Hellrazr360 Reviews

Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011)

It's a Mess

[10/10 · 29 June 2011]

I'm a light fan of the first two films (average/above-average sci-fi/action), so it should be easy to understand that I was anticipating this film. While I'll definitely admit the problems with both Transformers and Revenge of the Fallen, those issues didn't interfere with the entertainment and fun I got out of them. All I really wanted out of Dark of the Moon was good action and possibly some humorous scenes that would make it an enjoyable time in theaters. What I received, however, was an overbearing, convoluted mess that left me perplexed (not in a good way).

It's tough to provide a decent plot synopsis since so much occurs back-and-forth throughout the film; especially during the first two acts. We're essentially introduced with a montage-esque twist on the first Moon landing, before switching to the film's present day with Sam and his (new) girlfriend trying to get him a job. Meanwhile, the Autobots appear to be continuing their jobs originally seen in Revenge of the Fallen (finding Decepticons and taking care of other world issues--illegal nuclear plants--along the way). This leads to the first of Dark of the Moon's problems: the plot (and script) is all over the place. This is especially so in the second act where shifts and twists come by as fast as the explosions and crunches emphasized later in the film (we'll get to those).

Some of the more criticized scenes from the previous two films were those used for laughter. While it's true most of these fell flat in the second, they usually worked in the first. And while I'll say we get a couple more successful attempts at this in Dark of the Moon, too many are hackneyed and, at one too many points, misused. A key example of this comes from a character who acts extremely over-the-top (makes the brownie scene in Revenge look depressingly-toned) and doesn't get an ideal exit. Right when this happens, other characters make ignorant jokes that would have been funny and appropriate had he simply been knocked out, rather than meeting a serious end. 90% of the other frequent jabs of humor don't fare much better.

This leads to one of the biggest issues with the film: haphazard tone shifts. Once again, the second act is where this prevails. We get a lot of scenes that are intended as funny, but are scattered amidst more serious moments. The problem is that these are juggled around so quickly that it becomes tough to stay in a certain emotion, which only took me more and more out of the film. Comic relief shouldn't be used like a crutch and tossed about more serious points. Unfortunately, Dark of the Moon makes this mistake so many times until the final 40-60 minutes, that words like conflicted and bipolar become understatements.

Of course, what everyone truly wants out of a film like this is good action and effects, something Bay has always been known for and often delivers. And it's true, Dark of the Moon has some incredible visual spectacle. The action scenes are nicely shot, for the most part, and the final act is almost nonstop in the display we're given. When the real action sequence(s) kick in, they definitely leave you glued to your seat and the best part: they're not too short-lived like its predecessors (especially Revenge).

However, even for the excellent technology put up, I couldn't even feel (happily) enthusiastic about it. As I said, the last act has A LOT of effects and stunt work at, well, work. But there's not much action otherwise in the rest of the film; save for a little chase-to-battle scene about halfway through and a couple brief points sprinkled elsewhere. The reason I couldn't fully enjoy the action found in the last act, however, is that it all comes too late and is overbearing. It takes about an hour and a half to get to this point, which is about how long most action films can retain the enjoyment of their stay. And though the previous two films were long as well, they flowed well enough to where the ongoings didn't feel like too much for the film to handle. Here, the film feels like it was two in one.

As I said above, the plot goes all over the place which, combined with a literal (and to quote one of the characters) "cluster****" of comedic/serious scenes, makes the incredible action in the final act feel more strenuous than entertaining. Even though I'm a fan of longer films (Pirates of the Caribbean 3 being a personal favorite), Dark of the Moon really takes its toll when the second act begins to give way to the third. And since the ending is way too anticlimactic to feel like a proper resolution has been provided (we're given, at best, a minute of talking after the action stops, before the credits begin), it becomes that much easier to feel like your eyes, ears and mind have been fried. But this wasn't from the epic nature the film strives for near the end, so much as it was from how misused everything felt.

Dark of the Moon is a film I truly wanted to enjoy; it was what I wanted to be the ultimate summer action film of the year. The first two kept me entertained and interested, the trailers for this looked promising too, so I was expecting to have fun. Yet what I experienced was a huge, incoherent mess with next to nothing that helps it feel legitimately distinguished. My brain tried to shut down, but there are simply too many problems present; and they tragically outweigh what little redeeming qualities exist here. I'm glad others enjoyed it (my friend and the theater we were in gave it a huge applause), but for me, this will likely go down as the disappointment of the year.

Fast Five (2011)

Fun Film For Fans of Fast & Furious Franchise

[7/10 · 14 May 2011]

Film series as of recent have been holding a better streak of adequate consistency than we might be accustomed to. Saw didn't start becoming rotten until the fourth installment and while the upcoming Pirates of the Caribbean film might not leave much of a strong impression, early reviews are indicating it'll likely be about as good as Dead Man's Chest (decent). Now we have the Fast and Furious franchise coming back with a fifth installment (and a sixth already in-development). Though the shameful 2 Fast 2 Furious might have been a poor addition, the remaining films have maintained an adequate level of execution and entertainment (peaking with the under-appreciated Tokyo Drift). And with Fast Five being the first of many guaranteed action blockbuster films for the summer, eyes have still been on it to deliver.

What has to be made clear is that anyone who honestly wants to enjoy the film should leave their logic and standards at the concession stand. Because from the opening minute alone we're given a scene that defies all plausibility, and the things only continue down a similar road throughout.

Now that this has been made clear, the skeptical shouldn't worry too much, for there's still a solid film to find here. Part of what helps Fast Five work as well as it does is thanks to the fact it embraces such an over-the-top nature that audiences are likely more willing to accept given the hardships of today's economy. If you've come to enjoy the crazy action characteristic of series such as Rambo and Die Hard, then you'll feel right at home here.

Those who've followed the Fast and Furious films up to this point will probably get a fair amount of nostalgia throughout the film with various characters coming back, including a couple surprises not shown in trailers (one of whom audiences will want to stick around after the short credits, along with another curious surprise). As a result, long-time fans will get the most out of Fast Five. But this isn't to say that newcomers won't feel some sort of attachment (if not entirely to the characters). Since the return of various characters isn't relied on too heavily with regards to exposure, less-familiar viewers needn't worry about feeling lost or not getting an idea of what they're like throughout the runtime.

Fast Five might not significantly raise the standards that we've come to expect from such a franchise, but it doesn't have to. With so many areas visited by previous installments, resorting to a more action/thriller-centered approach than even the previous film only seems like an inevitable and fitting road to travel. And you know what? The results are quite welcome and pleasing.

P.S. Don't mind my alliteration-heavy summary.

Thor (2011)

A Very Pleasant Surprise; Applause-Worthy

[7/10 · 10 May 2011]

This summer is shaping to be a big one for action blockbusters and sequels (with more expected this year than any preceding). We got Fast Five recently (with the sixth installment already underway), Pirates of the Caribbean's fourth outing is a couple weeks away, while July will be giving us more than just Deathly Hallows Part 2 and Transformers 3. Thankfully, we're getting some films that are at least trying to give us a tale not told in a while on-screen as well. And one of them just happens to be what is, in this writer's humble opinion, the biggest theatrical surprise since Iron Man in 2008.

Seeing the trailers for Thor, I expected it to be a mediocre at-best film not far from what G.I. Joe apparently turned out to be. But then the reviews came in and, combined with urging from personal acquaintances, I succumbed to what had long-since caught others. Being almost completely unfamiliar with the tale(s) of Thor, I wasn't sure if the film would be able to truly catch and maintain my interest. Thankfully, we're given a pleasing introduction within the first act that sets the stage well without creating overexposure. Essentially, after years of battles and quests, Oden nearly bestows one of his two sons, Thor, as his proper successor. But after a thought-past threat ultimately shows what Thor is truly like, Oden banishes him to our world without his true strength (since Earth is the ideal place for the outcast).

Thor (as a film) doesn't have any problem deciding what kind of film it wants to be: this is an action blockbuster with traits of an epic. The first act has some impressive visuals and an excellent action sequence that the final act actually has trouble matching. Despite the genre being clear-cut and not requiring much (if any) of an attention span, Thor thankfully manages to avoid falling into the rut that too many action releases have. By this I'm of course referring to a lack of compelling characters and, more so, an even lesser tale to tell.

Most of the characters we're introduced to are nicely developed and are quite likable, with one in particular being more dimensional than audiences might anticipate. The cast here is notable, with Portman, Hopkins and Skarsgård all being among my personal favorite performers. Yet it's the relatively unfamiliar lead title character who steals the show (and thankfully so). With the exception of a small role in 2009's Star Trek, Chris Hemsworth was unknown to me until now. But he fits into the role of Thor perfectly, going through his personality with almost as much strength as his build. He's sure to become one to find in future action films.

Thor is a very enjoyable film with just enough action and laughs to make it one that most anyone can enjoy with an open mind. While the script might show cracks here and there, namely with regards to a few lines, most of what we have here is quality material. Here's hoping that Thor proves to be a precursor to other fun summer films to take us away from our daily hardships (which is what most films should do).

Battle Los Angeles (2011)

Ambitious But Heavily Derivative

[7/10 · 12 March 2011]

2011 hasn't left an enticing first impression for films, both released and upcoming. With a record broken for most sequels, combined with re-releases (Conan the Barbarian) and spin-offs (Puss in Boots), finding something original in cinemas seems to be one more challenge to face for the year. That said, even though Battle: Los Angeles might not have direct relations to previous films, it doesn't avoid being dissimilar. The good news, however, is that it at least functions enough to be enjoyable.

We get a fairly brisk introduction to some of the cast before being thrust into the fight at-hand within the film. Down time is in short supply as the conflict with an invading (or as is referred to within the film, "colonizing") extraterrestrial force reigns over the runtime. Battle: Los Angeles stays in relation to its name as it takes place entirely within the city, but these Californians aren't the only people facing a new threat. A number of other areas throughout the globe deal with the same issue, though we never see anything on their end beyond brief TV broadcasts. As a result, the film takes on a feeling of being a smaller part of a potentially bigger conflict.

Since the vast majority of Battle: Los Angeles is action, the standards it's held to aren't terribly demanding. And thankfully, we're treated to some good scenes, namely the final fight just before the end which, though not epic or revolutionary by any stretch, does feel nicely built up towards. Other stretches, primarily the first few, don't hold up quite so well; suffering from the all-too-familiar Michael Bay-esque directing style of quick cuts without showing much, if anything. Fortunately, by the time the antagonists have been revealed full-well, things are seen in a far more cohesive manner.

When looking at how the film stands up on a more fundamental and less action-oriented level, the cracks begin to quickly show. Probably the easiest issue to pinpoint is that everything here is incredibly derivative of other films (and even videogames). Independence Day, District 9, Terminator, Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter, Modern Warfare, Resistance, Battlefield; the list of friends goes on. Another shame to find is that little-to-nothing is revealed about the invaders themselves. Most of the supporting characters also come and go without much development to find. Needless to say, this isn't much of a thinker's film, especially since most of what occurs on-screen is predictable.

Battle: Los Angeles is an easy film to figure out. If you like what you saw in the trailer(s) and are fine with getting 2 hours of that, then you should be content with what's present. But a detailed story and question-answering with regards to who, what and why are MIA, unfortunately. This is a shame since the film does show potential and even gives hints at being something more elaborate, but they're never delved into. Everything here is fundamental or, if you prefer, shallow. As an action film primarily judged on the on-screen conflicts, it suffices and holds up better than most of its typically-average precursors. Thus, junkies of the said genre will likely get what they're looking for while everyone else is better off waiting until the (good) summer releases.

The American (2010)

Silent and Vague

[6/10 · 8 September 2010]

The American is quite a striking film, partly thanks to the fact we don't see releases of its nature often; and even fewer of them are even close to what one would call a "blockbuster." While many of the individual aspects to the film aren't exactly unfamiliar (assassination agent, small cast carrying the burden-most of it on a single lead, etc.), the combination of them here is just the start of what makes it interesting to analyze.

George Clooney plays an agent who's seen his life become embodied by a weapon and killing-type field with several unrevealed details. Rather than introducing us up-front to the plot and characters, we literally follow Jack (Clooney) over a short stretch of time as if documenting part of his life without commentary or interjection. This also leads to another peculiar trait of the film: it's incredibly quiet. Going in, one will likely expect an at least mildly strident action/thriller. Instead, however, we get what could be described as a scarcely eventful thriller (with a couple other genres working their way in).

The benefit to this approach is that, during certain scenes, we truly get the feeling of being alongside Jack, with hardly more than silence and thoughts to ourselves. It's an admirable way to go about things, certainly, but the quiet nature is so prominent that it make some stretches of the runtime feel weary and sleep-inducing. Granted, the film probably wouldn't have fared any better with variations in the volume (which would likely make the tone inconsistent), but a "things could be worse" view doesn't excuse shortcomings.

Speaking of under-toned, Clooney's performance throughout the entire film is incredibly subdued. We get a number of points where Jack rubs his face or mutely reveals tension to us. Emotional delivery is not the name of the game here, which is well in-character, but the fact that we never get an even brief shift in Clooney's tone makes Jack seem less realistic. I understand the intent is to refrain from putting feelings on display, but, to quote Ellis Redding, "every man has his breaking point." Jack doesn't go completely solo in the film, though his contacts are even sparser than his lines of dialogue. His primary contacts come to be his boss, Larry, in a few phone calls, the friendly and honest Father Benedetto, Ingrid, an inspecting lady on his mission and Clara, a lovely seducer who Jack becomes quite involved with. With the exception of Larry, we get to see a sufficient amount of these characters to at least feel some legitimate connection, with Clara being the brightest light. All told, the cast do an adequate job with their roles, though only Clara and Father Benedetto feel truly honest in this developed but barren sea.

On a more positive note, we get some excellent camera work throughout the entire film. While the shots aren't on caliber with, say, Road to Perdition, what's provided is very eye-catching. Probably the best part about the cinematography is that it doesn't try to give us perfect details. Oftentimes the beauty of locations aren't realized without imperfections, and it's nice to see a film that understands and embraces this. Some points aren't incredibly detailed and we don't get completely vivid colors or brightness, but this lends the locations a far more natural feel. And even during the few "action" scenes there's no worry about quick cuts or "shaky-cam;" everything is coherently captured.

It might seem that I found The American to be a very weak film, but this isn't necessarily the case. There's definitely enough going for it that a viewing is warranted simply for the fact that it's a different dish than what we're normally served. However, simply avoiding clichés doesn't automatically mean it's completely superior. Faults have found their way into the movie and a couple of them are rather prominent. Taken as a whole, The American provides a worthwhile experience with some bumps along the way but, in spite of them, is still bound to leave at least some impression on its viewers.

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009)

Has Enough Going For It Despite Being a Big Mess

[10/10 · 24 June 2009]

The first live action Transformers film, just like any other film by director Michael Bay, yielded mixed opinions though most were at least entertained by it. With the sequel, Revenge of the Fallen, we see the film playing to its predecessors' strengths and weaknesses very largely, but the general scenario (in regards to judging the film) has changed a bit. In some ways this helps the film, while in others it's hindered by this.

Revenge of the Fallen's plot is simply all over the place, mostly due to the constant shift in settings. The starting point of the story is that the Autobots are now helping humans track down other Decepticons with Sam going to college and having to deal with Bumblebee, his girlfriend and one of this parents being more...unconventional than usual. But things only wind up getting more messy for Sam as the situation with the Autobots starts going in a not-so hot direction. By the time the film has ended, the viewer has gone and visited Sam's house, a college, a military base, airplane museum and Egypt.

While the film's plot does have more substance than its predecessor (which, granted, isn't exactly a challenge), it doesn't flow out nearly as smoothly, with practically every essential plot point being delivered very briefly and over-stressed without elaboration. In some ways, it almost feels as if the film doesn't care about losing the audience in its plot details, though anyone who pays attention, has seen the first film and is even faintly familiar with the original back-story shouldn't have too much trouble keeping up.

Stories are not where Bay has ever succeeded at, but rather the action is what he's noted for. And here, just like Transformers from 2007, the action is big, loud and overzealous. In fact, this film is to its predecessor what Gears of War 2 was to its predecessor action-wise: bigger, better and more bad-ass. The action has been captured much better than before, though it isn't without a few random explosions and "chaos cuts" that ultimately show nothing. That said, everything in these sequences are quite impressive to look at and are guaranteed to make the viewer's eyes pop. What most will likely remember is the rumble in the forest during the middle of the film, it's definitely the best scene in the film.

A few other select areas have seen a bit of improvement, but only slightly. The acting is a small step above that of the first one (with some obvious exceptions), the Transformers are properly given more screen time than the first film and there are a couple nice throwbacks to the original TV show (Starscream + Megatron=Not so pretty scenario).

However, there are also areas the film still falters on and, even in parts that are improved from the first, still hold it back. What most will likely hold against this film the most (and already have) is how the runtime really drags on a lot more this time around (despite only being six minutes longer). Even during action scenes the film's length will definitely show its cracks, which has made many already dislike the film. And while the acting is a step above the first film, this isn't to say it's good, and once again, the machines have more/better personalities than the humans (well, generally, the twins aren't exactly what I'd call "necessary inclusions").

This also brings up the amount of Transformers we see in the film, which has hit a pretty large number. However, many of these inclusions don't feel in the least bit necessary and others who could've (and should've) been emphasized/fleshed out more were barely included (I can only recall Ratchet having one brief, quiet line). If anything, the film details the Decepticons side almost as much, if not a bit more than the Autobots (though fans of the show probably won't mind this). Some of the machines we see in the film impress us (with one near the end being, well, big), though for every likable one there seems to be another than we could've easily done without.

While there's a lot that can be complained about in Revenge of the Fallen, it's still very possible to like and enjoy it. There's a greater sense of urgency with the higher stakes presented in the film, we see more of the Transformers themselves this time around (finally getting a bit of real screen time), the attempts at comedic scenes, while still falling flat, aren't nearly as lousy as those in the first film and again, the action is quite entertaining and is usually impressive (with some interesting twists here and there).

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is a film that will likely cater to only select viewers who are tolerable of long run-times and lacking (to say the least) plot lines. For my money, I'd say it's better than its predecessor despite still having some key issues, but it's a tough recommendation since there are a lot of easy turn-offs present throughout. If you go into this film expecting mindless action, you'll get enough of that, but your endurance may very well be tested and it's pretty much given you'll get more than you bargained for (whether this turns out to be good or bad is entirely subjective). I myself enjoyed the film very much despite its flaws and will likely watch it again down the line.

Harold & Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay (2008)

There Are Some Laughs To Be Had, But The Film Falters Too Much

[5/10 · 25 May 2009]

The first Harold and Kumar film, while not much of a box office hit, did develop a cult following after it hit DVD. And with good reason, it was a fresh, legitimately funny film that had plenty of memorable absurdities, some very likable characters and a lot of charm. So naturally, when the second film was announced and teased, a decent amount of people were hotly anticipating it, including me (the first teaser on the airplane was enough to bring me in). While the film does have some funny moments here and there, it simply falters more than it succeeds.

The plot is on a bigger scale, with the two leads getting caught up with the American government over the occurrences in a semi-funny scene. But most of the film is, in essence, a wild goose chase as Harold and Kumar seem to run about (almost aimlessly in some parts). But thanks to the bigger scale plot, it allowed the film to experiment with some more direct jokes pertaining to larger targets which is actually one of the areas the film missteps. Part of what made the first film so funny and original was that it tackled jokes that were, well, not common (okay, some more than others). Here, we get jokes that, in many cases, have almost been done to death. Not that this is a bad thing on its own, but the film doesn't give a different or original take on it and, as a result, barely holds any humor.

This also brings up one of the key issues with the film: many of the jokes simply lack comedy. I won't get into all of them, but the scene where Rob Corddry (who I'll touch upon in a bit) takes out a can of grape soda and lets it spill out in front of an (initially) stereotypical black man only comes off as annoying and not in the least bit funny. Similarly, the part where he lets a bunch of coins fall in front of Rosenberg and Goldstein is just devoid of any humor. Scenes such as these only come off as overdone, cliché and, as a result, insulting (if anything).

Another problem with the film that can be derived from those jokes is that there are points where the film takes itself too seriously. This is normally a common trait in comedies, especially recent Jim Carrey films (Yes Man, Bruce Almighty, etc.) but they only detract from the said films. Again, this points back to the first film and how it avoided this very effortlessly, there were barely any truly serious scenes and even those which existed had some humor sprinkled in for good measure. Here, those scenes just make the film seem to drag since they only make you roll your eyes at how almost all of them have been done a million times and a half before and only detract from the entertainment.

But probably the most glaring issue with the film for me was how the two leads seemed to have changed for the worse. In Go to White Castle, Harold became a typical but likable "victim of circumstance" and a shy guy who I think many people (including myself) can relate to. As for Kumar, he was a less usual stoner character who essentially played that "he's smart, but just too care free and lazy to do anything" that made him very likable and arguably the film's best character (save for perhaps NPH). In this film, however, the two seem to have changed for the worse. Harold has become more of an angry guy who rarely has any laughs or fun moments that just makes him annoying. As for Kumar, they REALLY messed his character up. Part of what made him so likable in the first film was that he was always upbeat, carefree and always had something absurd and funny to say. In this film, he's given a love interest which only removes a lot of what made him so lovable before.

And don't even get me started on Rob Corddry, because every scene he is in just ruins the film. His jokes (which are nothing but the overdone stereotypes I mentioned earlier) are only annoying and completely devoid of comedy. About the only scene this isn't the exception of is when he's listening to "Danger Zone" towards the end. Otherwise, while watching the film for the first time, I was just praying he wouldn't show up again after the camera got away from him.

This isn't to say that the film is devoid of laughs, there are some funny scenes present scattered throughout the runtime. But that's just it, these parts are only scattered. In the first film, laughs were abound almost nonstop and even when there weren't, the film was still fun. With Escape from Guantanamo Bay, the (good) laughs are only here and there, with arguably the best one being just a couple brief seconds long in the middle of semi-serious scene (hint: Y2K).

While it might sound like I absolutely hated this film that isn't the case. The film isn't necessarily bad it was just disappointingly mediocre. I was hoping to get a film that was along the lines of the first but what I got was a film that resorted to the typical PG-13 comedy routine except with the vulgarity of an R-rated film. Some of the scenes might get a good kick out of you, but nothing will come close to what we got in the first film (save for the NPH scenes-seen any unicorns recently?.

Terminator Salvation (2009)

Terminator: Throwback Edition

[10/10 · 22 May 2009]

When watching Terminator Salvation, one can't help but get a strange sense of deja vu throughout the course of the film. This isn't so much due to the characters or the story and how it's presented, but more thanks to select scenes that at times feel thrown in for the sake of nostalgia. With that in-mind, it's easy to view this film as more of a tribute to the other Terminator films (namely the first two) more than a truly significant entry in the series.

Probably the film's only truly main issue is the plot itself: it just isn't that significant. Save for showing John Connor and Kyle Reese in the constantly foreshadowed future to give an idea of their characters in the setting. Really the film feels as if it's just trotting along to entertain rather than tell anything. There are a number of action scenes that come up every so often and these are the highlight of the film. From impressive special effects to very good camera shots and enough adrenaline to keep the viewer's eyes glued to the screen, Salvation manages to succeed very well in the action and entertainment aspect.

With regards to the film's characters, they're mostly competent but not effectively used. Sam Worthington and Anton Yelchin are the only two here who are any exceptions to this, with Worthington being the film's most likable character and the only one really close to fleshed out well enough. Anton definitely looks like he's giving his all to try and do justice to Kyle Reese after Michael Beihn superbly played him and he manages to do a surprisingly good job. However, everyone else just comes off as unremarkable and not in the least bit interesting. This isn't helpful, since Christian Bale, as with his predecessors, just can't manage to utilize the potential his character has. Granted, he's probably done the best job out of him, Edward Furlong and Nick Stahl, but even with that said he barely does anything to stand out from the crowd.

As mentioned before, the plot could very easily be argued as completely insignificant. Really all it does is tell part of a potentially endless series of chapters in the long war against the machines. There are also a couple questionings that one might have with the decisions made in the film in regards to the series' continuity (eg. Reese's feelings towards the Terminators in the first film a la "it can't be bargained with...it doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear..." speech don't seem to match up with him knowing Marcus in the film and, in the end, that he was a Terminator). These parts might not be glaringly obvious, but they do lead to some skepticisms with the film and its choice in progression.

While it might sound like I'm beating up on the film and consider it a lousy overall production this isn't the case. In fact, my expectations were quite low and the film did manage to surprise me. There's enough fun to be had with the action scenes and the film is generally entertaining despite it's flaws. The film could certainly have been a lot better and, if anything, we could've certainly done without it. So if you simply want a film that entertains and serves a bit of a tribute to its predecessors, then get in line. But if you're hoping to get a significant installment to the films plot-wise with stakes along the lines of Terminator 2, don't be surprised if you're, well, disappointed.

The Soloist (2009)

Solid Performances In a Weak Film

[6/10 · 24 April 2009]

As I walked in and sat in a seat at my nearby movie theater waiting to watch The Soloist, I was hoping to get what the trailers seemed promise: a strong, character-driven story led by two talented actors ultimately amounting to a solid film. What I got was half of this. The Soloist does well with some of the material it has, but there are too many missteps throughout the film (especially in the first act) to make it anything above decent.

The film's plot is fairly basic. Robert Downey Jr. plays a writer for the Los Angeles Times (Steve Lopez) who comes across a homeless violin/ex-cello player (Nathaniel Ayers) with Jamie Foxx filling in the character's shoes. Lopez sees potential for Ayers to make a "comeback" so to speak and begins writing a column for him in the newspaper. Of course not everything works out so well and several debacles take place throughout the course of the film. All of this unfolds with some fairly haphazard approaches and mixed results.

What really hurts the film is many of the choices made to progress the plot and emphasize the characters. The scenes which show the viewer what happened to Nathaniel before he became homeless come of as either perfectly adequate or inconsistent. Many of the film's scenes involve multiple voices saying/repeating lines/words over and over which, quite frankly, do get annoying before long. It also feels rather odd having a good few dialogue exchanges occur with both or all of the characters talking at once. Whether this was intentional or not doesn't detract from it feeling unnecessary and taking the viewer out of the unfolding plot.

What does work in the film is the performances by the two lead actors. Downey Jr. does a great job playing a conflicted newspaper writer and he also takes part in a couple...nasty scenes that make for good, brief comedic moments. As for Foxx, he manages to do an equally, if not superior job fitting into his role and, unlike the film itself, barely has any hiccups during his performance. While both put on great performances, don't expect them to be in the running for the Oscars since they come just a slight nudge below excellence in their screen time. Part of this (mostly in Foxx's case) can be attributed to the questionable style of development as mentioned above. For the first half of the film it's tough to really care much about what happens but the second half does help even things out with stronger scenes. In regards to the supporting cast, most of them are negligible and, other than those who have more frequently occurrences (which granted aren't that many), barely stand out.

The Soloist is a film that had plenty of potential to be a precursor to the film releases over the summer. Unfortunately, the film lacks a proper sense of pacing and direction to make it realize this potential. Foxx and Downey Jr. put on two great performances and during some of their key scenes, it's far easier to get immersed in the film. However, the film itself doesn't fare nearly as well and misses the mark just too much to be worthy of a full recommendation.

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (2007)

At Series' End, At Finest End

[9/10 · 13 April 2009]

It's a bit funny that the third Pirates of the Caribbean film is titled "At World's End" when this is what we see and go through within the first thirty or so minutes in. And given the film's near three hour runtime, it leaves far more to the film than the title might imply. Yet this is rightfully so, given the introduced circumstances and cliffhanger ending to Dead Man's Chest. Going in the Matrix sequel route, At World's End saw itself released very shortly after its predecessor, especially for a sequel. Not surprisingly, both sequels to both franchises were met with very mixed reception, almost having nothing but lovers or haters of each of the films (unless I'm hearing talk of another Pirates of the Caribbean film series). That said, what's one more guy's opinion?

The two things At World's End seems to demand of its viewers are patience and multiple viewings. For a first viewing, it's quite easy to get lost with the plot in how it seems to twist and turn all over the place and makes the lengthy runtime seem inadequate in regards to fleshing the story out. Due to this, the film can be argued to have some pacing issues, though after seeing the film enough times the story comes off as far more cohesive and doesn't seem nearly as uneven in its pacing as before. While watching the same two hour and forty-nine minute film multiple times might seem demanding, it's ultimately worth it in the long run.

Other areas the film has drawn plenty of flak is in regards to the characters, the acting and dialogue. Yet this is another area I must respectfully disagree. While Depp and Rush might not be nearly as good or charming in this film as they were in Curse of the Black Pearl, they, as with the rest of the cast, do a more than sufficient job fitting back into their roles. Knightley definitely does her most charismatic acting in this film of the current Pirates trilogy (as of the writing of this review) which, admittedly can sometimes come off as over the top, though most of the time she fares well enough, and certainly a lot better than just about any other actress around her age would have. Orlando Bloom also at least deserves some credit for this film since he tackles a more down, serious and emotionally torn character. He's far from the best young actor out there, but as far as I'm concerned, he does a solid job in this film and, like Knightley, pulls off arguably his best acting job in the series. The rest of the supporting cast are just as well, with Bill Nighy standing out once again doing a great job as Davy Jones.

Easily the film's greatest strength though is its entire presentation. The film is excellently shot, with little to no lack of great cinematography. As with its predecessors, the special effects are top notch, and we get plenty of this demonstration in the last action scene towards the end. Speaking of the action scenes, while there's not too many of them, what are present are definitely amazing, with the aforementioned final action scene being quite impressive. Yet it's the film's amazing score that really sells the picture. While it hasn't garnered much attention make no mistake the score pieces throughout the picture are wonderfully placed and used to great effect. Many scenes in the film work so well thanks to the superb score. Not many films seem to utilize the potential of fitting score placement well enough, but this film pulls it off with ease and can easily win you over just for that.

Judging by what I've said, I think it's easy to determine my regards towards the film. One key reason for this is because this is a film that becomes more rewarding with each repeated viewing; another viewing lets me take notice of several things that really make this film so much more than the majority I've seen recently. Call it blasphemy, but I hold this film as superior to Curse of the Black Pearl and definitely higher than the sub-par Dead Man's Chest. This film feels more complete, doesn't suffer dragging on as much from multiple viewings (the one major weak point of the first film), has far less of the silly, unnecessary jokes which plagued the second film and wraps the trilogy's story arc up satisfyingly while leaving us curious as to what will happen next. Give the film the time and it will grow on you. Watch it once or little more than once and you'll likely hold in "mid-series" regard at best. Patience is a virtue.

Fast & Furious (2009)

All Told a Good, Enjoyable Entry

[7/10 · 4 April 2009]

It goes without saying that the Fast and Furious franchise hasn't had a good run with the critics. Yet the films have had a mostly fair run at the box office, so they've gradually been released. The first entry is almost unanimously regarded as the best in the series while the second and third are typically frowned upon. For my two cents, the first and third are about equal while the second is best kept as a distant, forgettable memory. Given that this film is coming from Justin Lin, who directed Tokyo Drift, the least that should be expected are some well shot action scenes involving cars. Though enthusiasts of the series will also be looking for satisfaction to the story as well.

Does it succeed? Yes, in most ways.

The film opens with a bang as Dom, Han (from Tokyo Drift) and a couple other unknowns to the series attempt to steal some gas tank trailers off of a truck which, needless to say, doesn't go without a hitch. After this and a quickly filled in plot piece, we find out that Letty gets murdered and Dom naturally seeks revenge and returns to the U.S. With this and a current assignment, Brian O'Connor (from the first two films) is brought into the mix as he attempts to go after the same people Dom hunts down. The premise is decent enough with skepticisms and indecisiveness playing a large role between the characters.

Speaking of the characters, one area of concern fans of the series might have is how well they're still executed and fleshed out after nearly ten year absence from each other (in regards to the film's release dates). Fortunately, the main cast mostly pulled off fair enough performances to stay convincing enough, though it isn't without some melodrama here and there. Fortunately, these moments aren't too frequent and don't hinder the film all that much. Diesel manages to pull of the usual 'just decent' performance that he's had in practically all of his films. Walker actually feels like the most fleshed out character and comes off as a better performer than Vin. As for the supporting cast, they're all just fair at best, with only one or two performances any better than that.

But since this film is called "Fast and Furious" and is part of that very franchise, what most people will likely expect going in is for it to be, well, fast and furious. In this sense, the film does succeed quite well. Credit definitely has to be given to Lin for the action scenes involving the cars. The action in these parts are frantic and very exciting, with plenty of awesome, speeding cars to add adrenaline to these scenes. If there's anything you'll want to do at the end of the film, it'll be to get in your car and start shattering the speed limits.

What Fast and Furious does best is give you an adrenaline rush during its action scenes. The film lives up to its name and will give those wanting some great car action sequences something to enjoy. When action isn't the focus of the film, it's far easier to find issues and be a bit turned off. But if you're a series fan you should be able to enjoy most of what the film offers and will likely walk away quite satisfied as I did. The first and third films are still my favorites in the series, but this installment is about as good as the first film and is miles above the laughable 2 Fast 2 Furious.

Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)

An Excellent, Entertaining Mid-Installment with Few Shortcomings

[9/10 · 7 March 2009]

Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith was literally the last hope any and all Star Wars fans had for George Lucas to even come close to matching the original trilogy. Despite the uneasy and lukewarm-at-best reception The Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones garnered, anticipations were set high after the promising trailers along with multiple light saber duals being touted. This was the last major, on-screen film Lucas had left to release, and how did it manage and hold up? About as good as realistically possible.

It's tough to try and even match the original trilogy. And while Revenge of the Sith isn't like a new revolution to Star Wars, it is one heck of a great film. It manages to be so engaging and entertaining that there are plenty of times it can be easy to forget about the film's shortcomings (especially during the last hour). Everything that could possibly be squeezed into a film such as this (and more) is present and handled and executed surprisingly well. From the story, to the drama, to the emotions, conflict, intensity, action, effects and even more, Revenge of the Sith can at times feel like a multi-layered film stylistically and genre-wise.

So let's take a closer look, starting with the story. Things open with a bang as Anakin and Obi Wan get caught in the middle of a huge battle as they attempt to rescue Chancellor Palpatine. The unfolding plot from the beginning at first feels rather casual but eventually leads to a far more involved and engaging story. While the overview of the story itself has been known for what feels like an eternity now, the film manages to make the plot as interesting as possible thanks to a more personal insight into this particular branch of the story.

In regards to the characters carrying the story as well as the rest of the film on their shoulders, there are some good performances to be found. Obi Wan, Anakin, Padme and Palpatine are given the center stage treatment and for the most part they do a sufficient job. McGregor as Obi Wan is still a solid, likable character and he manages to (once again) create a fairly convincing younger version of Ben Kenobi from A New Hope. Portman also delivers a mostly solid performance as Padme (especially after her on again, off again performance in Attack of the Clones), with only a few melodramatic lines being delivered. McDiarmid as Palpatine is finally given some true exposure after seldom appearing in the last two films, and while he has one or two lame lines he does well to create the dual personality character Palpatine/Sidious has.

As for Christensen, the film's main point of focus, he actually turns out to have the most surprising performance of the entire cast. Unlike his horrendous performance in Attack of the Clones, Christensen managed to make a far more convincing and more than tolerable character this time around. While his role isn't without some cheesy lines and overzealous dialogue, he mostly pulled off a good performance this time around; which is good since this was really the last chance we had at seeing him before becoming Darth Vader with the suit on.

If it isn't clear by now, Revenge of the Sith's greatest weakness is that there's some melodrama and issues with the dialogue. While the points in the film that these show aren't too frequent (about three or so times total), they still stick out. But since the film has a relatively lengthy runtime and the last hour is almost devoid of any of these moments (hence the word "almost"), it's easy to look past them or even forget most of them.

As with all other Star Wars films, the action and effects here are excellent. The five major light saber duals are all very fun to watch, even if on the short side (with one or two exceptions). Revenge of the Sith also hones the expected space battles, with the opening being a large-scale space ship battle that's pure pleasure to the eyes. And, as always, each of these scenes are captured and directed brilliantly, showing everything at a great angle so that you can appreciate as much as possible.

To help compliment the action sequences (as well as non-action scenes) is the always impressive musical score. It's tough to find films with an overall greater and more memorable score than Star Wars, and other than films like The Lord of the Rings, there are few that can rival it. This is no less the case with Revenge of the Sith, as several various, tantalizing and epic scores are played throughout the film. It's all pure bliss.

There are also some particular scenes that stand out very well and help make the film all the more intense, emotional and simply entertaining. There are three main standouts for me during the film. The first being when Anakin and Padme are looking out across the windows of the separate buildings they're in, imagining the other in the opposite area when they in-fact are. Another would be towards the end when Padme is giving birth and Anakin/Vader is being operated on to be outfitted in the Vader outfit; with both suffering simultaneously as the film alternates the viewpoints. But probably the single strongest scene in the film for me would be when the Jedi are being terminated/betrayed, from Obi Wan being shot off at to Anakin getting ready to kill the young padawans. Needless to say, there's no short supply of emotion and intensity here.

All told, Revenge of the Sith is one heck of a movie and about as good as a film in its scenario could possibly be. While this isn't an earth-shattering, remarkable film that some might have foolishly hoped for, it's a great watch worth several viewings and a commendable effort from Mr. Lucas.

Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)

Has a Bit of an "Episode I Syndrome", But It's a Mostly Fair Improvement

[6/10 · 4 March 2009]

Back in 2002, it was tough to go into theaters for Episode II: Attack of the Clones and be full-heartedly excited. After the overall less-than lukewarm reception The Phantom Menace garnered, Star Wars fans were left unsure if the next prequel could manage to even come close to being an improvement. In some ways, Attack of the Clones doesn't feel all that different from its predecessor; in-spite of a number of changes made.

The story has a very similar format to that of The Phantom Menace, with two main story lines existing simultaneously (while occasionally intertwining with each other). First is the more politically-involved plot which begins with an assassination attempt on Amidala and an attempt to find the assassin along with the introduction of a later character's precursor (Fett) leading to the clones introduction to the mix. The other main plot present is Anakin and Amidala's love for each other, which I'll get to later on (since it's determined by the characters more than the storyline itself). In regards to the plot involving the clones (leading to the Storm Troopers), it's sufficient enough and is carried well throughout the film. Other small story tidbits are tossed in, but they tend to feel like they were tossed in simply to link the two trilogies together (such as the Death Star's conception).

As with Episode I, Attack of the Clones' characters either feel weak or well fleshed out. Obi Wan Kenobi is given more much-needed exposure and his character is a lot easier to like this time around (with a mostly solid performance from McGregor). The supporting characters feel sufficient enough as well, with Christopher Lee as Count Dooku being a clear standout.

However, the characters in Amidala and Anakin (especially in regards to their acting and dialogue) is where the film begins to fall apart. The main reason for this is that Hayden Christensen's acting is simply awful. Essentially, watching and hearing him talk on-screen here is like watching a soap opera. His voice and line deliveries will either make you cringe or say "wow" in explanation. If there's anything that can be praised in Christensen it's that he's good at emoting when silent via facial expressions (so the scene where his mother dies works well enough).

Unfortunately, Christensen's awful acting as Anakin makes the love connection between him and Padme feel misplaced. For most of the scenes in the beginning where he's talking to her she seems to react with a "wow, what a (insert demeaning/derogatory term here)" kind of look on her face. And while Portman had a good screen presence with a solid performance in The Phantom Menace her acting her feels rather off, especially for her character. Another key complaint that can be attributed to both performers in the film is how they're left delivering these absurd, cheesy lines that feel like knock-offs of Shakespearean writing (giving the film an awkward, cheesy feel, respectively). For almost every scene of dialogue interaction between the two there's at least a couple lines that feel so melodramatic that it becomes so easy to be taken out of the picture.

On the other hand, when the film isn't (lousily) trying to express and tell the love story it actually manages to be fairly decent. This can mostly be attributed to the action and build-up to the last thirty to forty-five minutes. By the time Obi Wan lands on Geonosis the film becomes a little more engaging since the focus moves towards the conflicts that are about to unfold and away from the unconvincing romance story.

If it isn't implied enough by now, then it should simply be said: Attack of the Clones has excellent action and has impressive effects even by today's standards to support it. The ensuing battle between the clones and the droid army is one of the most intense and entertaining scenes in all of Star Wars and has a great, light feeling of nostalgia. Even by today's standards, the special effects are very impressive and top of the line, which only help to make the action all the more enjoyable (along with how they're capture on-screen excellently).

One light compliment that can be given is that the film ends on a good enough note. When the score kicks in at the end with the clones marching into their ships upon the words "begun the Clone War has," chills are almost inevitable. While this does give the film a bit of a cliffhanger ending in regards to the Clone War, it manages to end on a fairly smooth transition to where it doesn't feel rushed (like some key parts of the pacing through the film).

Attack of the Clones is, if anything, a slight though debatable improvement over its predecessor. While the plot, action and effects have improved, the characters and pacing are still glaring stains on the once majestic material. There's a decent enough film to be found here, though you'll have to look past the horrible love scenes to find the true film here.

Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)

The Makings of a Good Film Are Present, But Are Sparingly Realized

[4/10 · 3 March 2009]

One could argue that the Star Wars prequels were potentially destined for disappointment after the enormous impact the original trilogy left behind. In-spite of this (whether accepted or not by audiences), the prequels were met with less-than stellar reception; particularly the first two. Regardless, the films were released and are here to be viewed and, naturally, judged. So, how does the first chronological episode stand up in this mind's eyes upon recent viewing? Not exactly good or bad.

To lead things off, let's start with the story; which feels good one minute and then insignificant the next. While the more politically involved segments (obviously to appeal to older viewers) are actually rather good, other story pieces (Anakin's introduction, the Gungans' inclusion, medi chlorians, etc.) feel weak and almost, if not completely unimportant. What's most unfortunate about the story, however, is that it's easy to see and find the concepts of a far more interesting worthwhile story, but the film tends to dodge the possibilities of utilizing these parts. While doing so could've brought the runtime to a borderline of three hours, it's better to have a film be long and more complete than short and feel like a tease.

Similar can be said towards the characters. For the most part, the main characters aren't given much, if anything to work with (Qui Gon Ginn, Obi Wan Kenobi, Darth Maul, Anakin, Palpatine/Sidious in particular). As a result, most of the characters feel wooden; even the likable Liam Neeson and commendable Ian McDiarmid feel under-utilized. Along with Palpatine, the lack of real script material provided to Maul and Anakin really hurt the film. While Anakin is supposed to be this abnormally gifted child he really doesn't seem this way, especially with Jake Lloyd saying some ludicrous and at times unnecessary lines (such as him basically playing "kid commentator" in the Naboo starfighter) which, combined with his annoying voice don't exactly make him feel like a convincing beginning portrayal of Anakin succumbing to the dark side.

If anything, this film feels more like Natalie Portman's film as Queen Amidala (with Keira Knightley convincingly playing her decoy). Portman actually manages to have a fairly strong screen presence as opposed to the others. She (along with Knightley) manages to be one of the few convincing and seemingly adequate characters. Then there's the oh-so ever-hated Jar Jar Binks who, despite receiving every conceivable condemning possible, isn't nearly as bad as made out to be (well, from my standpoint). If anything, it's his character's slang and dialogue that are annoying rather than his character (which can be attributed to the other Gungans as well).

Probably the film's single greatest strength is the design concepts and how they're handled in the film's technical presentation. For one, the film looks great, the battle scenes are nicely shot (and fun to watch, especially Darth Maul's lightsaber battle) and the artistic style is top-notch with some breathtaking and elegant images. And as if it needed an introduction, the score still holds up well and strong, even during the slow parts it manages to really sell the mood when played.

Unfortunately, what really tears the film apart is that it doesn't feel like much of a start, especially in regards to Anakin Skywalker's character. It's rather odd that Jake Lloyd was chosen for this role since his previous films didn't show much talent (Jingle All the Way anyone?) and that's just the case with this movie. Despite how hard he and the producers may have tried, he more times than not comes off as annoying and nothing like the kind of character we'd expect to eventually become Darth Vader. While him leaving his mother behind is supposed to be the initial set off for his path to the dark side, this is barely even emphasized in the film. As a result, Lloyd's presence as Anakin can almost be disregarded due to his usually annoying or unnecessary significance compared to what the film truly focuses on.

What The Phantom Menace shows is that containing hints of potential in a film simply isn't enough. When simply implying (sometimes in an easy to neglect kind of way) upcoming events throughout an entire film, it becomes too easy to look at the film as a little more than a tease. This is why films such as this, The Matrix Reloaded and Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest simply didn't work save for a couple aspects (which, conveniently enough is the action and effects in regards to all three). There's some good in this film and the action scenes are quite good and fun, but ultimately it's a film that promises so much more than it delivers. This isn't a horrible film since the action is very well-executed; but action and effects don't carry a film alone.

The International (I) (2009)

Solid Sufficiency Buried Under An Uneven Package

[4/10 · 19 February 2009]

The International is a perfect example of how a film comes so close to grasping its potential but ultimately falls below what it could've been. Most of the fundamentals are present: an interesting premise, a solid story, a couple note-worthy stars and so forth. However, what holds this film back is that the finished package simply feels uneven with the good aspects only occasionally popping up amidst the mostly sub-par experience.

Essentially the plot deals with an agent (Clive Owen) attempting to uncover and possibly prove a bank's involvement in sudden killings as well as arms dealing. The premise itself is good and sufficient enough to be carried through the film's nearly 2 hour runtime. This combined with a mostly solid story give the film an almost Tom Clancy-esquire style. Unfortunately, what keeps the story from being full realized from its potential is how it, along with most of the film seems to drag on to the point of yawns aplenty. Due to the relative slow pacing it can almost become hard to realize there's actually an interesting plot unfolding.

The events of the plot are placed on the shoulders of various characters, with Clive Owen and Naomi Watts carrying the weight of this task. While Watts, as with most of the supporting cast, seems to have on and off performance deliveries Owen really manages to shine as the lead. Most of the film's best lines of dialogue come from Owen and his conversations with other characters, especially Watts. Sadly, these line deliveries aren't too frequent and, as a result (as with the plot), it can become hard to realize the subtlety of some of the dialogue.

There are times, however, that the film manages to shine and show what it'd be like if every scene was handled as well. The one major action scene in the middle of the film is probably one of the better shot and more entertaining action scenes I've seen recently. There are also a few more suspense-oriented scenes that help make things interesting here and there, which also break up the seeming monotony. Unfortunately, these scenes are too few and far between to make much of an impact on the film overall.

All told, The International is a film that shows so many signs of great potential but only occasionally realizes these parts well enough. If you're interested in the film's plot and how it unfolds you might find a solid watch with The International, but be ready for a rather slow-paced film. This is far from a bad film, yet the well-executed scenes are too few and far between to make it worthy of an honest recommendation.

Slumdog Millionaire (2008)

A Decent Though Unremarkable Film Worthy of Recommendation

[7/10 · 9 February 2009]

After hearing so many positive remarks about how this was one of the best, if not THE best film of the year my curiosity for it raised. Going into the film, I wasn't quite sure what to expect but I half-heartedly felt that I'd be either horribly disappointed or completely blown away (since I tend to be in the love it/hate it crowd for critically praised films such as this one). After leaving my theater (which was filled with people at least three times my age) I was saying to myself "eh, it was a good film, but not Oscar-worthy".

While this might sound like I have an overall negative opinion of the film this is far from the case. Slumdog is a perfectly good film that's worth a watch by anyone really interested in seeing it. That said, I can't call it anything more than "good" or "solid" since it was certainly likable but far from awe-spiring.

The story revolves around Jamal Malik who, upon coming one question from winning an Indian version of Who Wants To Be a Millionaire? is confronted and accused of cheating. Up until the last ten minutes the film is told in flashbacks as Jamal explains how he knew the answers to certain questions, with a considerable chunk revolving around him and his brother Salim and the troubled connection he has with Lakita, a girl they meet as kids early in the film. I liked the approach they went with giving the answers to certain questions a backstory from Jamal; I was actually hoping they did a flashback for each question but given the film's overall approach, it's easily understandable why they didn't go with this approach.

One of the film's strengths is that it manages to feel authentic with the story revolving around the characters and the struggles they face. While I will say the dialogue felt rather clunky and slightly ridiculous at times the film manages to feel mostly believable thanks to its mostly down-to-earth approach with Jamal and Salim. As for the acting, everyone did a mostly solid job. Dev Patel manages to create a likable character (despite some on again, off again acting), Madhur Mittal creates a very believable adult Salim though Freida Pinto would have to be my favorite performer in the movie as the adult Lakita; she manages to make a great character who's very easy to like and sympathize with.

There are a few strong moments in the film that will catch the audiences' attention (almost all of them unpleasant), most of which occur in the first half of the film. Comedic bits are few and far between, which does work in the film's favor since it maintains a core mood throughout the runtime. All told, it's a well-rounded package, with a sufficient ending that feels like it flows well and naturally as with the rest of the film.

But why isn't this film anything truly amazing (for me at least)? Mostly because there really isn't anything in the film that's truly impressive or spectacular save for a few select scenes. The acting as I mentioned is solid though some performances are better than others (particularly with the supporting cast), dialogue is hit-or-miss and the film does drag out a bit leading up to the end. These aren't major issues and don't keep the film from being enjoyable, but as the film stands it only holds up as being a good, mildly entertaining watch (and I use "entertaining" lightly here).

This is a good, solid film that I would suggest watching if you're curious to see what it's like and know enough about the film going in. That said, I can't say this film is Oscar-worthy in my books and is far from being the best film I've seen this year. You may and possibly will like the film a lot more than me for all I know, which is perfectly fine by me; I'd rather at least half enjoy a film everyone else loves than not like it at all.

Valkyrie (2008)

Well-Crafted and Engaging

[8/10 · 19 January 2009]

When I first saw the trailer for Valkyrie, I said to myself, "plenty of potential, but it looks like it will be wasted." I was offered a the chance to see the film a couple times but turned away since it didn't look too promising to me. But I finally succumbed and decided to give the film a shot and see how it would hold up. After quietly leaving the theater with my friend, I can say this was a very nice surprise; and I'd encourage anyone curious to see the film to do so.

One thing I said to myself before the film started was that I just couldn't see Tom Cruise pulling off an eye-patched Nazi attire. This was one of the first areas the film surprised me; Cruise managed to fit into his role as Colonel Stauffenberg very well. He also managed to make Stauffenberg one of his more likable characters for what I've seen. The supporting cast also do a good job and were arguably better at their roles than Cruise.

The film does get off to a rather slow start but it ultimately sets the scenario up for what becomes an interesting and very engaging watch. While the end result(s) aren't surprising it's still neat to see how everything plays out and this is ultimately the film's greatest strength. Once the climax and plot began to play out I could not look away from the screen.

Definitely check this film out if you get the chance, I can almost guarantee you'll leave the theater satisfied.

Yes Man (2008)

A "Has Its Moments" Film In the Purest Sense

[6/10 · 5 January 2009]

Jim Carrey has had a rather rough run with his recent films. After raising the bar with the obscenely lovable Liar Liar and creating a perfect casual guy goes party mode in The Mask, it seems he's had a tough time living up to his 90's classics. While 2003's Bruce Almighty was a decent watch it just felt a little forced near the end. Then there was The Number 23, which was an all-time low for him as far as I'm concerned. Now he offers us Yes Man, with my thoughts from the trailer being that I though it would be mildly entertaining but not a return to glory. And this is pretty much exactly what the film was for me.

Carrey basically plays a man of reluctance and slight resentment in the film until he's finally persuaded to give a program a shot encouraging people to say "yes" to mostly everything. Carrey's first thoughts are that it's as bad as he thought, but then things finally start to go his way in-spite of a few suspicions. The rest of the film essentially plays out like a casual romantic comedy with him and his love interest doing what they want and hitting the usual speed bump near the end with words and a couple events smoothing things out at the end.

For me, this film had a bit of the "Bruce Almight syndrome" in that the first half to 3/4 of the film are where the highlights are at, but the rest of the film felt like it was becoming a little too forced and serious. There were a few good, humorous moments during the film but nothing that'll make you choke on your popcorn and soda. My main problem with this film and other comedies is that sometimes they take things too seriously or feel forced for certain sections. This was the case with Bruce Almighty during the second half and Harold and Kumar Escape From Guantanamo Bay felt like it was trying to push the "food for thought" aspect(s) a little too much. Yes Man is more or less in the same boat.

If you're a Jim Carrey fan like me, then this film might be worth a viewing, though I'd suggest waiting for it come out on DVD and renting it since I was only entertained so much. I did get a fair amount of chuckles and laughs and it did manage to keep a smile on my face for most of the runtime. However, during the last roughly thirty minutes it felt like it was trying to change its style, which just didn't work for me.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008)

A Beautiful Tale Courtesy of Mr. Fincher

[9/10 · 3 January 2009]

WARNING: THIS REVIEW DOES CONTAIN SPOILERS.

At this point David Fincher has established himself as one of the most talented directors out there, with films such as Fight Club, Se7en and Zodiac earning him a great deal of respect from film critics and fans alike. An admirable part of Fincher's films is that they put more of a focus on the story and characters along with the narrative and cinematography revolving around them. This, along with various aspects to his other films has helped solidify him as an ideal inspiration for aspiring film makers. I recently got the opportunity to see his latest offering, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, which I was very interested in seeing since I saw the first trailer. After sitting through this near three hour film I can safely say that this is my new favorite Fincher film.

Obviously what drew me to this film was the catch to the story: how the main character ages backwards. My interest in this wasn't so much to see Button's character go through a reverse aging, but more to see how things unfolded around him as he physically became younger. Thankfully for me, a lot happened during the film, whether it centered on Button or simply involved him. Given that the film has a fairly lengthy runtime, I was glad to see that there were a fair number of changes in the setting of the film.

This brings me to perhaps the most surprising aspect of the film for me. A film can very easily win me over with beautiful sceneries, and I also have a soft spot for movies that take place during the 50's or any period preceding that point. Since a good portion of the film takes place around the 40's to the 70's I was automatically engrossed. There were also points in the film when the scenery (the winter night outside when Button's having an affair with Elizabeth, the sunrise at the dock with his father and the ship passing his captain's tugboat to name a few), these were the parts that I felt I had left the theater and entered the film.

The story, which mostly centers around Button, is one of several stories that works well thanks to the narrative. Parts of the film are narrated by Button's daughter as they transition to Button's voice narrating. The film is told in flashback which doesn't necessarily hurt the film, but I would've preferred a little less emphasis on the present scenario. Brad Pitt, an actor who I've never been particularly fond of, manages to do well with what he's given. Cate Blanchett, an actress who I've held similar regards to managed to do about as solid as Pitt. This is to say I liked their characters in the film, but it didn't change my perspective on them, which is about as much of a compliment as I could likely give either of them.

I'd actually have to say the side characters seemed to have a stronger screen presence than Pitt and Blanchett. While this isn't a common aspect to most films, I do like it when the "next-in-line" characters get their fair share; it helps make the film feel better-rounded. The film is very character and narrative-driven, similar to movies like Forrest Gump and American Beauty. And like those films, Benjamin Button does an excellent job in both aspects, helping it unfold into a great story not so much for the events themselves, but what the characters themselves go through due to these occurrences.

One part I was very curious was to see how things would wrap up around Button and what would happen during his last moments. The last few minutes and thus, the actual ending to the film was the most powerful part of the movie for me. Just the thought of how Button forgot about his life and died as if just born was a very shattering scene for me to watch and as a result, this became one of the few films to actually bring tears to my eyes. Not remembering your life, not even a single part of your memory, is something that really got to me in this film.

Other than a slightly shaky narrative in brief parts and a couple moments that drag on, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button proves to be a very valiant and worthwhile viewing. If you're like me and you love films that have memorable settings and places the characters on center stage then you should have no trouble falling in love with this film. With the exception of The Dark Knight and possibly WALL-E, there aren't any other films released this year that I could put in the same league as this latest effort by Mr. Fincher.

The Dark Knight (2008)

The Knight, The Fallen Hero, The Joker

[10/10 · 24 December 2008]

The Dark Knight isn't just the Batman movie we've all been waiting for; it's the superhero movie we've been waiting for all these years. While there have been some great comic book films like the first two Spider-Mans and Iron Man, The Dark Knight is what really takes these films to a new level. This is a film that does everything right, nails what so many others struggle to and this is one that's done so well, that it's easy to forget this is even a superhero/comic book film. Even with the names "Joker" and "Batman" being used very frequently in the film it's tough to even begin to look at it this way.

There are plenty of surprises all over the place in The Dark Knight, with many of them coming from the story and how much focus has been put into it. It's really quite surprising how much of a focus is put on the story between Gotham itself, Bruce Wayne/Batman, Harvey Dent, the gangs and the Joker. This is just one of the many ways in which the film really surprises you and helps it unfold into something truly special. From every exchange of dialogue, statement made, lie told and all that progresses the story to the very last line you're constantly engrossed in this film from start to finish, it never loses grip of its engaging story.

The actors and performances from them are just as impressive, with the casting being about as good as it can get. When you have a cast that includes Christian Bale, Morgan Freeman, Gary Oldman and Heath Ledger, you know that the performances shouldn't be a concern. Even with that in-mind, every performer does an excellent job and brings their respective character to life exceptionally. Bale as Bruce Wayne and Batman is once again excellent, managing to be the likable, sympathetic guy as Bruce and then the focused, swift crime-fighting vigilante as Batman. Freeman as Mr. Fox is once again brilliant and a very likable character; just about any movie he's in he makes his character stand out and this is no exception. Oldman is far and away one of the most overlooked actors out there and his performance here is no less than worthy of anyone else in the film.

That is, with the exception of Heath Ledger as the Joker. Unlike the Joker in Batman from 1989 who had more of a comedic aspect to him in some cases, the Joker here portrayed by Ledger is dark, sinister and at time downright disturbing. His entrance into the film is just one of his many stand-out parts; and after you see his acting while talking (especially those about his scars) you can't help but be completely mesmerized. Some of these scenes are so amazing and haunting that you'll have your jaw dropped for minutes with shivers coming down all over your body (not just your spine). Complete and utter tensions are what dominate you when seeing Heath on-screen. Whenever Heath is on-screen he IS the movie.

As far as action goes, there's plenty to be had, but by no means does it dominate the film or try to be the biggest or best aspect. What's remarkable about the action sequences here is that they aren't the most memorable parts of the film; a superhero/comic book film. Rather than feeling like pointless scenes meant only for entertainment these scenes happen for a reason and help give way to unfolding what happens next in the story. The film even makes fun of youngsters going ballistic over just the action scenes in the middle of one of the chases, which was pretty nice.

Something that this film also manages to do amazingly well that almost no other film (or any that I can think of) is that in-spite of its long running time (nearly 3 hours) it doesn't drag out once. Normally I check my cell phone several times during a movie to see how many minutes have passed, but not once did I do so here. Watching The Dark Knight you'll be saying to yourself that you don't want it to end, because you know that one of the best films you've ever had the pleasure to watch will eventually end and you don't want that moment to come. But the least you can look forward to and hope for is that the film has a worthwhile ending and The Dark Knight doesn't disappoint here. The ending is very powerful, shocking and far from a typical Hollywood film ending. This is the kind of ending that a superhero movie just never has, and it will remain as one of the most memorable endings of all time for me.

The Dark Knight isn't a movie, it's an experience; an experience worth re-living over and over again.

R.I.P. Heath Leader.

Eagle Eye (2008)

Eagle Eye: Lost Potential 101

[2/10 · 24 December 2008]

More times than not we go to the movies to be entertained and if not that then we go hoping to be amazed or spellbound depending on what we expect from the movie. For PG-13 action/thriller films, entertainment is what the paying audience will be expecting. In other words, we expect a film like Eagle Eye to be entertaining; especially given D.J. Caruso and Shia LaBeouf are involved (after their moderately successful and at least entertaining film Disturbia). Unfortunately for us, this film feels like it was made by a whole different person.

The plot of the film is actually pretty interesting and the first fifteen or so minutes do well to get you interested, especially with how the story kicks off. Characters are introduced sufficiently, we get an idea of what they're like, and once the strange calls start coming to the two main characters, the plot gets going and you feel like you're about to experience one hell of a movie. Sadly, it all goes downhill after the first few minutes.

First things first, the few "good" things in this film; granted there aren't many. Aside from the beginning what the film itself does have going for it are decent performances by Shia LaBeouf (only has a couple very brief comical moments in the entire film, quite a change for him) and Billy Bob Thorton (who always has a strong screen presence) and a few good lines of dialogue during the first thirty minutes. Unfortunately, this is where the compliments end.

Perhaps the two first flaws viewers will notice with Eagle Eye are that Michelle Monaghan's character is so annoying; for most of the film I was wondering why we're supposed to be caring about her so much. One of her first scenes in the film has her just sulking her ex-husband/boyfriend away before he can even explain himself and it isn't until about an hour after this that we even get a reason as to why she hates him, and it's only one reason. Add that with several statements she makes about Shia's characters (whether it's Jerry or Evan) and it becomes easy to want her out of the picture immediately.

Another blatantly obvious issue with the film is that during the action scenes the camera shifts angles so much and so frequently that it's damn-near impossible to keep track of what's occurring. Those who complain about Michael Bay's films having too many quick camera shifts will feel a little more sincere after seeing this film's action sequences (there aren't many but they stick out).

And then there's the rest of the story itself for the rest of the film, which is such a disappointment. As aforementioned, the story starts off well enough by getting you interested but after that attention-getting period in the film it just drags on and on. For a good forty minutes at minimum the film goes absolutely nowhere with the overall plot, with characters just moving from point A to point B being what makes up the second act of the film. If one were to sum up all the key parts to the film, they would likely expect it to be even shorter than a regular kid's film. To add insult to injury, the key plot points and plot twists aren't even the least bit satisfying, and when the whole "what is this voice that keeps calling them" question is finally answered I literally said aloud "duh"; the film is way too predictable and annoying to get into after the first few minutes.

And to make matters worse, the ending is anything but satisfying and is anticlimactic in the purest form. Once the credits began to come up, I couldn't believe how they ended it; I was just speechless by how horrible and cheesy the last five minutes were. Watching an ending like this is like listening to a horrible patriotic memorial service on fast-forward followed by a couple lines that would fit right into another cheesy romantic-comedy.

I was hoping that Eagle Eye would be a welcome return to the movie theater after my little hiatus due to a lack of promising movies but it felt like I was spit in the face. The film starts out well enough and has two worthy actors in it but those couple compliments aside this film was a waste of time. I can't give this film even the slightest recommendation.

Planet of the Apes (2001)

A Remake That Assumes You Don't Know It's a Remake

[6/10 · 17 July 2008]

I'm one of the few people out there that made the mistake of seeing Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes a good while before seeing the original. What kept on making me look away from the 1968 original more or less was the fact that it's over twice as old as me, which I guess you could attribute to me as being ignorant. And after hearing so much complaining about this remake with me and my best friend not seeing why (who also had never seen the original), we decided to just rent both this and the original and see what the fuss was all about.

I think after seeing the ending alone you know how I feel.

If I'm not mistaken, this film was handed down to several directors before Tim Burton was finally "credited" as the main director (and towards the end of the film's production unless I've misread something). Either way this film really doesn't feel like a Burton film to me, if it did I'd be calling this film "gritty" or "dark"; at least, for a few of the scenes. But other than some great visual style and excellent make-up on the apes it's tough for me to mention Tim Burton along with this film, it just doesn't feel like something he actually directed; not the whole way at least.

It's funny that this film is supposed to be a "remake" when the only things it has in-common with the original are the name and the fact that the apes are superior to the humans. This is another odd thing that another reviewer pointed out; the apes don't seem to have that much over the humans other than brute strength most of the time. Whereas in the original the apes were both tougher and far more intelligent than the humans.

Outside of this the film has little to nothing in-common with the original. The plot, characters, location(s) and even the ending are all different from the original. The only similarity you might be able draw is that one of the apes (a female that sees the humans as more than the other apes give them credit for) decides to help a few of them escape the ape city and go to the lands of their origins. Beyond this, and maybe a select few throwbacks to the original (the scarecrows part was pretty clever) you might be wondering if this is really a remake or just a very different re-imagining.

As I mentioned earlier, this version has some great art/visual style and excellent make-up on the apes, which are even better than those of the original (even though in this day and age it's really a given for that to be the case if enough effort is put in). Really this is the film's biggest strength because outside of all the excellence visually there isn't much of a film to be had. The performances from almost everyone is average at best. Mark Wahlberg really isn't given too much to work with and you'll get plenty of his typical "shocked" stares. Tim Roth as General Thade actually does pretty well with his character and is arguably the most effective character. Needless to say, Helena Bonham Carter was intentionally given a bit more of a human look than the other apes, possibly to reflect her character's views on the humans in the film. Michael Clarke Duncan does well with what he's given and while he likely won't stand out for many he is a very convincing character given his size and voice (hopefully that doesn't sound too odd). Everyone else just feels like they're tagging along so there really isn't much to praise in the characters or actors other than that two of the main ape characters were handled very well. Oh, and I thought the cameo with Charles Heston was neat.

Aside from this, a fun battle towards the end with the rebel humans and apes and an ending that'll likely leave those that haven't seen it puzzled as to what exactly happened, there really isn't too much to the film. My biggest problem with the ending is that we likely will never get an answer or resolution to it because of how negative the reception has been towards the film. I hate it when movie studios and the crew make a movie and leave room for a sequel but they never fully take into account possibility that the film will flop or just not do well. And in this film's case we're stuck with a film that had and in a sense still does have potential but are left asking "when" and "what".

This film is very, very different from the '68 classic it's based on and as a result, it assumes you haven't seen the remake; or at least hopes you didn't. Since I saw this one before the original, my views on this remake were defensive and while I think it's far from as bad as some might make it out (and even as I myself might have made it out as well), it's very tough to fully appreciate it after seeing the original. So if you haven't seen this film yet (or even the original for that matter), I would personally see this one first so you can make a verdict on the film itself, then see the original and then make up your mind. As for those that have seen the original but not this, just go into it with an open mind and don't expect the same movie. And if anyone has seen both and wants to at least try and like this movie, try and watch it without having the original in mind. Keep the original in mind, and this film stinks. See this as its own film, and you should be able to find some redeeming values.

Beauty and the Beast (1991)

An Absorbing, Magical Piece of Art

[9/10 · 8 July 2008]

I, like several others, grew up with films like this as a child, and this was one of those that always stood out. When I first saw it I was about five and I think you can tell that a few of the scenes scared me quite a bit, given the Beast's anger-filled scenes with the darker parts of the film. But seeing the film again for the first time in over ten years it was both refreshing and easy to still remember.

The story, style and execution all feel like something out of a Shakespearean play, and while I've never been much of a fan of old William I do tend to like other stories that have similar styles to him, which I will admit to being both a testament to this film and Shakespeare. One of the film's strongest points is that it easily manages to make several emotions arise out of the viewer, ranging from laughter to sorrow and several others (with a fair number of these instances coming out of the most briefest of scenes, a very rare case for any film). There are several scenes in the film that are both serious and dark with others that are light and funny; it seems that for every serious moment there's a scene of clever comic relief to balance the mood out.

While I was certainly curious and excited to see this film once again now that I would understand it much easier, one part that I wasn't looking forward to were the singing sections, with me not being a fan of musicals. There actually wasn't as much singing in the film as I remember, I'd say about 40% to 50% of the movie is singing with the rest being dialogue. Even though I can't say that the songs were exactly necessary to the film they do compliment the given scenes very well and while this may be the case with any musical film, the singing sections of this film give it a personality in a positive way, unlike several others.

If there was any word I could really use to describe this film it would likely be ironic, not due to anything in the movie itself but more how it compares to others. What's ironic is that this film has a heart and the characters, despite being computer animations and creations with little visual detail (compared to the CGI-heavy films by companies like Pixar) and half the characters being enchanted utensils they still come off as far more human than countless actors in several live action films. Heck, even the Beast comes off as one of the more human characters once his inner feelings and emotions start to come out. If it's not clear by now, the voice-acting in this film is simply superb and, along with the film's beautiful and magical art style is probably its strongest point.

Of course that's not to say every other aspect is any less worthy of praise, because this film is one that almost feels like no number of compliments would be enough to justify it. The story, style, acting, score, music, pacing and really every other aspect you could pinpoint in this film are nothing short of superb. If there really is anything that I could say holds the film from perfection it would be that the ending feels rather rushed. While there really isn't much more they probably could've done with the last five minutes beyond what there was it still felt like it went by rather quickly compared to the rest of the film.

But this is really the smallest of complaints and something that really does little to detract from the film. When you hear someone say that this is a film for all ages, they're not lying, anyone of any age can love and appreciate this film with ease. This film, along with a number of others, show that Disney were truly at their best before 21st century. With the exception of maybe Pinocchio and The Lion King I can't think of any other film with the same style and genre that is as magical and marvelous as this. If you haven't seen this film in a while or at all and are struggling to find a good film for the whole family, be sure you keep your eye out for this one.

Meet the Spartans (2008)

In The Same "Stupidity Boat"

[4/10 · 26 January 2008]

If there's anything that Date Movie and Epic Movie taught us, it's that spoof movies that are slapped together with low production values aren't exactly going to yield a positive response from viewers. It seems that after Scary Movie 4, people really don't want to see another dumb spoof comedy from anyone associated with those movies. Well, for those that were utterly disgusted by Date Movie and Epic Movie, there's nothing in Meet the Spartans that's going to make you feel any different. This movie has all the lousy production, cheap acting and stupid spoofs that you could possibly come up with for any movie or TV show released last year. So if you want to see a movie that'll poke some sort of fun at recently released movies, TV shows and famous celebrities, regardless of how embarrassing it is, then this movie might be worth a shot. As for me, I thought Date Movie and Epic movie honestly weren't that horrible. Yeah, they were about as dumb as someone with an IQ of negative 1000, but I still thought the retarded comedy had its moments, which is why I'd at least give those movies some points. And Meet the Spartans is no different; it gets points for stupid moments that made me laugh but loses points for its sheer stupidity. You're best waiting for this one to come out on DVD and renting it; I don't see this movie lasting much more than maybe a month in theaters.

Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem (2007)

Attempting To Return To Form

[10/10 · 25 December 2007]

Before I actually start my review, I'd just like to make it clear that I personally enjoyed the first Alien vs. Predator movie, courtesy of the man everyone loves to hate: Paul W.S. Anderson. Yes, it was cheesy. Yes, it was paradoxical. And yes, the movie did feel rather light on the content for an Alien/Predator movie. Regardless, I still enjoyed watching the action scenes, felt that there was ample character development and that I got my money's worth when I saw it. Then came time for the Brothers Strause to try and impress me, time to see how they did.

The first thing to really notice about the new AVP, subtitled "Requiem" is that the acting is pretty laughable. The actors here are a bunch of no-names and do very little with their roles. I will say that the two actors playing the brothers did stand out, but that really isn't saying too much. The dialogue, as you might've guessed is really corny and only seems to work for half a chuckle in maybe three or four scenes.

Just like the first Alien vs. Predator film, Requiem has a fairly slow build-up and it's tough to really gain much interest with most of the first few minutes being dedicated to the human characters. This normally wouldn't be an issue if these characters were more likable. But as they stand in the film, it's tough to really feel that much of a connection. After the first thirty or so minutes however, the movie does begin to eventually pick up and get more interesting. This is when the film starts to try and return to the violent, bloody form that both the Predator and Alien movies were known for.

While gore and violence don't make an action scene (part of why I didn't have much problem watching the first AVP), it definitely does make the action in this film feel better and more authentic. The Strause Brothers were definitely going for a "balls-to-the-wall" kind of approach here, and it definitely shows. Requiem's action scenes are plentiful, but they don't engulf the whole movie, or even the middle for that matter. But there are a decent amount and some of them are pretty neat to watch and might make you go "woah". These prove to be the film's best parts: where the aliens, predator and the "predalien" go at it.

However, after seeing a good few of these scenes they also start to show some cracks; some are even easy to spot. By almost the first action scene, I was squinting my eyes to make out what exactly was going on. I almost felt like I was watching a Michael Bay film or something because the action scenes movie in the blink of an eye and some parts are so dark, you think they're trying to downright copy the original Alien. There are also several throwbacks to previous movies in both the Alien and Predator universe. These range from the Predator's medical equipment, to some of the quotes and in one case: character names.

The whole film almost feels like a trip down memory lane with a few new things added in to spice things up. This mostly comes out with the action scenes, as there are some that are eye-popping and are also where the film gets the bulk of its praise. Unfortunately, action just can't save the whole film because half of the time you're struggling to keep up and see what exactly is happening. The movie is also very short, not even clocking in at an hour and a half, so it's easy to feel you're not getting a whole movie's worth. This also is a sign that the film could've had so much more and the action scenes could've been given so much more attention to detail without making the whole thing drag on.

Then there's the ending, and man, let me just say that the ending alone is enough to ruin the whole thing for you. And I'm not just referring to the very end of the film, I'm also talking about the near-end scene (hint: in the jungle). Normally I would've been okay if the credits rolled when the screen went black in the jungle, but no, that wasn't enough. The real end to the film is so random, misplaced and soul-crushing, that I don't think I'll ever see any other AVP movies after that. It's that bad. So if you plan on seeing this movie, leave the theater right after the scene in the jungle that feels like the end. Trust me, you don't want to see the real ending.

Overall I'd say Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem is a tough recommendation simply for all its obvious flaws. There are some good, and a couple great action scenes, but most of them are either too tough to follow or too dark to even make out. Not only that, but the ending just drops it right down into what I think is the worst movie in both the Alien and Predator movies combined. This year has been a huge disappointment for me as far as movies go, and this one didn't do anything to make me feel any different.