Review: American Hustle

Sony Pictures Releasing

American Hustle essentially unites director/writer David O. Russell's last two films, The Fighter and Silver Linings Playbook. The combined cast includes Amy Adams and Christian Bale from Fighter and Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence from Silver Linings. Not to mention new-comers to Russell's casting, Jeremy Renner and Louis C.K. among others. In this way, you could say both films were a build up to the overwhelmingly acclaimed American Hustle.

But beyond the casting, we see Russell perform at his finest and witness a fantastic development of the kind of characters and storytelling we've seen him working towards these past few years. Both Fighter and Silver Linings feature characters at once at odds with those around them and uncertain about themselves and what they are trying to achieve. In the same way, Hustle features a cast of random characters on a mission that is more about proving something to themselves rather than any monetary or physical gain.

Review: Anchorman 2

Paramount Pictures

It's been 9 years, and through all those years we've been constantly teased by the possibility of a sequel to the highly successful and hilarious Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy. The move premiered at what was arguably the height of Will Farrell's career and made the likes of Steve Carrell and Paul Rudd even more popular with a wider audience. It's ridiculous slap-stick, crude, absurd, random humor followed closely on the heels of Elf and Zoolander and then was followed up by the likes of Dodgeball, Talladega Nights, and many others. But somehow, Anchorman always remained one of the most beloved among this style of comedy.

Suffice to say, Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues had a lot to live up to. Its mega-marketing campaign (including Farrell appearing on a local news station in North Dakota as Ron Burgundy and appearing in a random photo holding a 40 oz beer and a box of donuts) drove the excitement and expectation to a dizzying degree and made it next to impossible for the film to not make a bazillion dollars no matter what critics said. What's more, a whole host of celebrities were slotted to appear in the film (or rumored to), many of whom are former SNL stars like Farrell and Rudd. So, how does the legendary Ron Burgundy and his band of misfit anchormen fair in 1980's New York trying to make it on the first 24-hour news station?

Review: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

Warner Bros

As it so happened, the first Hobbit, An Unexpected Journey, came out before I decided to start writing reviews on my blog again. Thus, I missed my chance to lend my two cents in the form of a longer review, but since The Desolation of Smaug is the sequel to the said movie, I thought it would be best to give a very brief review of the first so as to set the stage for some comparison between the two films. For after all, a sequel is only as good in how it continues, expands, and enriches what the first began.

Over all, I thought the first film was quite charming, exciting, and endearing to those of us who have grown up reading The Hobbit or for those who have not. The visuals (especially in IMAX 3D and with the 48 ffps) were astounding and the lands, details, etc, were as rich as ever. It was fun to see bits and pieces of memorable moments from the books sprinkled throughout (for instance, the dwarves singing the wonderfully composed misty mountains song at Bag End, and Bilbo and Gollum's "riddle in the dark"), and even those that were ridiculously exaggerated but fun all the same (the stone giants come to mind). Martin Freeman as Bilbo and Richard Armitage as Thorin were very well cast, especially Freeman. Many fans seemed to have a problem with all the extra bits added to the story-line (Radagast, the giant, pale Orc with bad makeup, etc), and while it does make the movie feel a bit bogged down and distracted from the main point of the dragon, I for one don't mind them adding the extra content. Of course, they're doing so in order to stretch the book into 3 movies so they can make more money, but still, a movie is vastly different than a book and requires a lot more, obvious plot devices, problems, and development that is just common sense when you're reading. Because, after all, a book is made up of words, not images, sounds, music, dialogue, etc. My idea is that as long as the main point and plot points are communicated and enacted, I don't mind much what is added to or taken out of a movie adaptation of a book.

Review: Out of the Furnace

Relativity Media

The first trailers for Out of the Furnace had me really excited. A small-town American story of vengeance and family starring Christian Bale, Casey Affleck, Woody Harrelson, Sam Shepard, Forrest Whitaker, Zoe Saldana, and Willem Dafoe? Count me in! The settings and characters in the trailers looked like an awesome combination of the action and grittiness of Justified mixed with the sentimental, realistic portrayal of an old-fashioned, American life-style hearkening back to The Deer Hunter and following on the tale of a similar setting in Mud.

What's more, Out of the Furnace is director/writer Scott Cooper's follow up to his 2009 debut, Crazy Heart, which Cooper wrote, directed, and produced and starred Jeff Bridges and won Bridges the best actor Oscar. Out of the Furnace seemed to be heading in the same direction as Crazy Heart with intense characters, but this time around with more violence and a lot more at stake. The all-star cast also suggested hopes for Oscar season attention.

Review: Philomena

Twentieth Century Fox/The Weinstein Company

Going into Philomena, I thought I knew what to expect. A movie starring Judi Dench about a little, old Irish woman looking for the son who was taken away from her at the age of 16 and hasn't seen since sounded like a very melodramatic, touching piece of filmmaking that my Mom would love. So, of course I decided to see it with my Mom instead of Out of the Furnace (a review of that to come shortly!) because it looked too intense/dark for her. Besides, Steve Coogan co-stars as the reluctant journalist, Martin Sixsmith, who decides to help Philomena (Dench) search for her son in order to rebuild his recently shattered career, and I find Coogan generally very funny, entertaining, and a decent actor to boot. So why not?

I guess I should have remembered that Stephen Frears directed this one too. He's a veteran when it comes to drama, and not unused to grit and grim either as evidenced by Dirty Pretty Things and Dangerous Liaisons. But he's also accustomed to effectively portraying grief and subtle bewilderment as seen in The Queen, and Frears brings all of his talents together to deliver a very unexpected, more complex story with Philomena. 

Review: The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

Lionsgate Pictures

Well, finally getting around to writing a review of this one. I saw it the Monday after it came out in theaters, and I must admit that I don't have much at stake in this trilogy or the story hence my neglecting to write a review. Sure, the first film was quite good, and I was impressed with the performances and direction most of all. Jennifer Lawrence is always good and Lionsgate is quite lucky to have roped her into all three films (although she did increase her salary drastically after the first film's overwhelming success). I haven't read the books either, so knowing nothing about the series aside from the fact that it's a mish-mash of other stories (specifically Battle Royal) I was excited to find that I could enjoy the first film without already being a fan.

But of course, with a enormously successful start to a film series, the most pressure generally falls on the sequel. Early news had original director Gary Ross decline the offer to direct Catching Fire as well as a couple new writers taking the place of the old ones. Thankfully, Ross and the original team successfully established a specific look and feel to everything in Pan-Am (or however you spell it), so the new guys had a lot to work with the second time around. And of course, the whole original cast returned along with some more big names including Philip Seymour Hoffman and Jeffrey Wright. So as always, we wonder if the sequel will maintain and ideally improve on what the first began.

Review: Dallas Buyers Club

Focus Features

Much of this year and reaching back into 2012, film audiences have been stunned by the overhaul that is Matthew McConaughey. The pretty boy actor formerly known for taking his shirt off in every movie he was in and only producing chick flicks and romcoms took a couple years off from acting and came back with the proclamation that he was only going to take roles that "scared him." Many actors have said similar things, but none have had the turn-around we've seen from McConaughey. With Magic Mike, Killer Joe, and Mud, McConaughey has proven that he can handle roles outside of being shirtless including comedic ones but also dark, ruthless killers. With Martin Scorses' star-studded Wolf of Wall Street still to be released this Christmas, McConaughey seems to be putting everything he's got into winning an Oscar this year.

But first, we must consider Dallas Buyers Club, the movie many critics are saying could potentially win McConaughey the Oscar. The film received early attention due to behind-the-scenes shots of a shockingly emaciated McConaughey who underwent extreme weight loss to portray real-life AIDS victim Ron Woodroof. Like Robert De Niro, Christian Bale, and others before him, McConaughey seemed to be going the route of extreme body-makeover to draw even more attention to his new dedication to serious acting. Along with the overwhelmingly positive reviews, I eagerly awaited Dallas Buyers Club to be released in a city near me. I didn't expect too much from the movie as a whole, but I figured it'd be worth seeing for McConaughey's undoubtedly great performance. Because as many Oscar hopefuls have demonstrated in the past, often times a film doesn't have much more to offer other than an impacting protagonist.

Review: 12 Years a Slave

Fox Searchlight Pictures

The picture above is a still frame from a shot in 12 Years a Slave that lasts at least a full minute. The camera remains fixed on Solomon Northup's (Chiwetel Ejiofor) face as he simply stares. This shot occurs late in the film so the audience has already witnessed a host of atrocities committed against Solomon. You half expect the camera to cut away to reveal some horrendous sight or the beginning to a new scene, but it does not. Such a long, lingering shot of his downcast face forces the audience to try and imagine what he is feeling. Solomon was kidnapped from freedom with his family in New York and forced into slavery to suffer at the hands of several, very cruel slave owners. What could he possibly be thinking and feeling, nearly 12 years later?

In the end, we really cannot know. I think director Steve McQueen (Hunger, Shame) had this intention all along. He's mentioned in interviews how he wanted to make a realistic depiction of slavery and felt that Hollywood had not done a sufficient job up to this point. He came across the true story of Solomon, written by the man himself, and figured he'd finally found a story that would do justice to years and years of injustices against an entire race. It was a very ambitious plan, but McQueen's previous films more than demonstrate that he is an expert when it comes to directing highly emotional and intense content.

Review: Captain Phillips

Columbia Pictures

I was hesitant about Captain Phillips at first for a number of reasons. For one, I find many, recent "based on a true story" films unnecessary. Part of the reason being a clear attempt by Hollywood at jumping on the bandwagon of any recent, big news story. They rightly estimate that enough people will be curious enough to pay to see a cinematic rendition of something they saw plastered all over CNN and Fox News for weeks. And they do so out of sheer curiosity or the idea that they'll somehow learn something new from an often largely fictitious reenactment. Or, what I'll never understand, is that so many people actually go to see many movies solely based off of the "based on a true story" tagline because that makes a movie somehow "better" or more "worthwhile." I don't believe a movie, or story for that matter, loses any of its meaning or impact just because it happened once upon a time or it didn't. I don't know about you, but the movies and stories that have impacted me the most have been fiction. After all, most "true" stories aren't that at all. So, obviously, I had my reservations about Captain Phillips' largest claim to fame besides the presence of one of every American's favorite actor, Tom Hanks.

Secondly, I am not the biggest fan of Paul Greengrass' directing style. The Bourne Supremacy was Greengrass' first big hit as a director followed closely by United 93 and The Bourne Ultimatum. Greengrass' shaky-cam, quicking cutting (the average shot in The Bourne Supremacy is something like 1.5 seconds or 2 seconds long, I don't remember exactly but it's crazy short) style thrilled Bourne fans and is an effective, albeit easy, way of creating high tension and forcing the audience to focus as hard as they can on what the hell is going on. In the case of the Bourne films it was usually a matter of keeping track of who was still holding the knife in a very intense, hand-to-hand fight in a dirty hotel room in Berlin or something like that. Suffice to say, Greengrass' style, while definitely effective, is generally uncomfortable to watch. I much prefer smoother, more graceful styles of cinematography and editing. So, Captain Phillips also sounded like a rather unpleasant viewing experience that I'd rather not inflict upon myself.

Before Midnight and Living Life in a Straight Line

Sony Pictures Classics

Almost 20 years ago, we first met Celine (Julie Delpy) and Jesse (Ethan Hawke) in Before Sunrise in Vienna when Jesse runs into Celine on a train. The two begin to talk, there are obvious sparks, and they proceed to spend the whole evening and night together, but part ways in the morning. 10 years later, we see them again in Before Sunset when Jesse (now a successful author) is on a book tour stop in Paris and Celine comes to meet him again. Once again, they talk for the entire duration of the film and the film ends at Celine's apartment as the sun goes down. The ending is a bit ambiguous, but we can guess that the two finally decide to come together as a couple. 

And now, almost 20 years later, Before Midnight confirms where they left off. Jesse and Celine are together, they have twin girls, and Jesse's 14 year old son lives in Chicago with his ex-wife while he lives in Paris. The entire film follows Jesse and Celine as they begin vacation on the beautiful Peloponnese coast in Greece (some seriously beautiful scenery here) with some friends and take the first evening to walk to a hotel in the town nearby where they plan to spend a romantic evening. In true director Richard Linklater fashion and like the other films, Before Midnight consists of nothing but all the characters conversing, but there is never a dry moment. Every conversation is highly interesting, and yet feels very natural and real for all the characters and not just fashioned for the audience's enjoyment. Linklater is in top form in the masterfully handled long shots and directing of Hawke and Delpy who deliver fantastic performances. Linklater is definitely inspired by Woody Allen's unique ability to capture the awkwardness and complexity of human interaction, and he takes it one step further in the meaningful content that can be found in each one of the conversations we witness.

Review: Gravity

Warner Bros.

Ever since 2006's Children of Men, I've been on board with anything director Alfonso Cuaron does. Coupled with Emmanuel Lubezki's (a childhood friend of Cuaron's) amazing cinematography (using some jaw-dropping long-takes and handheld camera), Cuaron proved himself a master of directing suspenseful action but able to keep a hold of the humanity and depth of the characters. The only problem was that was back in 2006. Cuaron didn't make any feature film again till rumor of a project related to space or sci-fi of some sort surfaced back in 2011, and of course, now in 2013 we finally get Cuaron's next film, Gravity.

Early reports said that some serious special effects and 3D work were going to be involved in this project. And then it became known that Sandra Bullock and George Clooney were going to be the only stars of the film as astronauts involved in a space shuttle catastrophe who are launched, adrift, into space (basically a living nightmare for a lot of people right up there with drowning). A couple of things become apparent immediately. One, only two actors means more pressure on the actors and the script to keep the audience emotionally invested in the characters beyond just the action. Two, a whole host of potential factual inaccuracies as far as space stuff goes. Three, will the 3D work?

Review: Prisoners

Warner Bros.

At first, I was hesitant about whether or not Prisoners was going to be good or something I wanted to see. The trailers made it clear that the cast is going for Oscar nominations and promised a lot of intense, dark drama. Basically everything that an Oscar-bait movie tries to encompass which generally turns me off. On top of that, you have a topic like child abduction. A topic like that ranks among very few others in film that tend to try and shock and disturb audiences rather than construct a meaningful reason for delving into such a topic in the first place. Movies like Changeling and Gone Baby Gone have done it before, and even though Gone Baby Gone was a wonderfully directed and written film, it still felt unnecessarily heavy and dark. Other topics such as the Holocaust, war, etc, fall into the same category. Exploring these topics can quickly turn into a sort of exploitation and can be an easy way to create buzz around your film and gives actors a chance to show how distraught they can appear on screen. 

But then again, a cast of Hugh Jackman, Jake Gyllenhaal, Terrence Howard, Paul Dano, Viola Davis, Melissa Leo, and Maria Bello is super solid. Not to mention director Denis Villeneuve proved he could handle some very disturbing/intense content in the Oscar nominated foreign film, Incendies. And then Prisoners started getting positive early buzz from festivals, so I figured I better see it.

Review: One Direction: This is Us

TriStar Pictures

OK, so there is definitely a story behind this one. As I have hinted at in many of my reviews this Summer, I have had the wonderful convenience of seeing almost all of these movies for free, and that is all thanks to my friend Hannah (@HannahLovise on Twitter and DJ PunchHandz to her closest friends) who works at the local, giant Regal (she did, however, just recently give her two weeks which is sad for my free movie privileges). As payment for what amounts to probably around $100 in savings, she had one request: to see a movie that wasn't a "boy movie" (her words). I thought that Blue Jasmine counted as a not "boy movie," but apparently not enough. Thus, this is why you see the picture and the headline that you do. I had to see it, but I also had to review it. But wait! There's more to this story that heavily influenced my viewing experience and as a result this review: this is my and Hannah's journey.

A local Mexican restaurant favorite in Bellingham, WA, has an 11 AM - 5 PM happy hour, and wouldn't yah know it, but they have a location just across the street from the theater! So, naturally we decide to partake of such discounts. For seven hours before this I had been working at Starbucks where I had only had a smoothie and croissant of some sort to eat and like 5 shots of espresso, so I was going into this big mama margarita on basically an empty stomach and caffeine. After finishing it rather quickly interspersed with chips and salsa, I decided I wasn't feeling anything and went along with Hannah's decision to order another. Two sips into the second margarita and the first quickly begins to catch up. Let the giggling commence! We could hardly look at each other without laughing, and barely finishing our second drink, we left 5 minutes before the show started and walked (very briskly in the straightest line we could manage) over to the Regal to find an empty theater all to ourselves. And of course, we went for the 3D version. Therefore, we were seeing "1D in 3D" which just happens to sound like some sort of 3D porno. Whatever, we "let the margaritas speak," as Hannah said, and went with it.

Review: The World's End

Focus Features

Well guys, this is it: the end of the Cornetto Trilogy! Beginning with Shaun of the Dead, Nick Frost and Simon Pegg set out with director and good friend Edgar Wright to make a trilogy of movies about basically whatever they wanted. Shaun of the Dead, as the name suggests, was a zombie/horror parody with abundant fast, witty humor and quick cuts/editing (Wright's filmmaking trademark), but also with some legitimately dark moments. In the same way, Hot Fuzz was a parody of action/buddy cop movies with its main target being American, blockbuster action-fare (namely Michael Bay's Bad Boys II), but with some truly cool and entertaining action and directing. First news of the The World's End suggested that it would be a sort of sci-fi, apocalyptic parody, but whatever it would be, die-hard fans of the Pegg/Frost/Wright trio expected nothing but for the trilogy to go out with a bang.

Childhood friends Gary (Pegg), Andy (Frost), Steven (Paddy Considine), Peter (Eddie Marsan), and Oliver (Martin Freeman) once attempted a legendary "pub crawl" around the 12 pubs of their hometown in the early '90s, but fell 4 or 5 pubs short. Now, 20 years later, Gary, always the adventurous leader, convinces the rest to join in a quest to complete the pub crawl. Little do the 5 friends know that their quaint hometown has been secretly overrun by an alien presence! Thus, you have one ridiculous premise: a handful of drunk, middle-aged men trying to fight robots(that they call "Blanks")/aliens while attempting to complete a drinking game that is life threatening enough as it is (1 pint per pub, so that makes 12). So how does this stack up to the rest of the trilogy?

Review: Blue Jasmine

Sony Pictures Classics

Every year for as long as I can remember (so probably the last decade) we get a new movie written and directed by Woody Allen. They can be hit or miss for critics, but I tend to find most of them somewhere in-between with the occasional fantastic film. 2011's Midnight in Paris being the last really great one with Vicky Cristina Barcelona before that in 2008 with a handful of the 'meh' ones mixed in. I've always been a Woody Allen fan, but I did not pay much attention to Blue Jasmine during its production or early release besides when my brother and his girlfriend texted me to say they had seen Allen filming in San Francisco. So, I looked the movie up and was not surprised to find a typically stellar cast Allen always assembles consisting this time of Cate Blanchett, Sally Hawkins, Alec Baldwin, Louis CK, Andrew Dice Clay, Peter Sarsgaard, and more. I didn't look into the plot at all, so I had the rare opportunity of experiencing a movie without already having some considerable knowledge of it.

What kind of story would it be? With Allen, it's fairly simple as to what one can expect. Sometimes he tackles certain concepts or human struggles/enigmas such as with Match Point, Cassandra's Dream, Vicky Cristina Barcelona, and others, and sometimes he focuses on straight-up character studies as with Annie Hall, Hannah and Her Sisters, Manhattan, etc. Blue Jasmine definitely falls under the realm of character study as the story focuses on the sad life of Jasmine (Blanchett) and all the people her life has affected, generally for the worse.

What I'm Watching: The Great Gatsby

Warner Bros.

Why I watched it: I had no real interest in seeing this in theaters. The idea of once again adapting Fitzgerald's beloved novel about the elusive and empty "American Dream" didn't interest me, and the idea of Baz Luhrmann (Romeo+Juliet, Moulin Rouge) having creative control presented a whole host of other possible issues. For those of you familiar (obsessed) with Moulin Rouge, you know Luhrmann loves the grand and dramatic saturated in a never ending cycle of heavily saturated spectacles. Don't get me wrong, I actually really like Moulin Rouge, surprisingly enough, and think it is almost a perfect example of how a musical should be. Still, the pizazz of Moulin Rouge is about all I can take, and it was tolerable and enjoyable because it fit the story-line. In the case of The Great Gatsby, I never imagined it as the rip-roaring twenties full of booze and (very modern) partying that the trailers for this movie exhibited. The cast seemed like a good choice (aside from Tobey Maguire who I am not too fond of) though, and if anything, perhaps it'd be worth watching for the sake of some pretty colors and scenery.

What I thought: So yes, Luhrmann takes the flash, pomp, dazzle, and grandeur to a level that is fun to watch, but does not feel true to the novel. Luhrmann tries very hard to emphasize how Nick Carraway (Maguire) gets caught up in the dream of the roaring twenties and finds the hope and optimism he longs for manifested in the character of Jay Gatsby. However, much of the symbolism relies entirely on the spectacle which feels overdone rendering much of the rich symbolism and themes moot. Leonardo DiCaprio (Gatsby) and Carrey Mulligan (Daisy Buchanan) definitely steal the show though and present the best performances. Still, even their performances and those of the rest of the cast feel forced at times; especially the emphasized way in which everyone talks. Joel Edgerton's (Tom Buchanan) attempt at a gruff voice is especially painful. Even though Luhrmann's attempts at communicating Fitzgerald's themes generally fall flat, the ending does capture Fitzgerald's ultimate message quite well. Much of his original language is used in the film spoken mainly through Carraway's narration but is most impacting when Luhrmann chooses to end the film with Fitzgerald's final lines of the novel: "Gatsby believed in the green light, the orgastic future that year by year recedes before us. It eluded us then, but that's no matter - tomorrow we will run faster, stretch our arms out further...And one fine morning - So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past." There are a few times such as these when The Great Gatsby that I remember so fondly reading in high school shines through, but overall, Luhrmann's visual aesthetic takes precedence and distracts from the point.

Should you watch it: For those of you who adore Fitzgerald's novel, I would say definitely watch it. Even though I don't think it interprets the original tone or atmosphere correctly, it's always good to see different adaptations to experience different interpretations. And for those of you who don't remember the novel or don't care, I would say see it as well. Don't expect to be blown away or anything, but if you go in not expecting much, I think you'll enjoy it even more.

Review: Spring Breakers

A24

Why does anyone watch something like Spring Breakers? In my case, utterly depraved curiosity and/or necessity. Those of you who know of Harmony Korine (writer of the notorious Kids at the age of 19, no less) know that anytime he makes something it is generally considered borderline offensive, cutting-edge, and sometimes brilliant at the same time depending on who you're talking to. Spring Breakers is his second director/writer feature after 2009's Trash Humpers, which I've been told is exactly what the title suggests. Needless to say, James Franco sporting a Riff-Raff inspired persona, corn-roes and all, accompanied by four actresses formerly associated with harmless, Disney-type child's fair taking on the roles of scantily clad, booze and drug soaked college students was bound to cause some waves all over the interweb and pop culture social stratosphere (that was a terribly long and I'm sure grammatically incorrect sentence but who cares SPRING BREAK 4EVER). 

And once it came out, I don't think anyone was expecting the generally favorable reviews it received. Still, I had friends from film classes who loved it and some who hated it, and judging by their different tastes in film, I began to develop a pretty good idea of what to expect. And after having Spring Breakers in my possession for a number of weeks and actively choosing to watch other things instead, I finally forced myself to watch it after my roommate moved out and took the router with him leaving me stranded without the internet and without a choice.

What I'm Watching: The Iceman

Millennium Films

Why I watched it: As you can see from the picture above, it is Michael Shannon, and he looks extremely badass. Not only does The Iceman feature Shannon as real-life contract killer Richard Kuklinski, but it also includes Ray Liotta, Winona Ryder, Chris Evans, and a couple very random cameos from James Franco and Stephen Dorff. Overall, it's a great cast and who can resist a mob-related biopic? The plot and trailers promised some cool action and stone-cold killings by Shannon, and even though I'm not a huge fan of biopics, I had no prior knowledge of Kuklinski and the subject matter seemed much more interesting and entertaining than some other biopic on a President or something. So of course I'm interested in this one!

What I thought: As expected, Shannon is good in anything he does. Granted, he's a natural when it comes to scary, cold (no pun intended) characters and keeping that signature frown frozen (another pun!) on his face. Ryder is also good as Shannon's wife, and she even pulls off her Jersey accent quite well too. The other supporting actors are all fine as well. However, as interesting as the premise for the movie and Kuklinski's life sounds, the plot is still fairly void of anything worthwhile. We understand that Kuklinski had a messed up childhood and that he has no problem being violent and cruel if necessary, but beyond that, the reasons for why he so easily takes on the role of contract killer are never fully explained. We hear him say a number of times "Everything I do is for my family" or something along those lines, but that still doesn't give a solid enough reason for why someone would kill over 100 people in their life. ONE HUNDRED PEOPLE! Of course there's the money he was paid for the killings, but still, not anyone can just do that for any amount of money. So The Iceman and it's events are entertaining and well executed enough, but there's a hole at the center that begs the question "why." The absence of an answer for this question forms the basis for my problem with many historical or biopic pieces: sure, a true story like this one is interesting and informative, but there has to be a better reason than just "based on a true story" for me to warrant making a movie out of something.

Should you watch it: Despite its lack of substance, The Iceman is still better than most other movies out on DVD right now. Shannon is always fun to watch, and it is crazy to fathom that killers like that actually existed and I'm sure still do exist. Overall, the killings and such don't provide anything really new as far as style and action, but it's still a generally entertaining time. So, for the sake of Shannon and his stoney-silence, go for it!

Review: Elysium

TriStar Pictures/Sony Pictures Entertainment

There's no denying writer/director Neill Blomkamp's talent for futuristic sci-fi. The South African filmmaker began his career working with visual effects which is no surprise. Like it or hate it, District 9 had some very sweet special effects, not to mention a very good performance from Sharlto Copley. Blomkamp made it clear with District 9 that he likes to focus on harsh, gritty futuristic environments and action. I went into that movie unsuspecting of the high level of graphically exploding bodies and blown off limbs that were flying everywhere. So Blomkamp definitely has an eye for vivid settings and detail, but he can also get carried away with the visual effects and lose hold of the story's ambition.

With District 9, Blomkamp attempted to set up an analogy for apartheid in South Africa with the way that the humans segregate and poorly treat the aliens who land in Johannesburg. Suffice to say, Blomkamp attempted to tackle an extremely sensitive and complicated matter via a hypothetical sci-fi scenario, something that many famous authors have done in the past. So the idea is by no means new, but Blomkamp's name and ambition overstepped its bounds even with Peter Jackson's name attached to District 9. By the end of the film, the plot descends into albeit impressive and highly entertaining action but action that is unrelated to the analogy and unnecessary for its progression. Once again, Blomkamp has decided to tackle a very complicated subject in Elysium, and the result is very similar to District 9.

Review: The Wolverine

Twentieth-Century Fox Film Corporation/Marvel Entertainment

I remember one of my friends saying before how they thought it was weird that Marvel and Fox decided to take the Wolverine story-line the furthest out of all the other X-Men/mutants available to them. I know nothing about the comics myself, but according to those who know them, other X-Men have more interesting and cooler plots and complexes than the self-healing mutant with retractable claws and infamous side-burns. Still, it cannot be denied that with the first X-Men films, Hugh Jackman created a very like-able and entertaining character. There's no doubt that Marvel and Fox went with Wolverine over the others because of Jackman's box-office appeal, and even though 2009's X-Men Origins: Wolverine got panned by the reviewers and generally disliked by everyone that I know, that didn't stop it from making $179 million compared to the $150 million budget. That's not a huge profit margin to speak of especially compared to other Marvel films, but still, it more than suggested that people were still into Hugh and X-Men.

So now we have The Wolverine, directed by James Mangold (3:10 to Yuma, Walk the Line), and set in Japan. The initial premise set up by the trailers suggested that Wolverine would be struggling with the option of giving up his mutant ability to regenerate in order to finally be able to live as a mortal. The "curse of immortality" plot-point has been used in a number of movies in the past, but it still presents an array of possibilities for character development and substance beyond Wolverine fighting ninjas and samurais and watching cuts and gashes magically disappear from his body. The Japanese setting also promised some potentially cool, pretty settings and mis en scene for Wolverine to explore as well as other, interesting mutants to encounter. In short, with this new plot-line and creative team, The Wolverine seemed like it could deliver what Origins promised but failed to do.

Review: Only God Forgives

RADiUS-TWC

I probably should have taken at least one more day to think this one over, but I'm going to attempt to write this review anyway. For those of you who have paid any sort of attention to reviews that came out of Cannes or anywhere else, you know that Only God Forgives has received some extremely mixed reviews. Many articles have been written mainly about the criticism instead of the movie itself. One such "top critic" on rottentomatoes said "Ryan Gosling and his "Drive" director, Nicoals Winding Refn, sail into the heart of darkness and emerge with a trinket of crackpot porno kitsch." Another said "Style over substance doesn't really tell the half of it: you can bathe a corpse in groovy light and dress it in an expensive suit, but in the end that rotting smell just won't go away." Combine both of these snippets and you get Refn's latest film compared to a stinking, rotting piece of pretty looking shit. For these reviewers, there isn't enough characters, emotions, or reasons for "why" anything happens, and a beautifully lit Gosling just won't cut it.

While watching the movie myself, I experienced a lot of reactions: awe, disgust, confusion, embarrassment, frustration, and revulsion. At least, those are all of the verbs I could think of right now. The reviewers aren't wrong when they describe and react strongly to the grisliness and apparent pointless brutality and borderline sadomasochism exhibited here. But at the same time, their criticisms of Refn's lack of characters and subject matter doesn't really have a place. 

What I'm Watching: Oblivion

Universal Pictures

Why I watched it: this is one that I meant to see in theaters, but just never got around to it. Reviews had the consensus of "meh," but I was still intrigued by the pretty looking clips from the trailer and a new sci-fi movie. Director Joseph Kosinski made his debut a few years back with Tron: Legacy which for all of its silliness was fairly dazzling to watch. So, I figured Oblivion would at least deliver something cool to look at if not a fairly good story. I am also a fan of Tom Cruise, I have to admit. He may play the same character in nearly every movie, but he plays that character very well in opinion (especially in Magnolia). Unlike a lot of actors who obviously phone in their performances in many movies, Cruise seems to try and actually do his best in just about anything. I am also a fan of Olga Kurylenko (Quantum of Solace) even though she's not the greatest actress around, I still find her more like-able than most.

What I thought: it is very pretty! The mixture of digital effects and real locations (like the one above) make for images that are bright and crisp. Cruise delivers everything that he possibly could with the character and script he was given, but I will have to side with critics on this one and say that the story is "meh." It holds multiple plot points and twists that are a combination of things seen in sci-fi before, and while the film itself is over 2 hours long, it still feels as if things are hurried along too much. A lot of time is spent watching Cruise fly around to different places that look cool, but when it comes to moving the plot along, things happen too fast. In this same vein of thought, there is a fairly long prologue narrated by Cruise which is just lazy writing in this case. I don't have a problem with prologues in general; sometimes they can be quite useful and done effectively, but in this case it's a way for the writers to pack all of the back-story, major plot points, and other key character motivations into a just less than 10 minute sequence. Oblivion has also received a lot of attention for its soundtrack done by the band M83, and it is a good soundtrack! But it becomes overplayed and explodes into certain sequences that just don't feel right for that kind of music. On its own, I'm sure it'd be very cool to listen to while running or something because it's fairly epic. All of the time, which is one of its problems.

Should you see it: I'd say that Oblivion is better than most of the fair you'll find at Redbox these days, and the same goes for new releases on Netflix too if you pay for mail delivery. It has enough sparkling imagery and exciting moments (especially this spaceship chase through an ice-canyon) in it to make for an enjoyable time. Still, I'm glad I didn't spend money on it in theaters, and it would be best if you tried not to do too much guessing as to what happens in the plot. Otherwise you'll probably figure everything out pretty fast just like I did. I guessed the ultimate twist from the very beginning. 

Review: The Conjuring

Warner Bros./New Line Cinema

It's been a long time since I've actually been excited for a horror movie. In fact, I can't remember the last time I looked forward to a film of this genre so much. Although I think it would be wrong to call a movie like The Conjuring a "horror" film because when I think of horror I think of blood and guts. The Conjuring, on the other hand, has hardly any violence. Still, somehow, it garnered itself an R rating from the MPAA for reasons many people explain as the movie being just so terrifying. So, I guess it'd be more accurate to call this one a thriller because the title of "horror" suggests physical disgust. Horror is about visceral violence that is thrust in your face to evoke terror, excitement, or whatever depending on how messed up you are.

Rather than relying on the grotesqueness of what is seen, The Conjuring delivers a string of old-fashioned scares cleverly designed around what is not seen. Time and time again, I have explained to people (who all generally agree with me) that the most scary things in movies (and life for that matter) is what is we cannot see. In the case of movies, it's about what the filmmakers choose to keep from showing the audience This is what makes movies like the first Paranormal Activity (in my opinion) so effective and popular because not once in that movie do you see the actual paranormal entity/demon. There's evidence of its presence with the footprints, a shadow in the doorway, and pieces of furniture being moved, but that's it. The thing, whatever it is, remains a constant tease throughout the film and threatens to reveal itself, but at the last moment, shrinks back into the darkness. 

Review: Pacific Rim

Warner Bros./Legendary Pictures

OK, I openly admit that I was knowingly lying to myself about what this movie was going to be from the start. News about Guillermo del Toro's (Pan's Labyrinth, Hell Boy, Devil's Backbone) pet project concerning battling alien monsters with some kind of robots has been circling the web for well over 2 years now. Naturally, anyone familiar with Del Toro's knack for comic book-ish action and style had high hopes for the director trying his hand at something that sounded very close to live-action anime. Many directors have tried the same type of thing in the past with The Matrix and Kill Bill, but Del Toro seemed like an even better choice than those other guys because of his extremely nerdy tendencies and close attention to mise en scene details and tone. The closest thing Del Toro has done to the genre of Pacific Rim is the Hellboy movies, and anyone who has seen those knows they're completely ludicrous but undeniably entertaining with an obvious love and attention to the source material and world. Thus, the news that Del Toro was tackling an original sci-fi story got fans of his (like me) entirely interested and hoping for something incredibly entertaining if not actually somewhat smart. 

But then the first trailer for Pacific Rim was released and with it the flood of comparisons to Transformers and a Michael Bay or Roland Emmerich level of mindless action and destruction. And even though all the evidence for what it was was right there, I (and others) refused to believe it would only be about giant robots smashing Godzilla-like creatures in the head. There must be more to it than that! Del Toro wouldn't settle for just something like that! Unfortunately, I made the mistake of forgetting that often times huge nerds like Del Toro often get so caught up in and excited about certain things that they overindulge to a point that no one else understands the point. This has been the case in many an English class I have taken where particularly nerdy people (and by that I mean people with very specific interests and concerns who take them to ridiculous levels) talk and argue about something relentlessly and it ends up making people annoyed and making no sense in the end and you forget why the whole conversation started in the first place.

What I'm Watching: Pitch Perfect

Universal Pictures

Why I watched it: it was on HBOGO and I had heard good things about it! Don't get me wrong, it totally sounds like something I would never watch in a million years and altogether too much like Glee or some other nonsense like that. But, Anna Kendrick is a good actress and friends of mine who I consider to have something like a good taste in movies seemed to really enjoy it. So what the heck, I didn't feel like going to sleep early last night, so I decided to spend almost 2 hours watching this before bed.

What I thought: First of all, I want to get my #1 beef with this movie out of the way before I talk about the good stuff: I don't care what universe you come from or who you are, a cappella singing groups are not cool. Somehow, everyone who goes to this college where Beca (Kendrick) is a Freshman thinks that the a cappella groups are the coolest kids around. And let me tell you, this could not be further from the truth. And this isn't because I don't value musical talent! I consider myself somewhat of a singer and have a considerable background in piano playing and musical performances. But a cappella? Nope! That being said, Pitch Perfect is really entertaining! It's legitimately funny and the singing is actually fun to listen to! I guess this is another beef I have with it though is that live a cappella does not sound anywhere close to as good as these obviously studio-recorded people do. Of course, this film has the cliche tale of a band of misfit, underdog types who join together to try and take down the bad, popular kids at school and win the championship. Basically your stereotypical sports movie plot but with singing instead. However, the cliche-ness (a word I made up, whatever) of it didn't really bother me because all the characters are entertaining and well-played. Especially the character of "Fat" Amy, played by Rebel Wilson. Over all, Pitch Perfect revels in its stereotypical format while at the same time managing to deliver a really good time.

Should you watch it: I think you know right off the bat if this kind of movie is for you. Then again, I didn't think it would be, but I still enjoyed it. And I am usually the type who watches nothing but dark, violent, complex, psychological dramas and thrillers. Which is maybe why I enjoyed this one because I needed a break from all that? Who knows! All I know is that I was pleasantly surprised, so add this one to your next visit to Redbox or order from Netflix!

What I'm Watching: 42

Warner Bros. Pictures

Why I watched it: I'm not really sure why I watched this one. I'm not usually a huge fan of historical pieces or autobiographies unless they feature particular favorite actors or directors of mine or are about people or events that I find interesting. In this case, it's even stranger that I would watch 42 since I am neither a fan of sports movies or of movies about racism and such. All I knew is that this movie got semi-decent reviews and I was bored and thought it might offer something interesting?

What I thought: it was about what I expected. Maybe even less. It has all the old, cliche moments of terrible, racist white people that Hollywood just loves to portray. Don't get me wrong, white people are the worst. Ask anyone who knows me, it's one of my number one things that annoys me, even though I'm white (especially coming from a customer service background in the great Pacific Northwest working at a certain, large corporate coffee chain the title of which I will not disclose but I'm sure you can guess which one. Long story short, it's every middle-aged, white person's favorite place to go and belittle the people who work there to try make themselves feel better about the worthless life they lead). Still, Hollywood has a certain way of portraying racism in so many movies, and this one is no different and doesn't give any new perspective on it. Jackie Robinson's story really is an amazing one when you think about it, but this film doesn't do it justice. It has all the same old swelling of emotional, dramatic music and the touching moments of white people breaking down barriers of racism, etc, etc. Even for baseball fans, 42 doesn't have much to offer. A story like this one needs more of a documentary treatment rather than a dramatic, not another Hollywood retelling that gets more wrapped up in the idea of overcoming racism rather than actually doing something about it. That's probably the best way to sum up how Hollywood treats racism in most of its movies. One more thing about this movie: Harrison Ford's performance is the weirdest. He tries to play something totally different than the titular hero by taking on this role as a slow-talking, deep voiced old man and it doesn't really work at all. The whole time I was like, Harrison, you're not fooling anyone!

Should you watch it: If you're a sucker for the more old-fashioned, melodramatic period pieces, then sure! But even then, I think you'll find yourself getting bored and realize that the whole movie becomes a repetitive string of ugly, angry white people yelling at Robinson to get off the field, and whatnot. The film feels altogether too short as well and is easily forgettable. Which as I said before is a shame because Robinson's story really is a fascinating one and a good reminder of how there are still many things today (like gay marriage!) that we treat as strange, wrong, unequal, etc. A story like this one reminds us how there have been many things in the past we have treated the same way, and how we have come to realize how those things and ways of thinking are outdated, misunderstood, and wrong.

To the Wonder and the Other

Magnolia Pictures

The absolute absence of a burden causes man to be lighter than air, to soar into the heights, take leave of the earth and his earthly being, and become only half-real, his movements as free as they are insignificant. - Milan Kundera, The Unbearable Lightness of Being

The title of Terrence Malick's 6th film refers to two things. The first being the ancient abby off the north coast of France, Mont-Saint Michel. The abby began construction sometime in the 700's, A.D., and has ever since been a monument for pilgrimage. Built out on an island, pilgrims used to have to risk the dangers of the fast-flowing tide and sinking sand to make it to the castle-like abby. Often times there would be a heavy fog surrounding the island, making it almost impossible to see one's way out to the island and pilgrims even died attempting to do so. Its size and location earned it the title "the Wonder." 

The second meaning of the title refers to the Wonder of love. That may sound cheesy and like an incredibly pretentious metaphor when paired with Mont-Saint Michel. And at many times during the film, even I, as a huge fan of Malick's style and films, found myself turned off by a lot of the overly deep lines of narration. "What is this love that loves us?" says Marina at one point. What does that even mean? In terms of meaning and ambition, To the Wonder does not even come close to Malick's previous film, The Tree of Life (which I recently decided is my new favorite film, I think). And yet, this very simple story of a couple who falls out of love and the side-story of  a priest who cannot find joy in God's supposed-love and presence falls awfully short of providing a rich and beautifully crafted experience like The Tree of Life. By itself, The Tree of Life raises, ponders, and explicates very challenging ideas and themes. On the other hand, To the Wonder functions more as a springboard for which to raise further questions. Malick is obviously interested in much larger themes than he could accurately reflect in this film. Thus, in accordance with the title of my blog, I feel obligated to lend my two cents to the conversation.

What I'm Watching: Olympus Has Fallen

Millennium Films/FilmDistrict

Why I watched it: because I was in the mood for an action movie. There's not really any other excuse or explanation. Sure, Gerard Butler is pretty cool in some things (Gamer specifically although it definitely has its problems, but is still an interesting, entertaining movie) and Aaron Eckhart is a generally like-able guy, but this movie got bad reviews when it came out and I knew it would have nothing new to offer. BUT sometimes you just need some pointless action in your life, right?

What I thought: surprise surprise, it was exactly as I expected. Stereotypical bad guys with stereotypical goals facing the stereotypical bad-ass hero who's going to save the stereotypical day. If I really wanted to and had no problem with wasting the time to do so, I could go through and describe all of the ridiculous things and ideas about things that go on here. But since I think of myself as better than that and wish to spend more time today reading a good, thoughtful, skillfully conceived novel, I shall not bore you with the details. Suffice it to say, Olympus Has Fallen consistently made me laugh.

Should you watch it: Judging by what I said in the previous section, this section is definitely redundant, but I'll use it say that the graphics in this are so cheesy! Seriously, when anyone gets shot or there are planes or helicopters or anything else around the White House where it could never be in real life, it looks incredibly digitized. Most of its $70 million dollar budget (numbers like that for films like this still make my eyes want to fall out) obviously went to other pointless things like having Morgan Freeman in there for no reason. So, when (and I say "when" because it really is only a matter of time with this one) Olympus Has Fallen comes on to Neflix instant-watch and you have nothing better to do like mow the lawn, dig a hole, or change the oil in your car, go ahead and watch it. But in god's name, don't spend money on it!

Review: White House Down

Columbia Entertainment

When it comes down to it, nearly all of director Roland Emmerich's movies are pretty bad. Traditionally speaking, they are generally a string of cliches, cheap technical tricks, and needless slow motion amidst a sea of chaos and explosions. But somehow, I can't help but like them! The Patriot was glaringly historically inaccurate and melodramatic to the core, but Mel Gibson is so badass in it and it features some truly awesome scenes. Independence Day runs the same course of melodrama and silly acting, dialogue, and situations, but remains one of the most memorable and famous alien invasion movies of our time. Even 2012 with all of it's made up science and what everyone called an excuse for "destruction porn" managed to be extremely entertaining all the way through and even funny at times. (I'm just going to ignore all of his undeniably horrible movies here!). They're all easy to make fun of and treat like pointless popcorn, blockbuster fare, but I can't help but look back fondly on each viewing experience with some sort of misplaced sentimentality.

In all these cases though, Emmerich has never really left the '90s. He's stuck in that Armageddon, Con Air, and The Rock type of action that doesn't give a shit about things such as true character development or thoughtful themes/plots. These movies are loud, obnoxious, and entirely proud of the type of entertainment they provide. Still, there's something to be enjoyed there! And Nic Cage's hair stands as a testament to that spirit.

What I'm Watching: Dead Man Down

FilmDistrict

With this post I will be bringing back something I started a few years ago called "What I'm Watching." I'll take any movies that I watch that are available on DVD (or soon to be available thanks to the power of the interwebs) and give brief reviews to help you decide whether or not it's worth it to pick up this movie at Redbox or whatever.

Why I watched it: there's a couple of reasons I watched this movie. For one, the cast is pretty good. Colin Farrell although not always the best actor is still usually pretty entertaining and a good action star. Noomi Rapace is a great actress and fast rising star since her starring role in the Swedish Dragon Tattoo trilogy. And the rest of the notable cast includes Terrence Howard (Crash, Iron Man) and Dominic Cooper (The Devil's Double). Dead Man Down is also director Niels Arden Oplev's first American debut since the success of his Dragon Tattoo trilogy with American audiences. Put all these things together and this looks like it could be a smart, stylish, violent action-thriller.

What I thought: For the most part, Dead Man Down is quite entertaining. The action scenes, while not that different stylistically, are still pretty fun to watch. The overall tone tries a bit too hard to be dark when the content doesn't really live up to such a tone. At least, not in the way that the Dragon Tattoo movies did. The one thing that bugged me the most through the whole movie was the soundtrack. It's way too dramatic and constantly has these really intense effects for scenes that don't really need it because what's happening is obviously bad/violent/or whatever. The acting was pretty melodramatic too and Farrell's character hardly says anything and almost every time he does he's half mumbling. The story itself isn't half-bad but probably could've used a bit more harsh violence to make the bad guys seem even badder and the tone even darker.

Should you watch it: I'd say if you're in the mood for a semi-violent action-thriller, then yes! It's better than the average movie in this genre and while a bit inconsistent and unconvincing in places, it still manages to make for a pretty fun viewing. 

Room 237 and the Lure of Deconstruction

Stanley Kubrick is considered by many to be one of if not the greatest filmmaker of all time. 2001: A Space Odyssey, A Clockwork Orange, Barry Lyndon, Full Metal Jacket, etc, Kubrick is at once a creator of mesmerizing pieces of smart entertainment and confounding puzzles. After you get past the veil of imagery for the sake of entertainment, you realize there has to be something much larger going on; in fact, there must be many different things going on. And Kubrick was known for being extremely detailed and controlling of his mis en scene and every aspect of the image in the same way that Alfred Hitchcock is notorious for. As one of the interviewees for the documentary Room 237 mentions, there are photographs of Kubrick personally arranging cans of sauce on a shelf in a storage room that forms the backdrop for one shot of Jack Nicholson in The Shining. That's the level of control Kubrick reportedly took with his films.

Thus, the floodgates for interpretation and speculation are flung wide open and come sweeping down just like the wall of blood down the hotel hallway in The Shining. Room 237 is the construction of detailed theories from interviewees regarding Kubrick's intention in this film. I will not go into great detail on these theories (for that, you'll have to watch this extremely interesting documentary), but suffice it to say that they involve portraying the Holocaust, the genocide of Native Americans in America and the white man's destruction and oppression of other races, the faking of the Apollo 11 landing on the moon, and several others. Each interviewee pinpoints a number of different scenes, shots, or details in the mis en scene that are quite convincing. Other examples are more of stretch and not so convincing, but as can be seen in the picture I included, little Danny just happens to be wearing a sweater with the Apollo 11 rocket on it. This is just one of the many, many pieces of evidence sighted for all sorts of theories. As the documentary ends, one of the interviewees (the one I found most thoughtful and self-aware), reflected on how such extreme speculation into a work of art like The Shining can lead into a sort of madness akin to what Jack Torrence (Jack Nicholson) experiences in the hotel.

Review: World War Z

Paramount Pictures

I haven't read the novel from which World War Z is adapted, but fans of the novel seem to think it brought a level of intelligence and reality to the possibility of a zombie pandemic that hasn't been seen before in the genre. A viral epidemic spread worldwide much like other legendary plagues or diseases of the past, except this one spreads a hundred times faster since its victims become the ravaging undead that we all know and love (for some weird reason). The Walking Dead (although an extremely silly and mostly bad show) made zombies popular again with the mainstream public mostly because it's what people like about zombies: a close-quarters, blood and guts fight for survival against the zombies but also dealing with the potential evil in humans when put into such a post-apocalyptic-ish scenario. 

From what I've heard and read, World War Z strays a great deal from the source material, but the main idea of a world-wide war against zombies is there. Instead of focusing on one family or small group of people like  The Walking Dead, WWZ attempts to cover a lot of ground between New York, New Jersey, South Korea, Jerusalem, and Budapest in depicting the level and reach of chaos and destruction. All the while, the film focuses on Brad Pitt's character Gerry Lane, an employee of the United Nations, traveling to these destinations looking to find the source of the virus in order to discover how to stop it. So, one side of the story tries to connect the struggle of one man and his family while the other strives to keep the idea of a worldwide struggle alive. Combined, these two story-lines limit what this movie could have been and what a lot hoped it to be.

Review: Man of Steel

Warner Bros./Legendary Pictures/Syncopy

I'll come right out and say that I think Man of Steel is director Zack Snyder's best movie so far. Now, don't get too excited because that really isn't saying much. Snyder has a flawless track record of taking on projects and releasing trailers that look amazing. 300 looked to redefine action sequences (which it did to an extent for some genres). Watchmen looked to be an accurate, loyal adaptation of the beloved graphic novel on a grand scale. I was never excited for Sucker Punch but it did look cool! But in every case, the acting, script, story, etc, all had such obvious flaws that the visuals just weren't enough to save the movie. (Notice that I'm just ignoring The Owls of Ga'Hoole and Dawn of the Dead here because who knew what was going on there). That being said, Man of Steel definitely has its flaws, but they are much easier to overlook compared to Snyder's preview films.

Man of Steel sets out to do something much different. With the help of Christopher Nolan's producing and David S. Goyer's writing, it seems Snyder is finally beginning to figure out the style of movie his expertise are best suited for. Instead of setting out with a conventional plot of rising and falling action with the plot of a bad guy eventually revealed like the last effort to adapt Superman in the miserable Superman Returns, Man of Steel approaches the legendary American icon with little to no concrete plot or storyline.

Review: This is the End

Columbia Pictures/Sony Pictures Entertainment

When I first saw the trailers for this movie, I was immediately excited to see Seth Rogen, James Franco and Danny McBride back together again. Pineapple Express is one of my favorite comedies featuring the likes of Rogen and McBride to date out of all those Apatow-ish and inspired R-rated comedies. Pineapple Express cleverly incorporated stoner-comedy with buddy comedy in a highly entertaining mix of action and violence but with plenty of hilarious slapstick effects. Pineapple Express also showed that Franco has a knack for such comedy and that McBride is a serious comedic personality to be reckoned with. So, when trailers for This is the End began running and I learned that Jonah Hill, Jay Baruchel and Craig Robinson had joined the team, it seemed like it could be a formidable film to reach the level of Pineapple Express. All of these actors playing themselves stuck in James Franco's house trying to survive the apocalypse happening outside in Hollywood? Sounds like a fun time!

And it is fun for a few scenes and gags between the actors. It's fun seeing the likes of Aziz Ansari, Paul Rudd, Jason Segel, Rihanna, Martin Starr, Michael Cera, Emma Watson, and others all playing themselves and making fun of themselves. All the guys make fun of Franco for being a "nerd" and collecting weird art pieces. Hill is picked on for being the only one with an Oscar nomination while Baruchel is the outcast who's obviously not as famous as the others. And of course, McBride is just labeled the asshole reminiscent of his role in HBO's Eastbound and Down. The majority of the film feels like these guys are just hanging out and the way each scene is setup and how the lines are delivered feels like much of it is improvised (which it could very likely be). So, for most of the film, not much happens in regards to the apocalyptic storyline and the story focuses on the gang making fun of each other and basically seeing who can outdo the other in crude humor mostly related to penises and the like.