

The best part of this movie was Jason Segel.  He stole every scene he was in and completely brightened up the movie when he entered it.  Even Justin Timberlake was funny and nerdy in his role and it has been interesting watching him grow as an actor because I honestly didn't think he was going to make it.  I can admit when I was wrong about someone.

This is the End

This is the End written and directed by Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg, starring Seth Rogen, Jay Baruchel, James Franco, Jonah Hill, Danny McBride, Craig Robinson, and Emma Watson.

There isn't much to say about this movie...but I'll just say I enjoyed it as the comedy it was and had a good time watching it.

This movie doesn't have much of a storyline but instead relies on the charisma of the actors playing themselves in this apocalyptic movie and for the most part this movie wholly succeeds.  I found it funny as all of the actors weren't shy about poking fun at themselves and didn't hold anything back.  By doing this they really helped to connect with the audience as they presented themselves with good moments followed by moments of them being jerks.  This helped to humanize them as they didn't put on Gwenth Paltrow airs, but made themselves be real people with real problems despite the fact they get paid large amounts of money for really doing nothing that adds much to society - which they even comment on in the movie. 

It is an odd movie because like I said above there isn't much of a storyline as the movie relies a lot on viewer's knowledge of the actors, the inside jokes that happens between them, and the viewer's knowledge or preconceived views of the actors.   Danny McBride being a prime example of this as he plays upon his persona as viewed through movies, which isn't a good a one, but he completely plays it up and interjects some much needed masculine energy into the movie when he shows up.  Every actor plays themselves in this movie and the first act of the movie is an Easter egg bonanza of movie knowledge, movie references, and movie inside jokes.  I've got to say it was pretty funny.  Emma Watson does a good job blowing up her sweet nature role in Harry Potter as she swears up a storm...though in a justified way so as not to completely ruin her persona.  That is one of the best thing about this movie how the actors don't shy away from poking fun at themselves, which is refreshing to see as they didn't take themselves too seriously.  This is something Tom Cruise has had a hard time doing in his movies as he always seems to portray himself a bad ass with all kinds of women in the movie falling themselves over to get to him.  Even when we get actors or actresses downplaying themselves: Tome Cruise, Julia Roberts, Gwenth Paltrow, or Tom Hanks there always seem to be a falseness to it that doesn't quite ring true.  But with all the actors in this movie it doesn't feel that way, it honesty feels more genuine.  This is one of the things that I thinks helps to sale the humor in this movie. 

It is also one of the few comedies I've seen in a long time that doesn't let the humor of scenes go on for a long time.  There was only one scene where this happened and it did help to hurt the pace of the movie, but one scene out of the whole movie, isn't that bad.  Other than that This is The End didn't over stay its welcome in the humor department and did its best to put the characters at the forefront of the movie.

The Heat

The Heat directed by Paul Feig, starring Sandra Bullock and Melissa McCarthy.

This is a movie that was going to live or die by the chemistry of the two stars because the premise harkens back to the good old days of the Lethal Weapon series and 48 Hours, only this time the two leads are women instead of men.  I will say this the chemistry between Bullock and McCarthy hold up remarkable well and made this one of funniest movies I've seen in a long time.  Both women do a great job.  Bullock plays the by the book, no rules breaking FBI agent (essentially playing the Murtaugh role) with the likableness that's expected of her.  McCharthy plays the crazy, wild, hard as nails cop (essentially the Riggs role) that's filled with fire.  She really enlightens every scene she's in with the same amount of energy as Mel Gibson brought to his role as Riggs in Lethal Weapon. 

The story line is one told countless times: two polar opposite cops team up, they start out disliking each other but become friends by the end of the movie.  All of that is alright, I don't mind a recycled story line but just give me something to care about with the characters.  The Heat does as it interjects a lot of personality and little depth into the two main characters, believe me this goes a long way into helping these two characters bond.  One of the absolute best things is how they incorporate McCarthy's character's family into the movie because it really helps to flesh out her character while adding some side splitting hilarious scenes.

This movie doesn't rely on over-the-top actions instead most of the movie reminded me of 48 Hours which also relied on the chemistry between Nolte and Murphy, not explosions and fight scenes.  The Heat is all the better for doing that, as it really creates two characters for the audience to care about and root for while the movie moves along.  Most of the comedy in this movie is not over played but is paced just right never letting things go for a long time but staying focused on the characters and the story line.  None of the scenes seemed added just for adding the scene just to be funny but they all were connected with the character or story line in some way xx, so they were funny but were important to what was going on.  This has become a hard thing to balance in a lot of comedies now-a-days, as the improvisations of comedians seem to outweigh storytelling and character.  There are a lot of comedies where ad-libbing makes scenes, pacing, and the movie seem longer than they need to be and really disrupt things.  This hurts they over all the product being sold.  The Heat is the polar opposite of this and it was refreshing to see a movie that made me care about the characters and not only care about them but want to spend more time with them because there is going to be a sequel.  Much like the Lethal Weapon movies the story lines became secondary as it was fun watching the characters and their family grow throughout that series.  I can this series doing the same thing if they stay focused on the characters and let them grown throughout the series and I for one would welcome that.  It would be fun to watch.

Planes

Planes by Disney not Pixar.

There's not much to say about this movie other than if you liked Cars you will like this movie.  It's cut from the same mold but didn't have near the depth of Cars's storyline.  Cars is one movie, at least for me, that got better the more I saw it and with kids you end up seeing these kinds of movies over and over and over.  I don't think Planes will have that sustaining power of Cars but in the end it was entertaining.  It didn't try anything new and basically had the follow your heart type of storyline that seems to be at the heart of most kids movie.  So if you're looking for a good time with the family, you can't really go wrong with this movie.

Munich

Munich directed by Steven Spielberg, starring Eric Bana, Geffory Rush, Daniel Craig, and Ciaran Hinds.

The storyline of Munich is historically based on the Black September massacre of Israeli people during the 1972 Olympics, the Israeli assassins who track down the terrorists and kill them.

This is an easy movie to summon up: it's a good film trying to be great but is by no means a great film.  I found it entertaining and I believe that can mostly be traced to the actors in this movie who really helped it to be better than sum of its parts.  Bana, Rush, Craig, and Hinds truly help this movie along considering it's directed by Spielberg.  Spielberg's last great movie was Schindler's List, since then everything he's done has been over long, reaching for Oscar glory, or politically motivated.  He needs to get back to just making movies because his passion for movies has drained out of his previous movies leaving them as good movies but no where great.  Munich suffers from this and for the first time in a long time the actors are the ones who rescue a movie.

This movie is polished, extremely polished, from a visual perspective, which doesn't hurt on the eyes as I watched it and only helped to make it entertaining.  Spielberg helped to bring the financing for this movie, I'm sure, so the sets, production, costumes, and visual movement of the camera is a lot better than most movies.  But like most Spielberg movies, post Schindler's List, Munich fails to fully engage the storyline and characters with the viewer as it works out its morality play.  The characters never become more than cliche and just when their about to go beyond their two dimensional character the movie interjects some grandstanding preaching that pulls them back as people, which leaves them nothing more than empty cardboard cut outs.  The movie wants to explore some deeps themes but instead of focusing on characters and letting them move through the story, the movie lets the themes move the characters, which is never a good idea.  Unfortunately this distant connection with the characters never leaves the movie, like I said above only the actors charisma and ability actually bring these characters to life, with no help from the screenplay.  I find that funny because I never wanted to see this movie until I found out the actors who were in it.  Even then I said they will  help to make this a good movie despite how the direction or screenplay turns out.  I knew they would make it a entertaining, and well they did. 

So if you're a fan of Eric Bana, Geffory Rush, Daniel Craig, or Ciaran Hinds, you will enjoy this movie despite the long overlong run time, the sloppy script, disjointed tones, over use of themes versus characters, and feeling of preaching instead of telling a story.  The end result is still a good film trying to be great, instead of just a film trying to be a film and letting the chips fall where they may. 

After Eearth

After Earth directed by M. Night Shyamalan, starring Jaden Smith and Will Smith.

Well I have to admit I wasn't expecting much out of this movie when I watched it considering the output of Shyamalan movies, since his wonderful Sixth Sense, have been some of the worst films I've seen.  I've also got to admit I haven't seen a Shyamalan movie since his disastrous movie Lady in the Water.  So needless to say, this movie's expectation wasn't at all that good.  But I have a soft spot for anything science fiction and will ultimately give it a chance just based on that genre, despite any biased I might have for anything or anyone involved in the film. 

So after saying all of that I've got to admit this movie wasn't bad but it wasn't great either.  It definitely hit the middle ground of entertainment.  It was a mediocre B-film with some great production design and good special effects.  All of this added up to a movie that wasn't boring but wasn't spectacular either, which it should have been, I think. 

The movie gave me enough back story line that I wanted to know more about the type of society the characters lived in now.  I really wanted to know more about everything involved in there military, government, their culture.  I found it interesting as the screenplay gave me enough to chew on but didn't by any means fill me up on that knowledge, which by the end of the movie I was still hungry for more knowledge about their society.  I don't find too many movie able to do that now-a-days. 

This movie kind of played out like an episode of a TV series where the larger part of the storyline was in the background and this part of the TV series was the episode dealing with the crash on the planet and the survival of the main character as he or she learns about themselves based on that survival.  It really felt like a Star Trek episode told on a grander scale with way better special effects but the over all concept was the same. I really liked the science fiction part of this movie.  All of the sci-fi gadgets and concepts were pretty cool and fit into the movie without overburdening every scene with effects. 

This movie also had a humor that balanced out the seriousness of the subject matter, which has been a huge problem for sci-fi in general.  Sci-fi has become so serious and science focused it looses a lot of the humanity that the audience can connect with.  The humor in this movie helped to ground the characters a little more in reality.  This movie also established the characters way better than in sci-fi movies as it gave the audience a lot more to connect with than in normal sci-fi.  By doing this they focused more on the humanity of the characters letting the special effects and grand epic action
 scenes become secondary to the movie.  In this aspect of the movie Shyamalan's presence can be felt and for the first time in a long time, he's made a movie where he's not overshadowing himself but is just telling a story, which he has needed to do for a long time.  He's always been good at making characters and focusing on the human aspect of them but he's always let the story line get away from him as the movie progresses.  This is the one time, in a long time, that hasn't happened.  He's made a movie where the focus isn't on some twist or crazy idea but on the humanity of the characters and how they respond in the situation they're presented with. 

Like I said before this isn't a great movie but it's an entertaining movie and extremely focused on the subject matter, whereas most movies explain everything so much so that the story line gets lost.  Nothing like that happens in this movies, in fact the opposite happens.  If you're in the mood for a good B-movie that not going to tax your mind too much, than you can't go wrong with After Earth.

Europa Report

Europa Report directed by Sebastian Cordero, starring Sharlto Copley and Michael Nyquvist.

These are the kinds of movies I don't like but I went into this movie wanting to see it based on a bunch of reviews I'd read about this film, saying it was good.  This is basically a "found footage" film and it has all the trappings and everything else that goes with that.  I've only seen one "found footage" that was anything worth talking about, Chronicle.  Other than that most of these types of films seem to devoid of any all characters, tend to have little or no real camera angles at all, and tend to leave me wanting a lot more than the sum of all their parts.  Europa Report fits into the this category perfectly. 

I never got to know any of the crew that went on this mission so when they started dying off, I didn't really care because the movie never gave me anything to care for them.  This seems to be the case with most independent/low budget film.  They seem to ride an idea they have and put everything into that idea or they want to push an agenda and ride that agenda or they want to be edgy and arty and push everything into being shocking and pretentious/interpretive.  The end result being they always forget about the characters or story being told, not seeming to realize that the best way to get an idea across to a viewer is to create characters, have the viewer care about them, and then the idea will come across organically instead of feeling forced.

Europa Report isn't trying to be edgy, arty, or push any agenda, instead it just forgets to have an interesting idea and populate the story with some interesting characters.  This movie also falls prey to the scenario of smart people doing really dumb things, that make no sense and when they are doing them the viewer is just left shaking their head in disbelief (see the movie Prometheus for some insane examples of this).  Over all I found this movie boring as it didn't have enough story line to keep me compelled or interested.  The last half hour of this movie, which should have been the engaging part of the movie, I found myself writing some reviews and watching the movie as I did, because I just wasn't interested in what was going on.  Personally if you want to see a better film along the same subject as this film, I'd watch Danny Boyle's Sunshine and even though the third act of that film gets a little crazy, you won't care as much because he makes you invested into the characters, so you care about them and what happens to them. 

Resuce Dawn

Rescue Dawn directed by Werner Herzog, starring Christian Bale, Steve Zahn, and Jeremy Davies.

You kind of know what you're getting into when you watch this movie and that's not a bad thing because when I started watching this movie I expected to watch it over two nights but then I got sucked into the story and watched it all in one night.  It's a POW movie set during the Vietnam war where the POW's escape, so there's not really going to be much else to go on story line wise.  This is definitely a movie that is the polar opposite of The Great Escape but like The Great Escape, Rescue Dawn is also based on a true story and that is about where the similarities end.

Where as The Great Escape had a huge ensemble cast, Rescue Dawn focuses on one character.

Where as The Great Escape was a more fun movie to watch, Rescue Dawn is more brutal and realistic. 

Where as The Great Escape is more epic in nature, Rescue Dawn is more intimate and on a smaller scale.

The one thing I didn't expect from this movie was the violence, brutality, and realism depicted but all of that really helped to create a world that sucked me into and sympathize with the main character.  Herzog does a great job of creating the world Dieter Dengler found himself thrown into and then had to will himself to survive.  His direction helps to drive the narrative home without being flashy or over-the-top, but is subtle without relying solely on visuals and interpretation to drive home the story line (I'm talking to you Terrance Malick).  He's a great communicator of story and character and never once did I feel lost at to what was going on and the only time did was when it fit into the story line as the main character Dengler was also lost as to what was going on.  His direction of the jungle when Dengler escapes was vivid, entangling, as well as being lush, beautiful, and full of color.  This just added to the savagery and force of the nature surrounding Dengler.

Ultimately though this seems like another movie for Christian Bale to showcase, not just what a good actor he is, but to what lengths he will go through (physically) for a part see: The Machinist, The Fighter, The Batman trilogy, or American Psycho.  I really wonder how his body is going to hold up over time and he continues to fluctuate between thin and muscular with an ease that is startling and scary to watch.  He does a great job at his character and wholly brings him to life and the story line doesn't shy away from things that make Dengler kind of jerk, which (in my opinion) adds a lot more weight to the story and character and help to make him feel real. 

Like I said before you know what you're getting into when you watch this movie.  It's a movie about POW's who escape a prison camp but how it's told makes it worth while to watch.

The Conjuring

The Conjuring directed by James Wan, starring Patrick Wilson, Vera Farmiga, Ron Livingston, and Lili Taylor.

I love it when a small budget movie comes out of nowhere, dominates the box office, makes a ton of cash, and then leaves Hollywood scratching its collective head wondering why this happened.  Well I can tell them why it happened, but they will never understand nor do they really want to understand or they would be making more movies like this.  Before I get to far into this review, I will just say go out and watch this movie.  It is this good and deserves every amount money it earned because it earned the dollars honestly and without the blessing of Hollywood.

How good is this movie?

It's very good.  It harkens back to the good old days of Hollywood making horror movies, or for that matter, any movies any general.  This movie feels like a movie made in the 70's and it's all the better for it.  It is a horror movie but doesn't rely on over the top gory scenes or over the top blood drenched scenes, instead it uses the good old fashioned way of presenting horror.  It relies on what it doesn't show and lets the imagination of the viewer imagination far worse things than it could ever show.  Old school horror is so much better than anything these "new" directors are making now.  This movie mixes elements of the original Haunting with The Exorcist in a beautiful way, to create a movie that feels original yet familiar at the same time, not too many movies can do this or do this with such ease.  A lot of credit has to be given to James Wan.  His direction is superb even in the non horrifying scenes.  He doesn't use any clever camera tricks or editing to convey horror but uses the old school way of making the horrific terrifying and it works wonderfully.  And his direction of each family in this movie brings an intimate, closeness that really helps to draw the viewer into the world and story he's telling.

Some other things I think helped to make this movie storm the box office and ultimately as good as it turned out, at least for me.

Despite all of the horrific things that happen in this movie, it is a very family centric movie where the core family values are front and center through out.  This isn't a movie that is trying to break down the walls that make a family.  This isn't a movie that's trying to push some kind of political agenda against the family.  This is a movie that supports everything that makes a family, a family.  A mother, a father and the kids that flow from that relationship are what make a family, a family.  This is a movie that goes against everything Hollywood has been trying to break down over the last few decades on what makes a family, a family.  The Conjuring also fully supports a loving marriage between a man and woman, not a man with a man or a woman with a woman, but a husband a wife.  There just isn't enough movies out there that have this as a main focal point, instead many movies seem to want to destroy any notion of a loving relationship between a husband and wife.  This movie fully supports it and not in a wife being totally submissive to the husband way either, but in both of them taking a part in the relationship and sharing responsibilities.  I like the fact that this movie presents not just one family and one marriage as an example, they have two families and two marriages as an example.  That is one bold move and I think it paid off as it just so happens the people in America voted with their wallets and really connected with this movie, a family movie.  I also like how The Conjuring doesn't present a perfect family or a perfect marriage but a family and marriage that has problems but are still able to work through those problems without just giving up and throwing in the towel.  I think this also helped people to connect with this movie as it showed people who were willing to work through problems instead of not dealing with them, which is what our society seems more built upon now-a-days.

Lastly, The Conjuring is a very spiritual movie, one where God does exist and isn't just some innocent bystander watching everything going on from the distant realm where He lives.  And He doesn't just sit around with His feet propped up on a coffee table watching people suffer.  He works through people to get His job done.  This movie presents God and spirituality in a way that Hollywood is totally confused about and will never understand.  But I like how The Conjuring presents all of the spirituality in an honest way.  Not a way that is demeaning or poking fun at it but a real non-biased way, which is something Hollywood never does because in Hollywood spirituality is only to be mocked and made fun of, where it's principles and values are beat up on a regular basis.  Not so in The Conjuring, in this movie the values of spirituality and God are never mocked or made fun of they brought front and center throughout the movie and make up the foundation of everything that happens within the movie.

In case you couldn't figure out, I really liked this movie and everything about this movie, from the acting, the directing, the set designs, the story lines, the characters, the themes, everything connected in a good way and made this movie worth seeing.

Olympus Has Fallen

Olympus Has Fallen directed by Antoine Fuqa, starring Gerard Bulter, Aaron Eckhart, Morgan Freeman, Angela Bassett, and that one Asian guy who always plays bad guy movies.

First off this is a totally absurd idea for a movie.  But if you're going to have an absurd idea for a story line, you might as run with it and go for broke, which means go full on absurdity.  This movie does, it pushes all the chips in.  Two things whole hardheartedly save this film from falling over the absurdness of the story line, that is the characters and the actors playing the characters.  Also this movie isn't out to make a statement about politics or politicians, it sets out to be a good action movie,and well it succeeds at this.  This is basically what you would pitch as Die Hard in the White House, that's pretty  much the bare bones of everything in this movie.

As I said earlier, two things save this movie and help it to be much more than the sum of its parts: the characters and the acting.   This is something I've noticed over the years with books and movies, no matter what kind of crazy, insane, absurd, or good story line you have, if you put some good characters into those story lines they will help them breath and will help people actually care about what is going on.  This movie is living proof of this.  Gerard Butler completely sells the action man scenario and embodies the Bruce Willis role with ease.  He's funny when he needs to be, cracking wise with the best of them but yet he's brutal and ruthless when the situation calls for it.  It's like watching Liam Nesson, in Taken all over again.  Butler also plays his character with smarts and gives him a charm that makes him completely likeable from the moment you see him on screen.  Morgan Freeman, is well Morgan Freeman.  I don't believe he can play a bad part even in a bad movie because there's just something about him that's interesting.  Aaron Eckhart proves once again what an actor he is, despite not being one of the main characters in this movie, he still brings a life to the president of the United States.  Angela Bassett proves once again that Halle Berry winning an Oscar, while she has none, is an epic fail on Hollywood's part.

Antoine Fuqa's direction is actually the third thing that helps this movie rise above the absurdness into the entertaining category.  His direction is actually a thing to behold as he helps to give everything a truly authentic feel.  His crisp, flowing direction never gets lost in the actions scenes or action set pieces.  His communication with the audience during the action is competent and clear, I never felt lost as to what was happening when hell breaks loose during those scenes.  And he doesn't result to the over use of the hand held camera, because, you know he actually directs the scenes without letting shaky cam take over.  He's in charge and he knows it.  I think he also helped to bring the brutality of Training Day into character Butler plays, and if he did, it truly helped to make his character all the more engaging and interesting.  As Butler's character fights to stay alive not to play around, when he has a chance to kill, he does it, ruthlessly and without reproach.  This movie is all the better for it. 

This is entertainment on an absurdly high scale.  But with characters you actually care about, embodied by actors and actresses, who aren't the A-list starts but are some really good character actors, that help bring them to life.  You follow all of that up with a good director and you got one good entertaining movie for the night.  Enjoy.

Pacific Rim

Pacific Rim written and directed by Guillermo del Toro, starring Charlie Hunnam, Diego Klattenhoff, Idris Elba, Rinko Kiluchi, and Ron Perlman, who seems to be in every film directed by del Toro since Hellboy.

This is one of the easiest films to break down I've ever done: giant robots fight giant monsters.

If you go into this film expecting anything more than this, then you are stupid.  Let me repeat the story line again, in case you missed it the first time: giant robots fight giant monsters.  You can't go into this movie over thinking anything about it because if you do, logically this movie won't hold up, but the whole point of this movie is to have fun.  There's nothing magical about the story line.  Nothing super special with the story line.  No mystery to this story.  No crazy ending twists to be found here.  This is just a movie about giant robots beating up giants monsters.  And from a nerd standpoint this movie delivers on every promise of giants robots beating up giants monsters.

Guillermo del Toro is an interesting filmmaker as he seems to be one of the few directors out there who has hasn't lost his way when it comes making movies that stir up fan boys and fan girls hearts.  He always seems to deliver when he makes these kinds of movies.  He hasn't let the Hollywood system steal his soul like it has done to Spielberg, Lucas, and Cameron.  His movies still have plenty of heart, joy, and passion oozing out from every frame without every loosing that little spark of life from being a fan.

Pacific Rim delivers on every promise of that simple premise: giant robots fighting giant monsters.  The robots are very cool looking and singularly unique in design.  Along with having their counterpart pilots be as diverse as the robots.  This is a totally outlandish story line but del Toro introduces enough things about the robots and their pilots to make their story interesting.  I like the fact he doesn't go overboard on the pilots' history.  He goes just far enough and then pulls back the reigns before it gets to sappy or overly dramatic annoying: see Star Trek Into Darkness for not knowing when to let up on story line and personnel back history clashing with action scenes.  Del Toro for the most part seems to know how to balance those to out, after all he did well enough with both Hellboy movies and I didn't expect anything less from him with this movie.  Even the monster designs were very individualistic as they all had a basic design but had their unique things as well without having to steal from Jurassic Park (American Godzilla I'm talking you).

Another thing I liked about this movie was the small details of the production design: from the sets, costumes, and even CGI.  Those small details were making everything in this battle worn world look broke down, scratched, paint peeling, and generally well used.  Unlike most CGI stuff today that has a super polished looked to the point where it looks fake (Star Wars prequels and Hobbit, I'm talking to you).  The world of Pacific Rim looks lived in.  These robots would never have a new paint job on them and would be severely scarred from their many fights with the giant monsters.   I like how del Toro incorporated this into the movie because for me it just  helped to make this movie a little more likable.  The world I live in is not super polished.  It's a blue collar world and the world of Pacific Rim is a blue collar world through and through and del Toro makes sure this movie wears that world on its sleeve with pride. 

Now the acting is every bit as one would expect with a del Toro movie.  All the actors and actresses buy into the world he is building and run away with it like kids in a candy store, much the same way as del Toro does when he makes a movie.  They seem to be having a lot of fun with the whole concept of (and I'll say it one more time) giant robots fighting giant monsters.  All in all I had a great time watching this movie.  It was funny when it needed to be and it was dramatic when it needed to be without diving into the over melodramatic.  

Charlie Bartlett

Charlie Bartlett directed by Jon Poll, starring Anton Yelchin, Robert Downing, Jr, Hope Davis, and Kat Dennings.

There's not really much to say about this film.  It's just a fun movie that's lite on the comedy and lite on the drama but mixes them together well enough to make a movie that's quite entertaining.

It's a typical Hollywood movie about fitting in, coming to find and understand who you are as a person.  There's really nothing about this film that shouts originality.  I could easily compare this movie with another movie I watched a few months ago, The Perks of Being a Wallflower.  They both kind of have this same theme running through it but Wallflower is a standout film whereas Batlett has a clone mentality to it that doesn't really try anything new.  


Everything about this movie hangs on the shoulders of the actor, Anton Yelchin, who plays Charlie Bartlett and he serves the movie well as he helps to make Charlie an interesting character and very likeable, which is Charlie's main goal in like anyhow. The other thing that helps this movie along is all the other actors and actresses.  They really lend a hand in this movie being entertaining.  If you're just looking for something light weight for the night to digest you can't go wrong with this movie as it will entertain you for a good 90 minutes.  This is a movie about the main character wanting want to fit in and be liked by everyone, the movie honestly fits in all too well with the other movies of its genre. 

Amores Perros

Amores Perros directed by Alejandro González Iñárritu, starring Emilio Echevarria, Gael García Bernal, Vanessa Bauche, Goya Toleo, and Alvaro Guerrero.

The title of this movie in Spanish is "Love is a Bitch".

This a multiple arch story line with, at the minimum, five main characters, with three story lines all interconnecting with a horrific car accident.  Two things connect all the characters and the story line: love and dogs.  This movie has a lot of connections with other movies just based on how the movie is set up.  The multiple characters and story arcs reminded me of Short Cuts, Magnolia, and Pulp Fiction.  But the one film it has the most in common with is Pulp Fiction.  

This movie has a Pulp Fiction kind of vibe to it and Pulp Fiction's style is all over this movie, but it's no where as intriguing as Pulp Fiction.  The production, design, and for the mast part how this movie is shot is very similar to Fiction.  It has low budget, down in the trenches mentality that add a lot to the story being told.  This movie is not great but it's good enough that the 2 and 1/2 hour run time didn't pass by slowly.

The only thing that really hurts this movie is the lack of intriguing characters, where as Pulp Fiction's characters really helped to make that movie flow (even though I'm not a huge fan of it, it did have some interesting scenes).  There isn't a lot of sympathetic characters in this movie and when things happen to them, I don't feel sorry for them because of their decisions beforehand.  The sign of a good writer is how they can make an unlikeable character either likeable or sympathetic by showing them in scenes that don't wash over how unlikeable they are but shows some inner humanity lurking within them.  Amore Perros doesn't ever really do this, which is the one failing of the movie.  Ultimately though it's an interesting movie if you're in the mood for a movie that is quite the opposite of what Hollywood is producing.

Mr. Brooks

Mr. Brooks written and directed by Bruce A. Evans, starring Kevin Costner, William Hurt, Demi Moore, Dane Cook, and Marg Helgenberger.

This is kind of like a movie version of Dexter and has a lot of similarities with Dexter as the main story line deals with a serial killer balancing his normal daily life of work and family with that of his addiction: killing people.  Only in Mr. Brooks, he kills innocent people whereas in Dexter, Dexter preys on other serial killers or criminals in general.  Ultimately Costner plays an unlikable character but the story shows enough of him in normal life - with his family (wife and daughter) and at work - that his character begins to earn sympathy.  Now I won't say everything in the screenplay works but it works enough to make the storyline interesting and works enough to make me actually care about Costner's character.  But don't get me wrong this story is a dark dive into a violent world that is made all the more enlightening by some good acting and a screenplay that actually cares about the characters.  This is a dark world Mr. Brooks takes us through but one I was ultimately intrigued in once the movie started.

This movie is stylish, glossy, and very easy on the eyes.  The production and set designs completely help to pull the viewer into Mr. Brooks' world as they help to make the dark subject matter a little more attainable.  I can't emphasize this enough about the production and set designs for this movie as they both enhance the story with some direction that more than serves the story without being flashy.  Everything works towards making the story line and characters the forefront of the movie and everything succeeds with that mission statement.

One of the boldest moves of the screenplay is having Mr. Brooks' inner Id take part in conversations with him.  On screen this works in wondrous ways as William Hurt embodies the Id, known as Marshall.  Marshall can only be seen and heard by Mr. Brooks, so every scene they are in together with anyone else, it's all in Mr. Brooks head, which leave Costner and Hurt to do some fine acting playing off of each other beautifully, even if there's another person in the scene with them.  This also helps Costner a lot as well as the majority of his best movies have him acting opposite some very good actors - Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, JFK, Waterworld, The Untouchables, Dances with Wolves, Wyatt Erp, Thirteen Days, and list goes on and on as his best movies always have him teamed up with a really good actor or actors.  This movie is no different with William Hurt, as his inner ID, and  Marg Helgenberger, as his wife.  They both help Costner to play Mr. Brooks with a detachment associated with a serial killer. I don't why this is with Costner because I don't think he's a great actor but he does a competent job when teamed up with great or very good actors. 

Demi Moore has the oddest job in this movie.  The screenplay uses her as a visual aide to guide the reader into the world of the serial killer Mr. Brooks, but if this part had been played by someone else I don't think it would have been as effective.  Moore makes her character come alive and does help the movie out despite a part that, for all attempts and purposes, doesn't really serve much place in the story line or the screenplay and feels forced when her world and Mr. Brooks' world come together.  This part of the story line seems rather contrived to me but considering how crazy everything else is in the movie I can actually buy into this a little bit and wasn't really annoyed at it. Her character seems more at home in an episode of Law and Order than here in a movie where Mr. Brooks' characters and psyche is being explored. At times her character and role in the story line seem like they're from a different movie - more like Clarice Starling from Silence of the Lambs - but her character never reaches the depth of Starling even though there is plenty of room for it.  Mr. Brooks is the main focal point of the movie but, as I said above, Moore does a good job making her character come alive and making her interesting enough that I wouldn't mind seeing more of the character in another movie.

Another aspect of this movie I like is how the story line weaves through some interesting aspects that rise up to challenge Mr. Brooks.  How he responds to these challenges is interesting as they both offer some pin point insight into his life and help to flesh out his character all the more.  But these instances also reenforce the fact that Mr. Brooks is predator and sees the world through a predator's eyes.  He is and always will be a serial killer.  It is his addiction.  It is part of his life and this movie offers the viewer a glance into his world.

Frailty

Frailty directed by Bill Paxton, starring Matthew McConaughey and Bill Paxton.

I've wanted to see this movie when it came out in 2001 but I just never got around to seeing it for various reasons, but now, twelve years later, I finally got to see it.  And what a little gem of movie it turned out to be.  Time has been extremely good to this movie as it doesn't rely on over-the-top special effects, gory scenes dependent on super violent blood shed, nor gallons up on gallons of blood spraying from the body in all kinds of various ways.  Instead this movie heralds back to the good old days of Hollywood where story line and characters were used in a movie. 

I would classify this movie as a low budget movie and if all low budget movies could aspire to be like this one, then low budget movies could easily be something great instead of the pretentious, agenda pushing, and shocking values they've become.  They forget to tell an actual story and become so focused on delivering a message and interpretation that they become lost to what actually makes a movie, good and that is (to repeat the phrase again) storyline and characters.

Frailty is never, for one second, lost to the confines that have shackled low budget film making for so long, as the pacing and story telling keep things rolling along with never a dull moment. Despite the grim, brutal subject matter of a father who hears the voice of God telling him to kill people and then bringing his sons along to apprentice them in delivering the justice of God to people, the movie remains a highly spiritual affair that doesn't mock or make fun of Christianity or God.  A few twists do abound as the movie starts to wrap up but the story is never obsessed with them and they aren't the driving force of the movie.  The driving force of the movie is, honestly, Matthew McCaughey as he tells an FBI agent how his life changed when his father heard God's voice to kill people.  And the story he unfolds is engrossing and mesmerizing as delivered in McCaughey's southern droll, with each word he completely drew me in as he peeled the story of his childhood away layer by layer. 

What a job Bill Paxton did of directing.  I'm not going to say he was super great but he was competent and assured in away most film makers seem overtaken with everything or wanting to show off when they don't need to.  He just let the story line and characters do their job as he got out of the way and communicated to the audience in a mature way.  There isn't anything flashy in the direction or editing of this movie and there didn't need to be because the story line didn't need it.  Paxton knew this and let the story line and characters be the focal point of the movie.  The movie does have a television type of feel to it but that is only because the budget didn't help with this but Paxton doesn't let that get in his way from telling a compelling story, which is what any good director would do, never let the limitations of the budget be a crutch. 

Overall this a good movie dealing with a dark and grim subject matter but looking at it in a mature way as they story doesn't pander or talk down to audience. 

The Croods

The Croods starring the voices of Nic Cage, Emma Stone, Ryan Reynolds, and Catherine Keener.

I will tell you this, since Pixar started making cartoon movies the bar has been set very high with anyone else trying to attempt to make kid movies.  Dreamworks and Blue Sky are two of the companies that have taken the standard Pixar has set and ran away with it producing some of the best movies, not just cartoon movies, but movies in general on a consistent basis: Megamind, Despicable Me 1 & 2, Shrek (don't really like the sequels to this movie but the first one still stands a genre setter), Ice Age movies, Rio, Hoton Hears a Who, Madagascar, and Epic.  They produce sequels that actually expand on the story line without rehashing the same old, same old just to cash in, but don't get me wrong, they do cash in.  Only this time around instead of the normal Hollywood formula of just churning out a sequel without any real thought to the characters or storyline, these studios actually seem to care about the characters and storyline.  Not that The Croods is a sequel but the care that is given to the characters and storyline is clearly on display here.

The storyline is a universal theme of overcoming fear, discovery of the unknown, and ultimately a journey type of quest - going from point A to point B.  First off, I don't normally like these journey type of quests because they become bogged down in the surroundings and epic-ness of everything else that actual characters and characters development get forgotten in the visuals.  Not so with The Croods, characters and dialogue are the primary focus of this movie, so much so that the journey from point A to point B becomes secondary to the film.  These are just some interesting characters and watching them change as the story line progresses is one of the fun aspects of the movies.  This movie also proves the fact that a simple storyline doesn't matter if the characters inhabiting that storyline are interesting, they can carry it where ever the story goes.  No matter how insane or crazy the storyline gets, it won't matter because the characters will be there to guide the storyline, and if they are interesting enough, they will carry it with ease.  The characters in The Croods are good, I won't say they truly amazing but they are strong enough to carry this movie and make it interesting.

The interaction between these characters is a delight to watch.  Hollywood could learn so much from cartoons now-a-days about interaction, character development, and real dialogue that helps with what I've just mentioned instead of just being filler material or plot material that really adds nothing to the story.  I also like the fact that as the characters learn things that would change their lives.  They actually change because of what they've learned, instead of just acting the same way they had before the knowledge came to them.  This type of progression is a delight to watch as it shows so much more intelligence and sophistication then is churned out by Hollywood.  Plus it treats the audience as smart instead of catering to the dumbness that Hollywood thinks the audience is.  

This is also one of the few family films to come out that actually has a whole family.  They don't treat each other as subhuman but their interaction rings with a truthfulness that helps connect them with the audience.  The mother and father have a loving relationship and, without going further into that, this movie actually has a mother and father something Hollywood seems to have forgotten exists.  But the main focus of the movie is on the oldest daughter, Eep, whose teenage changing, wanting to spread her wings, and desire to question things fully matches the movies changes to perfection, without being too preachy or in your face.  I know this theme has been over done but it's a universal theme, one that's easily connected with audiences, but it's the characters of this movie that really help everything to flow so that the theme feels new and fresh. 

Now I won't say the visuals aren't spectacular because they are, but they are the side note to the characters and storyline.  This is one of the few journey movies where the settings and set pieces are epic in nature but yet don't feel forced or so over-the-top that they become lost in their own indulgence.  They blend in with the storyline flawlessly.  I liked how the visuals of the movie went from brown and dark colors of the first act into the bright colors of the second and third act which really opened up the movie not just from a metaphorical standpoint but from a stand point that helped to mirror Eeps changing as well, as I mentioned above. 

This is a great film to watch with the kids and own in your movie collection.