Christian_Dimartino Reviews

Neighbors (I) (2014)

Funny most of the time, but the marketing kind of spoiled some of the fun.

[8/10 · 15 May 2014]

I saw Nicholas Stroller's Neighbors almost a week ago,I just held off on writing a review... until now. Until Godzilla, which comes out tomorrow, there have only really been two big releases of the summer: this one, and The Amazing Spider-Man 2. I have seen both, and I can't believe I'm saying this, but Neighbors is the best movie of the summer so far.

Neighbors is a movie that lives up to its promises, which TASM2 kind of did but not completely. It has just the right amount of stupidity to make it work. Most of the time. The movie did make a few stumbles, but hey, it managed to prove that Zac Efron was talented, so I'll give it credit for that at least.

Seth Rogen and Rose Byrne play happily married parents named Mac and Kelly (yeah right, like she'd marry HIM)who move next door to a frat house. The fraternity is led by Teddy (Efron), who Mac claims "looks like something a gay guy created in a lab. In an attempt to be cool again,Mac and Kelly become friends with the fraternity... and party with them.

But soon, the partying and the volume next door becomes a problem for them. So when they call the police, lets just say, the fraternity doesn't take it well. Soon, the frat house starts tormenting them with pranks and before you know it, there is an all out prank war between the two houses.

Neighbors mostly succeeds from its dialogue. There are a few of the gags that are funny, and them some of them miss the mark. Also, the trailer kind of takes away the surprises from the movie. Sure, there are still plenty of other laughs to enjoy. But scenes like the ones with the airbags lost their touch once I got to the actual movie, because I saw it so many times in the trailer.

Overall, I've seen funnier movies, and then I've seen unfunnier movies. The cast, especially Efron, who nails the frat leader role, and Byrne, who is one of the hottest chicks in the business, executes their lines perfectly. Also, Dave Franco does a fantastic Robert De Niro impersonation. I hope I have sold you, it is pretty good. So for what it's worth, see it.

B+

Labor Day (2013)

A laugh riot

[4/10 · 2 May 2014]

I told myself that I would only write reviews for movies that I see in theatres from here on out. But I suppose exceptions can be made. I'm making that exception for Jason Reitman's Labor Day. When a good director makes a bad movie, you feel it. You feel the artist behind the camera desperately try to make art out of garbage, and typically the end result is regret. Regret of an opportunity wasted. Labor Day is one of those cases.

Jason Reitman seemed to be on such a role. I loved his first four movies (Thank You for Smoking, Juno, Up in the Air, and Young Adult), and had hope that he could continue his winning streak with Labor Day, the first straight "drama" he has made yet. Sadly, the final result is the most outrageous movie to be released in quite some time. It's a self-serious drama that begs you to buy into its romance. Hell no.

Oscar Winner Kate Winslet magically earned a Golden Globe nomination here for her role as Adele, a slightly depressed divorced shut in who lives with her emotionless son Henry (Gattlin Griffith). On Labor Day weekend, the two take a rare trip to the grocery store, where they meet Frank (Josh Brolin), an injured man who asks them to take him to their house.

Soon, they discover that Frank is an escaped convict who served many years for murder. Are they scared of him? No, not really. Griffith doesn't really show emotion here. He mainly just reads off of a teleprompter. Anyways, soon, Frank ties Adele up. Then what does he do? Brace yourself, it's crazy: he cooks a bowl of chili. Adele and Henry just happened to be held hostage by the gentlest murderer of all time.

Soon, they make a peach pie. Then, Frank plays baseball with Henry. Then, Frank and Adele become lovers... all within five days. They become so madly in love that they discuss leaving the country together… as a family. Do you see where I'm going with this? While I watched this movie, I constantly asked myself if what was happening was actually happening. It's a love story so ludicrous I can't believe Winslet didn't chuck it out the window the second she read it.

Reitman has said that the novel moved him to tears. Unless the novel took place in a year, then there's no way that's possible. I didn't buy it. There is plenty of talent on display here. Brolin and Winslet are watchable in anything, but Labor Day is pushing it. Instead of being moved by the romance, I was moved to laughter. I laughed and laughed at the plot inconveniences, and just how hard Reitman tried to make a compelling movie. I needed a drink afterwards, and I'm not talking about soda.

C-

The Other Woman (2014)

When it's funny, it's pretty funny. When it isn't, well...

[5/10 · 2 May 2014]

There is nothing wrong with a good girl revenge comedy every now and then. But when it's done, it needs to be done right. It needs to have the right script, and the right actresses for the leads. In the case of The Other Woman, only about half of that is true. While some of it is quite funny and the actresses are always delightful, the script takes some pretty dumb detours.

Cameron Diaz plays Carly, a New York lawyer who seems to be in a happy relationship with a guy named Mark (Nikolaj Coaster-Waldau). Mark is kind of mysterious, so one night, out of suspicion, she follows him to his house… only to realize that he's married to a woman named Kate (the always delightful Leslie Mann). So, once they discover just who each other is, the two sort of form an alliance. But soon, they discover that there is yet ANOTHER woman. This one is named Amber (the unbelievably sexy Kate Upton), and once she discovers what Mark has been up to, the three women plan vengeance.

Sure, it's a rip off of better girl-power movies, but that isn't the problem here. I laughed, a fair amount. The problem is that there are times during The Other Woman that are so excruciatingly bad that I as soon as the movie was over, I ran out of the theater in embarrassment. Embarrassment that I just spent money on it.

Don't get me wrong: I had low expectations going in. I mainly saw it because I had money to blow. If I hadn't already seen Captain America: The Winter Soldier, I probably would've been in there instead. But I had no where else to go. Strangely, those excruciatingly awful moments don't involve Nicki Minaj, who makes her acting debut as Carly's assistant. Minaj is kind of a moron, but yet her presence is kind of funny. I can see her pursuing an acting career. The movie, I'm sad to say, needed more of her.

The movie does work for about half the time, but that other half is pretty bad. The soundtrack, which includes Lorde's god awful "Royals", a remake of "Love is a Battlefield", and… oh dear God, I just threw up. Never mind, I can't continue. Just know that nearly every song played is cliché and awful. Upton is mainly here to look good, so, mission accomplished. Diaz and Mann make a good comic team also.

But then there are the times when the humor falls flat on its ass. The entire last half hour, honestly, is quite horrible. It takes a weirdly violent turn in the last ten minutes, in which Mark has a strange temper tantrum. It also feels like an eternity, especially during scenes like when Diaz pours laxatives into his drink. Guess where the scene goes. Unfortunately, that scene goes the same direction that the rest of the movie goes: down the toilet.

C

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014)

It's very flawed, but it works well enough.

[5/10 · 2 May 2014]

I attended the 11:00 p.m. showing of The Amazing Spider-Man 2 last night, and had planned on writing the review the next morning. Much to my surprise, things didn't quite happen like that. Once the movie was over, my friend and I exited the theater and then discussed how mixed we were on the movie for an entire hour. This was at around two in the morning. A day has gone by, and The Amazing Spider-Man 2 still has me so torn.

Marc Webb's The Amazing Spider-Man, as wonderfully surprising as it was, was unnecessary, mainly because the studio only waited five years to reboot Sam Rami's Spider-Man movies (I personally would like to see those continued, but, whatever). As unnecessary as it may have been, it actually turned out to be the second best Spider-Man adventure, ranking behind Rami's perfect Spider-Man 2 (sue me, I don't care, it's amazing). What brought the movie to life was the chemistry between Peter Parker/ Spider-Man and Gwen Stacy (on and off-screen couple Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone). They worked so well together that I was tempted to hug myself. Webb, who's only other non-Spider-Man movie is (500) Days of Summer, knows what he is doing when it comes to the romance. Also, Garfield is perfect in the title role; a worthy replacement for Tobey Maguire.

Now, Webb returns with the sequel, and Stone and Garfield are as charming as ever. In fact, they just might be the greatest comic book couple of them all. It's a bold statement, but a true one. The visual effects are spectacular and the entertainment value is high. Also, there are some strong moments here. There were times when I let the action carry me away, and these times were reminiscent of the other movies. But yet, there were a few short time periods where the movie was so bad that I felt like my soul was being shanked.

The sequel picks up some time after the original. Peter Parker is still trying to fight crime, while protecting the ones he loves. Peter and Gwen are still dating, which leaves him with a guilty conscience. If you remember from the previous movie, Peter promised Gwen's late father (Denis Leary) that he would avoid her at all costs. He doesn't do that, until he begins seeing Captain Stacy everywhere. He is also still trying to figure out what exactly happened to his parents and how they were involved with the sinister Oscorp company.

If that wasn't bad enough, just wait. Enter Max Dillon (Jamie Foxx), a grown-up Steve Erkel who becomes obsessed with Spider-Man after he rescues him. Dillon, an Oscorp employee, soon falls into an eel tank, gets stung a lot (duh), and becomes Electro. Judging from that last sentence, I wonder how Oscorp is still a running company. It clearly isn't a safe work environment. Anyways, Electro, who can manipulate electricity, is pretty cool and one of the movies many visual marvels, but his motives for killing Spider-Man (Spider-Man doesn't remember him) are weak.

Then, enter Harry Osbourne (Dane Dehaan), Peter's childhood friend and son of Oscorp founder Norman Osbourne (Chris Cooper) who carries a very distracting Hitler haircut. Seriously, that haircut drove me crazy. When Harry becomes terminally ill, he believes that Spider-Man's blood can save his life. So, let's just say, he wants Spidey dead too. Harry certainly is an interesting character, but had Dehaan done what he did with Chronicle, then the performance would've been remarkable. Instead, Harry is just whiny (he has a temper tantrum) and, well, his haircut is obnoxious. I'm not letting it go.

TASM2, like the constantly bashed Spider-Man 3, has a little bit too much story and just a bit too many villains, but it works. Also, the action sequences are a knockout, and Garfield shares some sublime moments with Stone and Sally Field, who plays his Aunt May. While a good amount of it does work, it is kind of a bumpy ride.

The scenes with Dillon talking to himself are awkward and occasionally dumb. In fact, Electro doesn't become cool until the final hour. But he is quite the special effect. The soundtrack is bizarre, and the score doesn't always mesh well with what's happening on-screen. Spider-Man himself seems a little too jokey this time around. Sometimes, he tries so hard to be funny I'm surprised the crowds of people "oohing" and "awing" didn't hand him a microphone.

Not to mention, Paul Giamatti's brief performance as The Rhino is inconceivably dumb. If he is the lead villain in the next round (there's supposedly two more movies coming out, at least), then you may just have to count me out. Giamatti is a great actor, but his accent is too difficult to take seriously. Also, there are a few loose ends that need to be tied up, and some of them probably won't be in the sequel.

Lastly, the movie would've been better had the ending not dragged on. Had the movie stopped at a certain point, then it would have had more of an effective and poignant ending. Instead, the movie wants to get everyone jazzed up for round three, so it sets up the next movie… and not very well.

There is more wrong with The Amazing Spider-Man 2 than right, but yet it still gets my recommendation, I guess. How? Well, its target audience (Spider-Man fans) will go for it. Being one of them, I enjoyed a good amount of it. Yes, it had its ups and downs, but it is still an enjoyable movie to some extent. It's a close call though; if round three is a similar movie, then expect harsher criticism. Whether we like it or not, more Spider-Man is coming.

B-

Noah (2014)

The boat that rocked

[9/10 · 29 March 2014]

It's been four long years since Darren Aronofsky directed a movie, and I must say that waiting for one of your favorite directors to return isn't an easy thing to do. I can only imagine how Terrence Malick fans felt when he took a twenty year break between Days of Heaven and The Thin Red Line. After waiting long enough, it comes to a point where you don't care what movie the director brings, as long as they return. Aronofsky has returned with Noah, and I'm glad.

Aronofskys last film was Black Swan. Remember? That sexy, wild and hypnotic psycho-sexual thriller that won Natalie Portman an Oscar? Yeah, of course you do. How could you forget it? Let's just say, Aronofsky left on a high note(it's his best movie). And what I've learned is that once a director makes something special, it's expected every time. So, how does Noah rank? Well, it's not as good as his great films, like Black Swan, Requiem For a Dream, and The Wrestler. But it's more ambitious than any of those, and it's ambitious enough to make it special.

The last time he tried a movie like this was The Fountain, a movie that die-hards like myself enjoyed, but that's it. It had a lot of flaws. Noah also makes an occasional stumble, but it's still good. Basically, Aronofsky takes the tale of Noah (played to perfection by Russell Crowe, in his best performance in a while), and adds his own story lines to it. A risky move, but one that works.

I watched Noah as a movie, not from the biblical standpoint. From the biblical standpoint, it's way off. But the movie is entertaining. The visual effects are spectacular and the acting, particularly from Crowe and Ray Winstone as the villain, is dead on. Also, there are nearly too many powerful moments.

Not everyone is going to enjoy Noah, but that's OK. I thing Aronofsky knew that going in. He's a man with a vision, and not everyone likes his vision. He has a strange way of telling stories. I went along with his vision and had a hell of a time. It falls short of greatness, but it lands into the damn good category. If Noah was trimmed and a little more faithful to the source material, then it would've been better. I guess there is one thing to gather here: if you give a visionary filmmaker four years and a zillion dollars, then something good will come out of it. And that is the case with Noah. It's not as great as I hoped, but it's good enough.

A-

Nymphomaniac: Vol. I (2013)

It's disappointing if you're expecting greatness or sexiness. Otherwise...

[8/10 · 24 March 2014]

If you witnessed the trailer for Nymphomaniac (which was removed from Youtube because it was graphic), you're probably assuming that it's a weird sex-fest. If that is what you're thinking, then you aren't far off. But that is what I've learned to expect from director Lars von Trier: weird sex. And if you're into strange sex, then you're in luck: Von Trier gives over four hours of it.

Von Trier is a strange man. A few years ago, he was treated for mental illness. When he came out, he made a film called Antichrist, which is about, you guessed it, mental illness. In fact, his past few films have focused on the topic. Nymphomaniac Vol. I (Vol. II is out in April) joins Antichrist and Melancholia as a part of his depression trilogy. Is it as good as those two? Not quite, but I think Vol. II will be.

Vol. I opens with a woman named Joe (Charlotte Gainsborg, a von Trier regular who truly deserved some credit for Melancholia), lying on the ground, beaten, in an alley. She is found by a man named Seligman (Stellan Skarsgard), who takes her in and nurses her back to good health. Soon, Joe begins explaining how exactly she ended up where she ended up. She tells of her sexual experiences, and tells just how she came to be. The stories are told through flashbacks, and the young Joe is played by newcomer Stacy Martin.

The rest of the cast includes Shia Lebeouf (before he went bonkers) as the man who took her virginity. Christian Slater stars as Joe's father. Now the best performance here, and it is a brief one, is Uma Thurman. Thurman plays the wife of a man that Joe sleeps with. Thurman is only on screen for about seven minutes, but it it easily the best seven minutes of the movie. I wanted an encore.

Now, judging from the trailer, you expect this movie to be a sex fest. While it is so, that doesn't exactly mean it's sexy sex. That's actually something that I admire about the film. Some of it is sexy, but a lot of it is off-putting. From Joe's perspective, sex is something that she simply just can't stop doing. An actual addiction, and in some ways, a chore. Von Trier could've made it sexy, but instead he takes it in another direction. I like that, mainly because I never really bought sex addiction as a real addiction.

Nymphomaniac Vol. I is constantly entertaining, but it is isn't the great movie that Melancholia was. It has great moments, and then dull ones. I am mainly referring to the scenes between Joe and Seligman. I realize that these scenes are used a narrative tool, but does Skarsgard have to constantly keep referring back to fishing? Also, if Joe knows she's a bad person beyond saving, why should we care? I don't know. Vol. I is a good movie, but it's an incomplete one. I can't give the final verdict until Vol.II. Vol. I is a strange journey, but it's a fascinating one. Count me in.

B+

*Note: I have seen Vol. II and I wrote a review on it, but it wasn't posted... for some reason. Vol. II is better, but it falls apart in the last fifteen minutes. I say that Vol. II is better, but yet I give them both the same rating. Does that make sense? I don't know, but judging from the amount of people that found this review useful, I don't think anyone really cares.

Nymphomaniac Vol. II:B+, overall rating: B+

The Grand Budapest Hotel (2014)

Far and away Wes Anderson's best movie to date.

[10/10 · 24 March 2014]

Wes Anderson's The Grand Budapest Hotel is the Wes Anderson movie of Wes Anderson movies. Anderson's films don't appeal to all, as I have recently learned. But honestly, if you don't like his new movie, then there is seriously something wrong with you. I know it's still early in the year, but The Grand Budapest Hotel is easily the most enjoyable film of 2014 so far.

The Grand Budapest Hotel is this hotel in some made up, Wes Anderson-ian European country. The film revolves around a man named Zero Moustafa (the older version is played by F. Murray Abraham). Zero tells the story of his life to a young writer (Jude Law). What's this story? Well, Moustafa tells of his experiences with former hotel owner M. Gustav (the hilarious Ralph Feinnes). Gustav is a playboy and a bit of a con artist.

When his latest lay (Tilda Swinton, covered in fantastic make-up) dies suddenly, she leaves Gustav her most prized possession: a priceless painting named "Boy with Apple". The woman's son, played by Adrien Brody, doesn't take this well. And before you know it, Gustav is soon accused of murder, and from there, well, I can't share.

This is such an Anderson film, and it shows. From the fake sets to the quirky characters to the lightning quick camera angles. Although not all of his films are great, you always know that they're his, and that makes them a little better. TGBH is far and away the best movie that Anderson has ever made. As a longtime fan, it is easy to say that.

TGBH is dumb. In fact, it takes dumb to new heights. But it's the right kind of dumb. Not Adam Sandler dumb, but good dumb. think Airplane, but even smarter. Did I just contradict myself? I don't know. When you see it, you'll know exactly what I mean. This is the funniest, zaniest, and visually luscious film he's made yet. It's fun, and the fun never seems to stop.

I can't wait to go back. I find it strange that they would release it in March, mainly because it might hurt its chances at Oscar glory. I have only seen five movies this year, this being one of them. Anderson shouldn't worry. I can't picture another movie this year being as smartly funny as this one. I loved this movie. Every second of it. The performances are right on target, and so is the dialogue. Everyone that gets the joke, nails it. There are many reasons to see it, whether it's for Anderson or for Feinnes' pitch perfect performance. Regardless, just go. It's a trip well spent.

I haven't written a review since September. I don't know why, but I guess I just sort of lost interest in it. I have seen many great movies since then, such as 12 Years a slave, Gravity, The Wolf of Wall Street, and Her, but I just didn't have the energy. But seeing this movie made me want to write again. So, hopefully, it does the same for you.

A+

The Wolverine (2013)

Not the best in the series, but not that far off.

[8/10 · 27 September 2013]

I hate to admit it, but I completely forgot that I saw The Wolverine. As an X-Men follower, I of all people should've written this review a few weeks ago. I had intended on it, but I have been mega busy. So, here I am, telling you now, not mega busy. The Wolverine isn't the best X-Men movie in the series, but it is one of the better ones.

The film follows Logan (Hugh Jackman, as great as ever), who has a huge opportunity thrown his way when he gets to Japan. What is it? A dying ex-soldier who Logan saved years ago offers Logan the chance to live a normal life; to drop the immortality and live life normally. Logan is soon in trouble when this Viper woman shows up, and soon everyone is out to get him.

I am one of the rare few who actually liked X-Men Origins: Wolverine. The script was clunky, but as a movie it is pretty entertaining. That said, I myself was slightly skeptical on The Wolverine. Not because of that movie, but because there isn't much of a cast. It is basically Jackman and Famke Janssen, who returns as Wolverine's dead love Jean. That is it. I needed more than that.

I was wrong though. The Wolverine works because this time the script is better. Also, they picked a director who actually made sense. The Wolverine is directed by James Mangold, an overlooked filmmaker who experiments with genres. He directed Walk the Line, 3:10 to Yuma, and Kate & Leopold. See what I mean? This guy knows how to direct a movie, and with this movie he has created a gorgeous universe. He handles these actors well, because he knows how to.

The star of the show is Jackman, obviously. Once Jackman is gone, so am I. In his sixth performance as Wolverine, it is clear that he hasn't lost his touch. This movie is just part of the reason why he is a star. He's great. Also, the visual effects work marvelously and the action sequences are cool. Also, there is a twist that you will never see coming.

Overall, I prefer the previous X-Men film, X-Men: First Class. But The Wolverine is a consistently entertaining film that leaves you jazzed up for the next (and what I predict will be the last) X-Men film, X-Men: Days of Future Past. If you were left dissatisfied with X-Men Origins: Wolverine, go for this one. It is better. It is a much more mature film with an interesting premise. See it.

B+

Grown Ups 2 (2013)

It's nothing special, but it is a blessing compared to Jack and Jill.

[6/10 · 27 September 2013]

I have sort of lost faith in Adam Sandler, but I always hope that someday he might make a good movie again. I haven't given an Adam Sandler movie a full recommendation since Funny People, not I am not one of those Sandler haters. In all honesty, not all of them are that bad. Case in point: Grown Ups 2. Of course, the critics hated it. But I actually thought it had its moments.

Adam Sandler, Chris Rock, Kevin James, David Spade, and the majority of the cast are back the second time around. This time everyone is living in their hometown. Sandler's wife (Salma Hayak, who still looks fantastic) wants a baby, and there are plenty of other shenanigans. The main story (there really isn't a plot in all honesty) revolves around a group of frat boys (led by Taylor Lautner, finally doing something decent) whose territory is trashed and assume it's Sandler and crew.

Like its predecessor, there isn't exactly a plot. It is a lot of shenanigans, and they are enjoyable to watch. This obviously doesn't rank up there with Sandler's funniest comedies, such as Billy Madison, Happy Gilmore, or The Wedding Singer, but it also isn't on Jack and Jill territory. That is good enough for me.

The sequel has plenty of funny moments, but then again not all of them work. I just wish that Sandler and his friends would realize that farts and pee aren't funny. Who, besides a ten year old, laughs at that still? It is something was wasn't funny then, and I know I get really tired of it now. Grown Ups 2 needs a better story and a few other things. It honestly isn't that bad. I'm just glad it isn't Jack and Jill or That's My Boy. I hope we never have to see Sandler go there again. Ever again.

B-

Don Jon (2013)

A dirty-minded comedy from a very likable actor.

[7/10 · 27 September 2013]

When you picture Joseph Gordon-Levitt and his overly impressive resume, the last thing you picture is him as a porn addict. This fact is just part of what makes his latest movie, Don Jon, a total blast. Don Jon, in which Gordon-Levitt wrote and directed himself, places the actor out of his comfort zone, which is just one reason to see it. Another is because, well, it is a damn good movie.

Gordon-Levitt plays the title character. Jon is a muscular pervert, basically. he sleeps with plenty of women, but yet he doesn't get enough pleasure out of it. He actually gets far more pleasure from watching porn. So, watching porn is exactly what he does. When Jon meets his dream girl (Scarlett Johansson, looking as gorgeous as she always does), he even then can't move past the porn.

That is the movie, in summary form. But there is plenty more to it than that. JGL has written a hell of a script. Don Jon starts off as a dirty comedy, and slowly transforms into a film with a purpose. I like a movie like that. I like a movie where it ends in the complete opposite way it began.

Don Jon is the one unpredictable movie, and proud of it. JGL doesn't want to succumb to the Hollywood cliché. He has written a genuinely funny script here, and for the audience, it is hard to believe he had this kind of movie lined up. This is a movie with a dirt mind, but yet it has quite a bit of heart. That said, this is one of the stranger comedies in recent years.

Also, everyone nails their roles. JGL is excellent, but he isn't the only one who succeeds. Tony Danza, yes, Tony Danza, is terrific as Jon's dad. Also excellent is Julianne Moore (well, I think that went without saying) as a lonely woman who attends night school with Jon. Top notch acting all around.

I feel like I give a 9/10 a lot, but I just can't seem to find anything 10 or 8 worthy. I apologize. But Don Jon deserves it. Is it a great movie? Not quite. You feel as if the movie should go on and on, and whenever it is over, it just doesn't feel quite right. It is not like the ending is bad, but it is just a little abrupt. JGL has made a very good movie, and I am looking forward to whatever he brings out next.

A-

R.I.P.D. (2013)

Jeff Bridges' first acting gig in three years... and it's this?

[4/10 · 27 September 2013]

Summer 2013 has a fair share of flops. I happened to see a few of them. Actually, I think I saw all of them. Anyways, I recently saw R.I.P.D. I didn't pay to see it, because I have common sense. I'm also going to assume that you didn't pay to see it either, considering it bombed. I mean, from the trailer, I think it just went without saying that it would suck. Yep, that sounds about right. It does.

Ryan Reynolds plays a cop who is killed in the line of duty. But he gets another chance when he is enlisted into the R.I.P.D. (the Rest In Peace Department), a police force for dead cops. Their goal is to hunt down the undead. Reynolds character is paired with an old west ranger (Jeff Bridges, the only thing that sort of works in this movie), and together they try and find Reynold's killer, along with the rest of the undead.

What we have here is Men in Black meets Ghostbusters, and it just doesn't work. The majority of the material just never takes lift off. It is hard to believe that Jeff Bridges, who hasn't done anything since True Grit, would make his acting debut with this. Is he bad? Nope. His performance is enjoyable, but he pretty much plays Rooster Cogburn.

The movie is pretty predictable, stupid, and the visual effects aren't even good. It also will take one good joke and recycle it over and over again. Reynolds and Bridges are just here for a paycheck... I hope. I hope they didn't actually find this script good. Bridges saves the movie from being the worst movie of the year, and Mary Louise Parker is funny as an R.I.P.D. officer. Other than that, this movie is just lame. I think it would be best for everyone if we just let R.I.P.D. rest in peace... and not come back.

C-

Insidious: Chapter 2 (2013)

It isn't great, but it's worth seeing.

[7/10 · 15 September 2013]

There is a vicious cycle when it comes to scary movies. The original is released, it becomes an instant classic with a large fanbase. But most of the time, the filmmakers do not leave the original alone. Instead, the director brings along a new form of terror: a sequel. About 99.99% of the time, the sequel never lives up to the original. So, going into James Wan's Insidious: Chapter 2, the burning question on the viewers' mind is this: Can it top the original? Insidious, Wan's 2011 movie that slowly gathered a cult following, was one of the more effective scary movies in recent history. Wan hit another slam-dunk back in July with The Conjuring, an even better movie (and very successful and even critically acclaimed) which is among the years best. So, there is a lot of hype to live up to. Did he do it?

The sequel takes place directly after the events of the original. The Lambert family is trying to move on with their lives and recover from what they just went through. But of course, since this is a sequel to a scary movie, the recovering does not long. The wife Renai (the always terrific Rose Bryne) starts to notice strange occurrences again, including the behavior of her husband Josh (Patrick Wilson, the most overlooked actor in Hollywood), who she does not really trust due to the events of the previous film.

Warning: Do not see this movie without seeing the original. It is not worth it. For confusion sake, just sit down and watch the original. The sequel will not be completely confusing, but either way the original is worth seeing.

It is always nice to see good acting in a scary movie. Like in the original, Wilson and Byrne nail it. The statement about Wilson being the most overlooked actor in Hollywood is true. This guy is great in Hard Candy, Little Children, Lakeview Terrace, among others, and he is still not a household name. Neither is the gorgeous Byrne, who is known for FX's Damages and Bridesmaids. These two are in top form here. Everyone is good, and it is nice to have almost everyone from the original (even Lin Shaye's deceased character Elise).

But at the end of the day, Insidious: Chapter 2 is not quite as good as the original. For Wan, this is a step down from the original Insidious and The Conjuring. Jumping out of your skin is guaranteed, but yet the movie needed something more chilling. It needs more of Tiny Tim's "Tiptoe Through the Tulips" or that freaky demon that had a close resembelence to Darth Maul.

It is a good movie, but some of it is uneven. Not all of it quite adds up. Also, the twist, while good, is out there, even for this movie. Insidious: Chapter 2, though flawed, is a consistently entertaining movie that is worth seeing. It works, just not as well as the original. But Insidious: Chapter 3, if it happens, is pushing it.

B

The World's End (2013)

The apocalypse is a funny thing...

[9/10 · 14 September 2013]

Is it just me, or has there been a lot of apocalypse movies lately? We survived December 21, but yet the topic is more popular than ever. And they are also all comedies. Here are some of the apocalypse comedies that have come out recently: Seeking a Friend for the End of the World, Rapture-Palooza, This is the End. Now, at the end of the summer, Edgar Wright, Simon Pegg, and Nick Frost reunite just in time for a miracle of a comedy called The World's End.

This is the third time these guys have done a movie together, but the fourth time for Pegg and Frost (they did the mediocre 2011 movie Paul). When these three work together, they usually bring out comic gold, and that is just what The World's End is. Not only is it comic gold, but it's also a total blast from start to finish.

Pegg plays Gary King, a middle aged guy who lives in the glory days. In fact, he's so nostalgic, that he persuades his childhood friends (played wonderfully by Martin Freeman, Frost, Paddy Constantine, and Eddie Marsan) to join him on a pub crawl they started when they were teens (but never finished). Besides Gary, the rest of them are grown up and are skeptical about the journey. But they do it anyways. Only to discover that their hometown has been overthrown by robots.

The World's End is incredibly dumb, but in a good way. The kind of way that This is the End worked. The World's End has some big laughs and even when it is at its dumbest, it gets pretty intense. Sort of like... Shaun of the Dead. Wright, Pegg, and Frost are a comedic dream team, and their work with the Cornetto trilogy is marvelous. Please, go to the shop, and bring me more.

A-

Getaway (I) (2013)

Getaway... from this movie (I couldn't resist).

[3/10 · 14 September 2013]

A few weeks ago, a bomb went off... and it was called Getaway. Getaway was a marketing nightmare that basically looked like an extended car chase. Nobody saw it and the critics tore it to shreds.All that I have to say is that I am right behind the world's decision. I have seen it, and I wish I could erase it from both my mind and existence.

Ethan Hawke, who has had two big hits lately (Before Midnight and The Purge), has hit a wall, or is forced to hit walls, as a former racecar driver whose wife has been kidnapped by a mysterious man (Jon Voigt) and is forced to give into his demands. If he tells him to ram into an ice cream truck, he has to ram into an ice cream truck. You get the picture. Then more trouble arises when a young chick (Selena Gomez) gets into the car with him. Guess what? She can't get out, she's trapped. And so are we.

Getaway is only about 80 minutes long, and they are the longest 80 minutes of my life. You get the point after about 10. Gomez isn't convincing. The plot is basically the plot of quicker, better action thrillers. Ethan Hawke basically does what he is told to do, both in the movie and behind the camera, and drives.

For a movie that is absolutely action packed, I felt it was artificial and boring. To quote Journey, "It goes on and on and on and on." This is an incredibly redundant and stupid movie that really makes you wonder why Warner Bros. would have given it the greenlight. Hawke and Gomez will bounce back. I will say that the movie does do a good job of crashing cars. But if you want cars crashed even better and more interesting, stick with Fast and Furious 6. This is the worst movie of the summer.

D+

We're the Millers (2013)

Family fun for everyone... or something like that.

[8/10 · 26 August 2013]

There have been so many road trip comedies over the years that by now it feels as if there is nothing funny about it anymore. When any road trip movie comes out now, it's obvious that they are trying to stay in tradition of National Lampoons' Vacation, the king daddy of road trip comedies. Because even though it does choose a safe ending in the end, the rest of the movie is tasteless and perfect. Which is why We're the Millers is such a nice surprise.

We're the Millers is your typical road trip comedy on crack. Here is a raunchy comedy that comes dangerously close to playing it safe, but never quite gets there. And that's good. Most extremely enjoyable comedies get there towards the end (Exhibit A: Ted). We're the Millers is that sort of dirty comedy that the world needs more of.

The film revolves around a drug dealer named David (Jason Sudeikis) who, after losing almost everything, is offered a a pretty huge job: He needs to smuggle a smidge of pot over the Mexican border. How is he going to pull it off? Well, he hires a nerdy kid named Kenny (Will Poulter, who steals most of the show), who lives in his building, a stripper named Rose (Jennifer Aniston), who also lives in his building, and a mysterious punk named Casey (Emma Roberts), who lives outside his building, to pretend to be his family. But what all of them don't know is that there is a lot more to this trip than meets the eye.

We're the Millers is a consistently funny movie, even if some of the jokes are a little recycled. Yes it's dirty, but it isn't the tasteless comedy everyone is making it out to be. In fact, I wanted to be more offended. Sure, it has its times. But it never quite goes to the offensive stage you're hoping for.

This movie is a total blast, and every actor that gets a joke, nails it. Sudeikis, who recently left Saturday Night Live, holds his own here, and proves that he can be leading man material. And of course, Jennifer Aniston shows that she is leading lady material, and gives her sexiest performance since her sexiest performance, Horrible Bosses. And the other actors get it right also. See it.

B+

Kick-Ass 2 (2013)

It works for the first hour. And then...

[5/10 · 18 August 2013]

A few months prior to the release of Kick Ass 2, Jim Carrey, who plays an aspiring vigilante named Colonel Stars and Stripes, said that he would not help promote Kick Ass 2 because of its violence. As a fan of the original, I figured he wasn't kidding. But after seeing Kick Ass 2, I have realized that the reason to avoid it is not just because of its violence (and it is very violent). But because the last 40 minutes takes a very wrong turn.

The film picks up what seems like right after where the original left off. We find Kick Ass (Aaron Johnson) and Hit Girl (Chloe Moretz, the highlight of this one and its predecessor) in High school, trying to finish what they started and fight crime and stuff. Kick Ass teams up with a group of wannabe superheroes, led by Colonel Stars and Stripes. Meanwhile, Chris D'amico (Christopher Mintz-Plasse, who just can't be taken seriously) has his heart set on murdering Kick Ass.

The original was an over-the-top bloodbath, but I got a kick out of it, because it is really unlike anything ever. The sequel works for the first hour, but it takes a dark turn. A turn for the worst. The film has some hilarious moments, but yet sometimes it goes too far, even for a sequel for Kick Ass. It is very violent.

But one of the main flaw is the turning point. Once the actual story kicks in, the movie just can't find its footing. The original also took a dark turn, but it ended up kicking ass in the end. And obviously this one does that too, but I just don't like what writer/director Jeff Wadlow did with it. For the first hour, I was trying to figure out what was wrong with it. Then, it hit me. It hit me in the heart. This movie messed with my soul. That was a mistake.

Which leads me to the biggest flaw. This movie also happens to be a waste of a Jim Carrey performance. As a lifelong fan, I wanted a lot more from him. They simply just don't give him a lot to do. I was expecting him to be the highlight of the movie. Keep in mind, there are a few golden moments here, but they don't come from Carrey. Instead they come from Moretz, who, along with Nicolas Cage of all people, made the first one what it was. She is terrific again, but at the end of the day, Kick Ass 2 is a missed opportunity. This is the biggest disappointment of the summer.

C+

Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters (2013)

Better than I was expecting.

[6/10 · 14 August 2013]

Why would they give Percy Jackson and the Olympians: The Lightning Thief a sequel? The critics didn't exactly like it, and it didn't make that much money, and in Hollywood standards, that really isn't good enough for a sequel. But surely enough, after three years, they bring us Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters. I didn't exactly want to see it, mainly because I didn't like the first one. But I actually liked this one.

We find Percy (Logan Lerman, who will most likely be playing a teenager for life) at Camp Half Blood. But the good times don't last long, because the barrier surrounding the camp is wearing off. So, Percy and his friends must embark on a quest to find the Golden Fleece, which is going to save the camp.

I know that I left out a lot of plot details, but I really didn't want to ruin anything. Percy Jackson 2 is better than the original. It is at times too goofy, but it's fine for a fantasy to have a sense of humor. Look at the first three Harry Potter movies. Also, some of the lines made me roll my head and some of the visuals look a little cheesy. But this movie is fun.

Some of the special effects are pretty good, and it I did laugh here and there. But it obviously comes no where near The Lord of the Rings trilogy or the Harry Potter series. Was I expecting it to? Nope. So, I can't quite call it a disappointment. But for what it is, it is a good way to kill nearly two hours. Those two hours zoom by also, which is pretty nice. I say see it.

B-

The Conjuring (2013)

Though it's been done to death, it's done too well.

[9/10 · 10 August 2013]

The majority of the reviews for The Conjuring are calling it one of the scariest movies ever. Now, after many weeks, I have finally seen it, and I must jump into the conversation. I think people tend to get "scary" and "creepy" confused. My definition of "Scary" is when a movie makes you jump, a lot, while at the same time, causing nightmares. "Creepy" is when a movie stays with you, and sends chills up your spine. The Conjuring will make you jump, guaranteed, but it is more successful at creeping the hell out of you.

The Conjuring, which is directed by James Wan (Saw, Insidious), is one of the most effective scary movie since, well, Insidious. I'm sure glad that Wan didn't continue with the Saw series. The Conjuring is a well made, good old fashioned haunted house movie that doesn't use blood and guts (thank God!), and it actually better than any movie of its kind since... I don't remember.

The film tells the true story of the Perron family (the parents played by Ron Livingston and Lilly Taylor) who move into a house, and guess what? They got scary business going on. So, they seek the help of Ed and Lorraine Warren (Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga, who are dynamite as always), a married who are paranormal investigators.

Well, it's obvious that if actors as good as these are in a movie like this, it isn't bad. And it's far from it. This is Wan's best work yet, and I found Insidious compellingly creepy. What works best about this one is the way it all comes together. It doesn't just jump into the terror. The movie delivers its terror slowly.

I was entertained by nearly every second of it. This is one of those rare "Based on a true story" scary movies that works. It's a movie that will leave you talking and thinking about it long after its over. It's a movie that is R-rated for its scares alone. When that happens (and keep in mind this is from the guy that did Saw), then it's obviously good. I never thought that a movie done to death could ever be done this well again. This is a great story that needed to be told, and I'm glad it was.

A-

White House Down (2013)

Olympus Has Died Hard.

[6/10 · 20 July 2013]

I am really starting to wonder if Roland Emmerich is a terrorist. Emmerich, who is the king daddy of terribly enjoyable movies, seems to destroy the world with nearly every one of his films. Lets just think about what he's done to the planet so far. Aliens destroyed in Independence Day; Godzilla destroyed in... well, Godzilla; a huge wave destroyed in The Day After Tomorrow, and nearly everything destroyed in 2012. Now, he has directed a way to kill the president, in White House Down.

White House Down is an absurd thriller from a wizard of absurd thrillers. Nobody knows how to blow stuff up better than Emmerich, and here he does it so effortlessly. WHD is a dumb movie, but it is an entertaining one, and sometimes that's all that really matters in a summer.

Channing Tatum, who is practically taking over the world himself, plays John Cale, a man who desperately wants to work for the secret service. He soon gets his chance, and then some, when the white house comes under attack. Basically, Cale and the president (Jamie Foxx) play a game of cat-and-mouse with a terrorist group (led by Jason Clarke) hellbent on taking the president down.

WHD is the spawn of Die Hard and this year's Olympus Has Fallen. It lacks creativity, it is predictable, it is cliché, it is noisy, it is stupid. But the actors are all likable here. They all seem to be having a good time here. Also, it's fast-paced and intense. This is far from the best movie of the summer, but it sure isn't the worst. Here is a movie that knows its audience and what it's trying to be, and proud of it.

B-

Monsters University (2013)

What is lacks in story it makes up for in almost everything else.

[9/10 · 20 July 2013]

People are starting to lose their hope in Pixar. Ever since Cars 2 disappointed the nation, there hasn't been a Pixar movie with rave reviews. That said, it was only two years ago. I didn't like Cars 2. But I really enjoyed last year's Brave. I also really enjoyed this year's Monsters University.

Monsters University is a harmless film that is at times heartwarming and occasionally hilarious. But yet for Pixar, a studio who has brought us masterpieces such as Ratatouille, Up, Finding Nemo, and Toy Story, Monsters University doesn't quite meet its match. But it's enjoyable for nostalgic reasons. Enjoyable for those who enjoyed Monsters Inc. 12 years ago.

Monsters University rewinds the clock a little bit. We find Mike(voiced by the always wonderful Billy Crystal), our cycloptic hero, attending Monsters University. There, he meets Sully (voiced by the also always wonderful John Goodman),a fur ball with a heart of gold and his future best friend. The two start off as enemies, but soon they join forces in the "Scare Games", a competition to show who's the scariest, in order to get back into the Monster's program, which they have just been kicked out of.

The plot could be a little better, but I think that they mainly wanted to find a way to bring Mike and Sully back to the big screen, and thank God! Crystal and Goodman were the heart and soul of the original, and the same goes here. That said, Monsters U's heart is large.

Monsters U is a respectable prequel that doesn't match Pixar's best work, but honestly it isn't that far off. It has a large heart, some big laughs, and appealing visuals. Also, great voice work from Crystal, Goodman, and Helen Mirren (she's the harsh dean). I warn you, you will leave the theatre hugging yourself. Monsters U isn't the best movie of the summer, but it is up there. See it.

A-

Before Midnight (2013)

Not tremendously exciting, but does every summer movie have to be?

[9/10 · 20 July 2013]

It's summer, duh. So, what kind of movies do we expect from the summer movie season? Sequels, huge-budget action thrillers, probably a few comedies, a few animations, you name it. Richard Linklater's Before Midnight is a sequel, but it's not exactly the sequel that applies to the other characteristics I previously mentioned.

Where movies like White House Down and The Lone Ranger blow things up for two hours, Before Midnight is more of an intellectual movie. Before Midnight is an expertly written and acted drama about love. It's the kind of movie that has you listen, rather than just watch.

18 years after Jesse and Celine met on a train to Vienna, Jesse and Celine (Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy) have twin girls and are vacationing in Greece. But this time, their trip is a little different. When we first met them, they barely knew each other. Now, they really know each other, and we watch the two interact and slowly fall out of love.

Like its predecessor, Before Midnight is co-written by Hawke and Delpy themselves, which just helps with the realism of it all. The script is sharp, and so are the leads, who have obviously grown into much better actors in the past 18 years. Before Midnight is real. It is occasionally funny, and it never feels forced.

This is the best reviewed film of the year so far, or at least one of them. But I can't quite call it the best movie of the year. It is one of them, definitely, but it isn't the one. Why? It's simple. It really isn't that much of a movie. All it is is Hawke and Delpy walking around in a beautiful location and talking. But this time their conversations are much better. Before Midnight knows what it's talking about when it comes to love, and I doubt anyone is willing to argue.

A-

The Lone Ranger (2013)

It's dumb, predictable, loud,long, and familiar... but it's still not that bad.

[6/10 · 15 July 2013]

I will go see Johnny Depp in anything. But when I heard that The Lone Ranger was terrible, I am sad to say that I wasn't exactly surprised. Lately, it seems as if he has been doing too much of the same thing, and since he's so good at it, he probably feels like America will accept it. Since Alice in Wonderland, he has done nothing but these wacky characters, and he's good at it, so we watch it. But I think it's time he tries something new.

The Lone Ranger, which is produced by Jerry Bruckheimer and directed by Gore Verbinski (the team behind the Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy) have brought us something new. But is it? The Lone Ranger is pretty much Pirates of the Caribbean, set in the Old West. Some of the jokes are similar, some of the settings are similar, some of the characters are similar, some of the scenes are similar. But yet, I still didn't think it was that bad.

Armie Hammer, somewhat out of place here, plays the title role. His name is John Reid, a lawyer who is promoted a Texas Ranger by his brother, and with the help of a Native American named Tonto (who do you think? Johnny Depp, of course, doing his thing), he must track down an vicious, and somewhat cannibalistic, outlaw named Butch Candevar (William Fichtner).

As I said, it does have that sort of Pirates of the Caribbean-ness. It's even from the same writers. And I'm not saying that it doesn't work (everyone else begs to differ), but it isn't exactly inspired. The same goes for Depp performance. Depp does save the movie, though we've seen him do this before. Depp is one of the greatest actors alive, and we never get tired of him. I did laugh at during this movie, but it is the loudest movie since Transformers: Dark of the Moon. Also, it is about a half an hour too long, and it is sort of dumb. But I still recommend it. Well, I think it's worth a rent.

It's fun. Yes, all of the flaws mentioned apply, and it is also very predictable. But I had fun, and clearly the cast has fun too. But hopefully Depp's next movie doesn't require him to wear any makeup. Then we will know it's a serious performance. His next movie is Transcendence, a sci-fi from first time director Wally Pfister (Christopher Nolan's cinematographer). Then after that he's doing Pirates of the Caribbean 5. I understand Verbinski and crew are just trying to give the audience what they want... but if we want Pirates of the Old West, then call it so.

B-

Movie 43 (2013)

A bad movie.

[4/10 · 13 July 2013]

Has anyone ever seen Amazon Women on the Moon? Probably not. It's a very dumb but yet funny movie that is basically just a bunch of random skits with famous people. No really story. I love that in a movie. You don't find it very often. It can either be done very well (The Onion Movie) or very poorly (The Underground Comedy Movie). So, because I like those kinds of movies, I actually thought Movie 43 looked kind of fun.

Then, the reviews came out. And the critics tore it to shreds. They called it one of the worst movies of all time. So once I heard of this, I knew I had to see it. It was in theatres for maybe a week, then it was gone. It's July now, and I've finally seen it. I am one of the few whose seen it. I survived Movie 43. I don't think it's one of the worst movies ever, but it was bad. I love movies like this, and I hated this one.

Again, this is a sketch comedy without a plot. There is sort of a plot but I didn't get it. One sketch involves a blind date between Kate Winslet and Hugh Jackman, and Jackman has a ballsack on his chin. O-kay then... Anyways, the best sketch in with Liev Schreiber and Naomi Watts where they give their home schooled son a taste of teen life. They bully him, they teach him, and even hit on him. That one is very over-the-top but yet it actually worked. But those aren't even the worst ones. There is one where Anna Faris asks Chris Pratt to poo on her. There's another where Chloe Moretz has her period and everyone finds out about it.

There are three, maybe four sketches (out of probably 15) that I actually sort of liked. The rest of them are either strange, disgusting, repulsive, or creepy. Some of them have good ideas, but like most, none of the jokes ever seem to take liftoff. The idea just works. It's sad that when you gather 13 filmmakers (including Griffen Dunne and Elizabeth Banks) and nearly 30 writers, this is the best you can come up with. Also, it feels like every one of the filmmakers is trying to outdo each other in repulsion. It's pathetic.

It's hard to believe that a movie like this could even get made. How are all of these famous people in this movie? How did they get Oscar winners and nominees on board? Were they all blackmailed? Or were they just bored? If it wasn't for the few skits that sort of worked, this would be a truly terrible movie. Instead, it's just bad. Not just bad, but also sad. One of the worst movies of the year so far. Believe the hate.

C-

Scary Movie V (2013)

The saddest movie since Amour.

[3/10 · 13 July 2013]

I don't mind a really dumb comedy sometimes. But it actually has to be funny. Airplane, that's a stupidly funny movie, and one of the best of all time. As is The Naked Gun Trilogy and the Hot Shots series. Director David Zucker and his team really know how to do stupid right. But not even he and his co-writer Pat Proft can save Scary Movie V.

Scary Movie V is a stupefyingly dumb comedy that parodies actual good movies to boost its self esteem. I'm glad Zucker skipped out on directing this thing, but he still wrote this piece of crap, which makes me sad. In fact, the entire movie makes me sad. It makes me sad because it has all of these talented people who have really hit rock bottom, with nowhere else to go. Charlie Sheen, Lindsay Lohan, Ashley Tisdale, Mac Miller, Snoop Dogg (Oops, Snoop "Lion"), Simon Rex, possibly Heather Locklear, and Katt Williams show up to this thing, and it's the saddest movie since Amour.

What is this about? Good question. I don't really know. The story is so mashed together you feel as if Zucker and Proft were mainly trying to make as many references as humanly possible. They spoof Mama (the main one), Evil Dead, Paranormal Activity, Black Swan, Inception (?), and Rise of the Planet of the Apes (?).

That said, I laughed once or twice, mainly at the Black Swan scenes (excluding the one where a ballerina, who I'm pretty sure is Heather Locklear, gives birth right on stage). But what also doesn't help the movie is the timing. Because Paranormal Activity has already been parodied in A Haunted House, and much better might I add.

At the end of the day, Scary Movie V is pointless, unfunny, and incredibly stupid. Gee, I wonder why Anna Faris didn't show up? Probably because this movie is even too dumb for her, and she's Anna Faris! Charlie Sheen isn't winning anymore. He's losing, and pretty roughly might I add. The same goes for everyone involved in this movie.

D

After Earth (2013)

I don't know about you, but I don't go to see a Will Smith movie for Jaden Smith.

[4/10 · 13 July 2013]

It's hard to believe that once upon a time, M. Night Shamylan got two Oscar nominations. Wow. The Sixth Sense was a good but overrated movie which seemed like the start of a promising career. He made two more good movies after that (Unbreakable and Signs, the latter being his best movie I think), then after Signs, his movies slowly got worse and worse.

It's been three years since The Last Airbender, which, may I add, was the last truly terrible film I have seen. After Earth didn't look too good from its trailers, but you never know with Shamylan. I had slight hope that maybe he could finally make a good movie again. Surely enough, he didn't. But at least it's not as bad as The Last Airbender.

So, what is this movie? Well, I'd like to call it a "coming of age science fiction story." Take that however you want, but that's what I'm calling it. It takes place in the future. Will Smith plays a space general who while aboard a ship with his son (Jaden Smith, his actual son) crash lands on planet Earth. With both of his legs broken, he guides his son through our ruined planet in order to bring them to safety.

The visual effects are sort of impressive, but all After Earth really is is a 90 minute talk fest. I don't know about you, but when I go to see a Will Smith movie, I don't go to see it for his son. This is less a Will movie and more of a Jaden. Jaden isn't much of an actor yet, which is sort of why this movie even exists. Will wanted this movie made so then he can give his son more of a shot at acting. Unfortunately, this is not Jaden's window.

This is not your typical Shamylan joint. No twists, no nothing, so it's just mainly relying on the visuals to keep our attention. I couldn't pay attention. After Earth bored me silly. It adds nothing new to the genre, and it doesn't help that even Will Smith looks bored. He just stares around for 90 minutes, talking. If Will Smith can't even look interested, then Earth really is in trouble.

C-