27 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
9/10
It's really good...It just is
13 May 2019
I know the hype around this movie, so I'm not going to give any plot points away. I will say, however, that it really is emotional, exciting, and awe-inspiring. I went in knowing very little (that's the way to go, by the way) and it really paid off, as a lot of the plot decisions were surprising and bold.

It has its problems, and without giving away too much, I thought that some feminist themes that were far too overt and frustrating were desperately forced in there. But in all, it's hard to complain about Endgame, because it really is one of the craziest things Hollywood has ever achieved.
1 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Pom Poko (1994)
8/10
Quirky, fun animation
25 February 2019
I've only recently discovered the marvel that is Studio Ghibli. Pom Poko is, unfortunately, one of their most underrated films. Something about Japanese folklore that doesn't quite work in an American audience...I don't know. And maybe the heavy themes reminiscent of Watership Down have to do with it, along with some disturbing violent images (for a "kids" movie). Did I mention something about testicles? I won't go there.

Yes, the two-hour runtime is a bit long, even for my over-brimming well of patience. And it's not the serene anime flicks that Hayao Miyazaki produces so effectively. Instead, "Pom Poko" is a frenzy of activity. What else would you expect from amiable shapeshifting tanuki?

Mostly, "Pom Poko" is just beautiful, and it needs be no more. The message is a little heavy-handed, but boy is each palette rich of color. The world of possibilities that the shapeshifting raccoon dogs open up is wonderfully taken advantage of.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Postman (1994)
9/10
Pure poetry
24 February 2019
I love poetry. Yeah, I'm one of those pretentious snobs who is notorious for loving pretentious movies, and I don't hesitate to admit it. Proudly. Okay, no, I don't really think that of myself--no pretentious person thinks they're pretentious....Wow, I'm just digging myself deeper.

Forgive my ramblings. If there's one thing you won't find in "Il Postino" it's ramblings. Instead, you'll find poetry. Metaphors, symbolism, language...love. That's what poetry's all about. I would know, I write very corny poems in my free time.

But if you don't like reading poetry...well, "Il Postino" is about as close as you'll get to visual poetry. It's not that there are a bunch of static, serene scenes, or anything like that. The poetry is in the way the characters interact, communicate...and just be humans.

Films like "Il Postino" are quite effective reminders about the value of friendship and the gift of communication. Don't like slow, tranquil movies? Fine, don't watch "Il Postino". If you do, then get your hands on the movie ASAP.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A criminally underrated work of art
24 February 2019
Nigel Hawthorne's performance as the titular King George III is simply astounding. In fact, he probably deserved the Best Actor award more than Tom Hanks did for Forrest Gump that year, and that's coming from a huge fan of Tom Hanks.

But boy does Hawthorne show a tremendous amount of range, transitioning effortlessly from a vain king to a raging madman. If only to see his double-sided performance, The Madness of King George is well worth a watch.

Strangely, only the art direction (now widely known as "production design") won an Academy that year, even though Alan Bennett's script (adapted from his own stageplay) and Hawthorne's aforementioned performance were much more resplendent. Not to discredit the art direction, since it was genuinely impeccable. Perhaps the reason it doesn't stand out as much as other elements of the film is because it so flawlessly transports us back to the 19th century.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Surprisingly New, Fresh...and Thrilling
12 July 2017
Somehow, Spider-Man movies refuse to get old. "Homecoming" is the third reboot, and instead of more of the same, we get something completely new with Holland's MCU Spidey Guy.

What Works: "Homecoming" ponders and explores what it would truly be like for a young Spidey to coexist with a hundred other superheroes, and an Avengers team so well-established that all city-threatening major villain-caused disasters are nowhere to be found. A humorous montage displays a blissfully (and for Parker, despairingly) crime-free New York City, where the friendly neighborhood web-spinner has nothing to do but give old ladies directions and keep people from hijacking their own cars. Watts' third feature film succeeds in giving us a Hughes-like high school movie, and reminding us that superheroes are still humans. Where previous Spider-Man films have put emphasis on the "Spider" part, the six writers of "Homecoming" focus on the "Man" as we watch a rookie 10th grade hero still adjusting to his alter ego. Yes, whereas Garfield's and Maguire's Spider-Guys have quickly and smoothly adapted to their new powers, Holland's is incredibly clumsy, and utterly believable. The film continues the MCU tradition of clever, witty dialogue and all-around solid acting, and adds another worthy hero to the series. It pulls off being in the Marvel Cinematic Universe well without focusing on the rest of the universe, just the titular and understandable main character.

What doesn't work: The Vulture isn't exactly the best villain to start off the third reboot, and the writers aren't very generous with his amount of screen time. While there are a lot of good ideas to explore with his character, he seems to often be forgotten as the filmmakers have the time of their lives focusing on Peter's crazy life. For a better kick start to what is definitely going to be a wonderful series, I could have done with a more compelling villain. Granted, Parker has some memorable scenes with Keaton's winged megalomaniac.

In summary: The surprisingly new, fresh version of Peter Parker is abundantly welcome, and the amateur Spidey is likewise a novel experience. Swinging around with the duplicitous main character is truly thrilling, whether or not it lives up to some of the previous entries in the character's catalog.

Rating: 90.4/100
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A Brilliantly Emotional Superhero Movie...With Politics
16 October 2016
Combining political intrigue with superhero action is a daring, risky move...but "Captain America: Civil War" couldn't be in better hands. Directors Anthony and Joe Russo prove once again to be the best directors in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, turning Stephen McFeely and Christopher Marcus's brilliant screenplay into a work of art. No other Marvel movie has yet delivered such a fluid combination of intelligence, symbolism, and heartbreaking opposition as the Russo brothers' latest entry into the already amazing Captain America series.

Chris Evans (Steve Rogers/Captain America) reminds audiences why his hero has always been the most likable as he embodies the valiantly flawless titular hero in a way only he can. Robert Downey Jr. introduces a new side of his smarmy Tony Stark/Iron Man, which will either make you love him all the more or repel you, depending on who's side you take. And that's one of the many beauties of "Civil War": the viewer has to determine hero's side he's on, as both have their own opinion of the "Sokovia Accords", a document that will put the United Nations in charge of all super-powered individuals.

As both heroes recruit others of their kind to fight for (or against) the "Sokovia Accords", a scheming puppeteer manipulates them, practically unseen, both Captain America and Iron Man mistakenly believing the other to be the true enemy. And Daniel Bruhl as Helmut Zemo, the man most determined to accomplish his agenda, is the most moving, emotional performance in the whole movie. Helmut Zemo is at once terrifying and enigmatic, in a way no other Marvel villain has been before, and he accomplishes this without any superpowers, bringing to mind Heath Ledger's Joker. As he stares blankly into space listening to a voice recording on his phone, his motionless face says more than any other actor in the whole film. And that's saying a lot, because most of what fuels "Civil War" is dynamic, passionate acting from almost all of the actors.

During its worst moments, the film is thought-provoking, conflicting, and emotionally immersive, and when an action scene obligatorily comes along, it doesn't forget the inherent tragedy of the circumstances. The many lighthearted, chuckle-inducing moments (many courtesy of Ant-Man) don't distract from the plot, but remind us that the dueling heroes are still friends, despite their differences. The third installment of the Captain America series--and hopefully not the last--is sure to excite superhero fans, and also entice those harder to please.

Synopsis: "Civil War" is an instant classic that transcends typical superhero movie expectations with powerful acting, an artistic vision, and a story that will incite discussions and arguments many years from now.

Official Rating: 103.7/100* *Anything over 100 indicates a Great Movie.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
This movie is like an artichoke...you have to work hard to get to its heart.
11 October 2016
Steve Martin's take on the infamous Inspector Clouseau is shamelessly stupid, but also inherently brilliant. With a French accent that is nowhere near normal; common sense that is, likewise, below average; and observant eyes that are quite selective, Steve Martin takes his role as un-serious as he can...and it completely works.

The Inspector is chosen for what is framed as an important job, but in actuality he is the distraction: Kevin Kline's Chief Inspector Dreyfus (who is also the narrator) intentionally picks the biggest idiot he can find to solve the murder of a famed French futbol coach. Naturally, Inspector Jacques Clouseau is the perfect choice, too ignorant to realize he's being set up. He believes the job is an honor, and sets out to use his stupidity to cleverly solve the case. Assigned to help him is Ponton, a detective who faithfully follows Clouseau's lead regardless of the situation.

As he interviews absurd suspects and comes to even more absurd conclusions, he believes he's coming closer to finding the criminal, while Chief Inspector Dreyfus, with the public's eyes averted, also believes he's nearing the finish line. The climax is eagerly awaited, knowing that somehow, despite his bumbling foolishness, Inspector Clouseau will come out on top, and the moment his concealed Holmesian nature is revealed is truly comical.

However immersive the melodramatically hilarious "Pink Panther" is, its dedication to inciting laughs seems to distract the writers from the plot. Many scenes stray from the main story simply to create laugh-out-loud moments, which are priceless, but nonetheless unnecessary. More scenes could have been cut and replaced to focus more on the mystery, while at the same time inviting laughs. At some points, the film seems to be so intent on not taking itself seriously that it ignores elements essential to any movie, be it a slapstick or a drama. Despite some of its shortcomings, "The Pink Panther" is a roaring good time, with brilliantly crafted scenes that will make you wish you had a spare oxygen tank.

Verdict: "The Pink Panther" is near the top of the over-the-top-funny movies, but its lackadaisical approach to the story and its lack of interest to leave a lasting impact impede it from being the classic it wants to be.

Official Score: 81.6/100 (3/4)
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
After "Batman Forever", I am glad this Batman series doesn't go on forever
14 August 2016
The first two Batman films, helmed by director Tim Burton and starring Michael Keaton as the Batman, were moderately entertaining. As many objections as those films could possibly raise, they were better than Schumaker's first installment, "Batman Forever", in just about every thinkable way. Yes, Michael Keaton is in no wise the ideal Batman/Bruce Wayne, and yes, the overall darker theme doesn't always clash with the moments of humor the films attempted, but neither film was so tonally inconsistent, inconsistently melodramatic, or melodramatically ridiculous as "Batman Forever".

One thing I should give it credit for is being funnier than either of Burton's films; in fact, it wasn't until I saw that it was nowhere credited for being a comedy that I realized the humorous moments weren't intended to be amusing. No, I didn't laugh whenever Riddler said something like "Big Kahuni", but rather during Batman's banter with Dr. Chase Meridian, a psychologist who has an obsession over our caped crusader. "I haven't had much luck with women," Batman confesses, to which she responds, "Maybe you just haven't met the right one," to which Batman responds...well, he doesn't respond, because all of a sudden she's leaning in for a kiss, and Batman's face is practically screaming, "Oh, yeah, baby!", completely forgetting to be the mysterious vigilante more modern interpretations have led us to expect from him.

Val Kilmer is the new Bruce Wayne/Batman, after Michael Keaton wisely dropped out, realizing that Schumaker's interpretation was...problematic. Although Kilmer is more believable as a butt-kicking vigilante, his performance lacks any emotion or volume and he speaks his lines as if reading them from the script, resulting in a near-monotone Bruce Wayne. As for the rest of the portrayals, multiple objections can be raised for each, except for perhaps Nicole Kidman as Dr. Meridian, who did her best with the nonsensical characterization provided to her by the screenwriters.

Tommy Lee Jones is a major letdown, especially after all of the films he's been in ("The Fugitive", for example) that have set our expectations high. He portrays Two-Face, once known as Harvey Dent, who was a district attorney until a crime boss threw acid on half his face, splitting his personality in two; though the only half we really ever see is the demented, maniacal side who jumps up and down and claps his hands like a five-year-old at Christmas whenever something explodes. Of all the characters, Two-Face is the most irritating, and overall inconsistent, giving us no insight as to his motivations. I have a feeling that if the Two-Face of the film were to be asked why he wanted Batman dead, the answer would be, "I don't know, that's a good question," and perhaps he would have abandoned his mission altogether; I would've even been slightly more satisfied if the film just answered that question with a, "Because I want him dead," but instead Two-Face is immediately inserted into the film as a villain, no legitimate explanation provided. There is also the fact that his character seems reused from Nicholson's Joker, only made worse.

Then there's the Riddler, the second villain, hardly developed any better. At the beginning of the film he's a scientist, conveniently named Edward Nygma, who is inventing a new way to view television and is fully invested in his undertaking, but his project is turned down by his idol and employer, Bruce Wayne. "You were supposed to understand," Nygma weeps as Bruce walks away. "I'll make you understand." And from then on he's a completely melodramatic, giggling, totally insane...well, simply Jim Carrey-esque villain whose apparently trying to make Bruce understand, so he teams up with Two-Face, and they wreak havoc, and...ultimately achieve nothing, but who cares, they never were trying to achieve anything, or anything remarkable, in the first place, so in a sense the succeeded in the end, even with Batman prevailing! Yippee! Everyone's a winner! Oops, I almost forgot the newcomer superhero vigilante sidekick, Robin! Now I almost wish I wouldn't have remembered him. Although his presence in the movie may not be as degrading as the others', Robin is once again an example of bad acting (Chris O'Donnell delivers his lines with unconvincing emotions, similar to actors in soap operas) and clichéd, empty characterization. He's the recycled rebel/smart-alek super-talented apprentice...which I guess is what Robin has been for a while, but "holey rusted metal" it's getting old.

Among the other problems are the disastrous script-writing, and dialogue that tries way too hard, making it largely laughable. When the film tries for sentimentality, in the form of Bruce's tormented past and resurfacing repressed memories, it ultimately falls flat and only manages to enhance the disconnect the viewer feels from the film. "Batman Forever" is a muddled, confusing, inconsistent mess that showcases decent cinematography and visual aspects, but lacks considerably in the essentials. At least it made me laugh! Official Score: 47.4/100 (2/4)
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Walk (II) (2015)
9/10
"The Walk" is a Work of Art
28 February 2016
"The Walk" is an engrossing, captivating picture (as to be expected from a Robert Zemeckis film) about Phillipe Petit, a man who would stop at nothing to walk on a tightrope across the Twin Towers. He was addicted to them, had a "love affair" with them. Joseph Gordon-Levitt delivers an outstanding performance as the insane yet driven Petit, who, as a result of his dream, seems to lose all common sense while planning his "coup". He assembles a team to help him perform the illegal task, and thoroughly plans it out.

THE GOOD: "The Walk" is a cinematic work-of-art, skillfully directed, written, and as thoroughly planned out as the coup itself. Robert Zemeckis and Christopher Browne add in a surprising touch of humor, sprinkled throughout the film, sometimes veering toward slapstick, but not overdone in the least. The cinematography is remarkable, and the acting near-perfect, even without a lot of well-known faces. Ben Kingsley does a wonderful job as Petit's mentor, Charlotte Le Bon as his girlfriend and most avid supporter (being a performer herself), and Gordon-Levitt leads the group extraordinarily well.

THE BAD: Phillipe Petit's breaking-the-fourth-wall narration is slightly overdone at times, sometimes telling the viewer things we can very obviously see, and can also break up the movie's flow. When pulling off the coup, some conveniently lucky things happen to keep them from being found out.

92/100
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Martian (2015)
10/10
Bring Him Home
20 February 2016
Warning: Spoilers
"The Martian" has to be the first comedy survival film about a human being stranded on Mars, and I certainly hope it will be the last. Not that the Ridley Scott epic is bad, but, contrarily, it is so good it would effortlessly put to shame any movie that tried to follow in its footsteps. "The Martian" is almost perfect throughout, thanks to flawless performances on (literally) every cylinder, unparalleled directing, and a rhythmic tone that doesn't hit one false note.

Matt Damon carries the movie with charm, wit, and an optimistic sense of humor that assists him in his survival. Jeff Daniels delivers an exceptional performance as NASA director Sanders that has to make the hardest decisions regarding a rescue operation for Mark Wattney (Matt Damon), after his crew, Melissa Lewis (Jessica Chastain), Beth Johanssen (Kate Mara), Rick Martinez (Michael Pena), and Chris Beck (Sebastian Stan), leave him alone on Mars after presuming he died in the midst of a storm. Director Sanders announces Wattney's death to the world, while Mark Wattney calmly but urgently attempts to contact NASA to inform them he's still alive. Sanders resists from telling Wattney's crew that he's still alive, knowing that Commander Lewis would blame herself for leaving him on Mars, but using the petty excuse that "they need to focus on their mission."

How Drew Goddard and Andy Weir managed to turn a desperate survival mission into a heartfelt, exciting, just plain fun story puzzles me, but manage they did. What's even more remarkable is the fact that "The Martian" is, well, based on facts, proving to be scientifically sound no matter how unbelievable it is. "The Martian" is a work of art, a rare gem, an original, creative piece that will go down in history and become remembered as one of the best-made cinematic masterpieces ever.

98/100
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
They Just Can't Contain the Dinosaurs
26 November 2015
"Jurassic World" is the fourth of the Jurassic film series, and the only one to not be adapted from one of Crichton's novels. And although the computer-generated-imagery is better than ever, it also carries with it a certain amount of cheesiness that the others (thankfully) lacked. What was the source of this "cheesiness"? Two brothers, Zach and Grey, visit Jurassic World to see their Aunt Claire, but she has work to do so they have to tour Jurassic World on their own. The youngest is a highly emotional but clueless young boy, and the oldest is a high-schooler who is fascinated with girls, and while endangered on the island they form a bond. That's the part that makes the movie a tad cheesy. On the other hand, there's Chris Pratt, a raptor trainer, and Bryce Dallas Howard's Aunt Claire, both of which do a remarkable job of acting.

The dinosaur escapee in this one is the Indominus Rex, who can camouflage (a characteristic he inherited from his TREE FROG DNA!!!!), and also detect thermal radiation, and teleport anywhere he wants to. Kidding on that last part, but apparently he's an insanely super-powered dinosaur, even bigger than a T-Rex. "What have they cooked up in that lab?" as one of the character asks. The answer? A very unappetizing reptile. Anyway, using his superpowers he inherited from Odin-osaurus, his father, he tricks the supervisors into thinking he escaped his confinement, and thus, using their naiveté as his weapon, (HUGE spoiler follows) he actually does escape. It appears they're never going to learn how to contain those dinosaurs.

The action scenes are quite awe-inspiring, just not as thrilling as the previous Jurassic entries. Another foothold "Jurassic World" has over the other Jurassic movies is more amusing humor, from both Bryce Dallas Howard and Chris Pratt. Although not quite as good as the first Jurassic Park, Jurassic World is a worthy entry into the spectacular series.
17 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Cast Away (2000)
8/10
Yet Another Good Robinson Crusoe-Like Movie
21 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Lost-at-sea/stranded-on-an-island movies apparently agree with me. "All is Lost" and "Life of Pi" are a couple of perfect modern examples, but "Cast Away" does a fairly good job as the stranded-on-an-island variety. Directed by Robert Zemeckis, "Cast Away" features great visuals and a miraculous gathering of greater actors. Helen Hunt is Chuck Noland's wife...and Chuck is played by the one and only Tom Hanks.

Chuck and Kelly are happily married, always happy to see each other once Chuck gets back from his journeys (he works for FedEx). It's around Christmas time, but Chuck has to leave anyway, and heads out on the plane...until something unknown happens to the plane to cause it to go out of control and crash and make Chuck the lone survivor. He floats up on an island and does his best to survive, wisely using the FedEx boxes that get washed up on the island. Even, Wilson, the volleyball, comes in handy helping him keep his sanity (although sometimes all it seems to do is make him insane). He struggles at first, taking an infinity trying to light a fire and open a coconut. Eventually, though, his experience grows and he acts like he was born on the island, surviving until he can get a raft built. While he works, he makes small chat with Wilson, even jokes around with him a bit. "You want to hear something funny? My dentist's name is James Spalding." He looks at Wilson a bit, expecting him to laugh, but apparently Wilson didn't think it was funny.

"Cast Away" can be a bit dull sometimes, or slow-going, but it is also thoroughly entertaining, especially near the climax. When he gets back home, it turns out that he's not as happy as he thought he would be. Although the time on the island is enjoyable, the heart of the film lies in his return and what tragedies await him...and the chance to start a new life.

82.5/100
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
"The Age of Adaline" is Timeless
15 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Adaline Bowman was born in the early 1900s, and around the age of 30, after crashing her car into water, lightning strikes and the narrator explains how that lightning strike somehow changed her cells or something and made it to where her body stopped aging. Miraculously impossible but this movie presents it in a way where it seems remarkably believable. Maybe it's because of all the uber-scientific words the narrator spouts out. After all, when someone starts to use words like that that I don't understand, I tend to just take them at their word. No, it's not because I'm extremely gullible, it's just that by that point I don't care. Anyway, she tries to keep it a secret, but when the police start investigating and then arrest her, she immediately changes identity and moves to a new place. Her daughter ages while she doesn't, and when people start seeing how close in age she looks to her daughter, or how people Adaline's age appear remarkably older than she, she starts changing identity and moving to a new place each ten years. Once we know her past, the film takes us to modern day, January, 2015. With technology the way it is these days, it would seem that the government would have easily tracked her down by now, but no, it's still a secret known only to her and her daughter.

Then things start to change. At a New Year's Eve party, Ellis Jones sees her and immediately decides he wants to meet her. He chases her down, sticking his hand in the elevator door before it closes so he can get in with her and meet her. By this time we're thinking, "Man, he must be desperate," and maybe he is because he doesn't stop going after her. They go on a date or two, and she's made it pretty clear that she doesn't want this relationship to develop, but he's made up his mind that he does. Adaline's been trying to avoid relationships because she knows she will age and they won't. After a date he tells her a joke, and if she laughs, he gets to take her on another date, but if she doesn't she won't have to. The joke is horrible, and she even says so herself. Whether because a deep part of her wants to fall in love again, or she doesn't want to disappoint him, or whatever the reason she forces a laugh. And they fall in love. Anyway, he invites her to go with him to celebrate his parents' anniversary, but when she gets there, and she meets his parents, things go horribly wrong. His father, Michael Jones (Harrison Ford) recognizes her, and she immediately recognizes him too. He and she had been in a previous relationship, and he balks as soon as he sees her. She gets away by telling him that Adaline was her mother, who is now dead. With old memories rekindled, he rambles on about her, embarrassing everyone in the vicinity by calling her "sophisticated" with a huge, nostalgic sigh.

"The Age of Adaline" is an enormously intriguing and engaging film. Director Lee Toland Krieger and Blake Lively do a wonderful job in capturing Adaline's "sophistication" and old-fashionedness, even putting a dimple on her cheek for emphasis. "The Age of Adaline" is timeless.

85/100
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Arrow (2012–2020)
6/10
"Arrow" a Bullseye for DC Comics
12 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Although DC Comics definitely isn't beating Marvel in the movie industry, it has a foothold in television. While DC Comics currently has "Arrow", "The Flash", "Gotham", and now "Supergirl", Marvel only has a few kids' channel shows, along with the non-superhero "Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D." and "Agent Carter". Suffice it to say, "Arrow" is definitely the best superhero TV show ever. Once a Batman show comes along, that may change, but for now "Arrow" is a perfect show to sit down and binge-watch.

Oliver Queen is stranded on an island for five years, and has been presumed dead along with his father. His father is dead, but he has survived, and his return to Starling City changes the city forever. He has turned from carefree spoiled brat to a buff dude with wicked bow-wielding abilities. He puts a green cloak on with a hood that hides most of his face, puts on some face paint and goes out at night ridding the city of one-percenters. "You have failed this city," he growls before either sticking an arrow in them or having mercy on them and stuffing them in jail instead. He's not a loner for long, recruiting Oliver Queen's bodyguard, John Diggle, to help him out. Diggle is reluctant at first to be an accomplice of a vigilante. He believes that Oliver doesn't have the right, and of course he's right, but somehow Oliver convinces him anyway. Felicity Smoak also eventually comes along to help Oliver hack and dig through secret government databases...just like a babbling version of Oracle.

Oliver Queen has more problems to deal with, than just the vigilante-related problems. His family has had quite a shock, a pleasant one, but a shock nonetheless at his return. Everyone is unbearably curious as to what happened to him on the island, but he is not quite ready to share, and will likely never be. Through flashbacks his past is slowly revealed to the audience; he wasn't alone on that island, and he was tortured...quite a lot happened. He even meets up with Slade Wilson, and becomes close allies with him as they try to escape the island together.

Throughout Season 1 lots of familiar villains show up, and the excitement increases. Arrow has yet to grow into the Green Arrow, and by the end of Season 1 he has completely changed. Arrow: Season 1 is a classic example of what a TV series should look like.

86/100
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Man of Steel (2013)
9/10
The Man of Steel Is Back...And WAY Better Than Ever
4 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
I have never been a big fan of Superman because of his near indestructibility and his outrageously unscientific origins. Yes, they do match him with villains of equally outrageous proportions, but it doesn't help any. Man of Steel is the best film adaptation of the infamous superhero that so many people have enjoyed over so many years. Although Superman is loved by many people, he will never equal up to Batman; but I must say, Man of Steel is likely the closest he will ever come.

Christopher Nolan and David S. Goyer--the two brilliant minds behind the equally brilliant Dark Knight trilogy--have brought us another enormously entertaining DC Comics superhero film; all they did was write the script, but just there presence in the production was all this film needed. It's because of these two minds that DC Comics is a step ahead of Marvel Studios in the film industry. One wise decision the team made was removing Kryptonite (Superman's one weakness) from the movie; he instead faces off with General Zod and his followers, the only surviving Kryptonians other than Superman, in a super-powered face-off. It's also refreshing to have a break from Superman's notorious archenemy, Lex Luthor.

The action sequences are handled well by director and cinematographer, making super-speed fight scenes seem believable for once. Henry Cavill is the best choice for Superman, even a better fit for the role than Christopher Reeve. And even though Amy Adams didn't have the right "look" for Lois Lane, she fits the role well.

The beginning of the film spends a good amount of time on Krypton, focusing on Jor-El (Russell Crowe), Superman's father, and the destruction of Krypton. Both Jor-El and General Zod realize Krypton is nearing its end, and try to get the council to stop turning a blind eye. But Jor-El has morals, whereas General Zod doesn't, so Zod ends up breaking the law to save his home planet. He kills Jor-El, but not before Jor-El sends the destined Kal-El to planet earth. The peacekeepers arrest Zod and his goons and exile them...which saves Zod from dying with the rest of Krypton. Once Kal-El grows up into Superman, General Zod comes along to turn earth into Krypton to (plant?) Krypton's children, which would result in the death of everyone on earth. Superman stands up for the race he has grown so fond of, and although he may love his race above the human race, he realizes that destroying one race for the growth of another doesn't work...something like that.
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Home (II) (2015)
7/10
Boovs or Minions?
4 October 2015
For me, the answer is Boovs. Although many young children find the Spanish-speaking yellow evil midgets adorable, I find them nothing more than annoying and only sometimes-funny. Unlike minions, Boovs can be understood, and have an interesting dialect. Sometimes they are annoying, such as when Oh says, "My hands are in the air, like I just do not care," paraphrasing a famous lyric from a famous song that he hasn't even heard yet, making it irritably coincidental. While the scene in itself is funny, that line received a groan from me instead of a laugh. He also has a horrible potty mouth, and another humorless scene is where he has to "break pee", so he goes into the male bathroom, and yells things to Tip in the ladies' bathroom like, "Ugh, don't eat the blue mint. Luckily there's a bowl full of lemonade. Ugh, do not drink the lemonade." Not funny in the first place, but what's even worse is that we watch Tip gag into her hands in an overly done melodramatic way. While "Home" is a fairly enjoyable animated movie, I must point out that Gratuity "Tip" Tucci, the female twelve-year-old protagonist voiced by Rihanna, is somehow a very unlikeable character. Besides the horrible name, Rihanna is one of the worst options to voice her, making her sound way older than a twelve-year-old, and even older than most sixteen-year-olds or eighteen-year-olds. But thankfully, we have wonderful voice acting to contrast that, from Jim Parsons doing a wonderful portrayal of Oh, and Steve Martin also doing a very enjoyable voice for Captain Smek; the two were perfectly cast, and make their characters some of the most enjoyable in animated film history.

In the movie the Boovs, the purple alien race that change color according to emotion, have been feeling from the Gorgs, the evil alien race that chases them across the galaxy. The Boovs are prideful in their art of running away, which is why Captain Smek, the best at running away, leads them. So they inhabit earth, sending every human to live in a very crowded Australia. Somehow Gratuity "Tip" Tucci (I'll just refer to her as Tip for now) gets left behind, and wants to get her mom back more than anything. Oh, the most obnoxious Boov who is friendless because of his obnoxiousity, accidentally sends an invite to a party to everyone in the galaxy...including the Gorgs. He instantaneously becomes a fugitive, and uses Tip to help flee from the Boov police. But what he doesn't know is that if the Boov could get his password before forty-five hours they could cancel the invite so that the Gorgs wouldn't find them and they'd be peaceful. The rest of the film from there is basically dedicated to Tip and Oh interacting, sometimes in funny moments, sometimes in inspirational moments...or, more correctly, moments that try to be inspirational.

What "Home" succeeds in is being an entertaining, funny movie with a totally ridiculous plot. The movie falls short in quite a few areas, being utterly annoying sometimes and just un-funny at points. Without Jim Parsons and Steve Martin, this movie could be enormously disappointing...but thanks to a couple of great casting choices, "Home" is another bearable children's movie.

71.5/100
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Just What the Fiary Tale Movie Business Needed
30 September 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Disney produces a fair amount of fairy tale movies; but most of them come in the form of animated children's movies that turn out to be remarkably similar. For instance, Frozen and Tangled appear to be very different movies, but when examined closely, many comparisons can be found. Most of their movies are also musicals, but Into the Woods is a fresh, newer musical; the way the songs are sung in the animated Disney movies is a great example of how they are similar. But Into the Woods provides more clever, entertaining songs with a totally different style. The film is darker, grittier, and all-in-all more awesome than most of the other fairy tale adaptations. Disney's live-action Cinderella was a huge disappointment, another average fairy tale movie. Tangled is probably the most entertaining of Disney's animated movies, unless Puss in Boots counts as a fairy tale. But really, the only film that rivals Into the Woods for best fairy tale movie is Jack the Giant Slayer, an epic re-envisioning of one of the best fairy tales, if not wackiest.

Into the Woods provides good acting and singing on all sides. With a wonderful cast that consists of Meryl Streep, Emily Blunt, James Cordon, Anna Kendrick, and Johnny Depp, the movie is pervasively exciting, fun, and original. Based on the Broadway play, the movie sometimes almost appears to be a play: Johnny Depp appears as the Wolf--a wonderful performance that is sadly limited to about five minutes--dressed in a stage costume instead of voicing a CGI wolf. The sets also seem like stages sometimes, and the female giant at the end somehow increases that feeling. The lyrics of the songs are clever and intelligent, sung well by talented actors. I agree with practically everyone else that Meryl Streep is by far the most enjoyable presence, singing her lines in a catchy tone that the other actors can't quite achieve. The set is mostly dreary, shot in darkness, and even a certain level of darkness during the day--because they're in the midst of the woods, of course. I was able to read the screenplay, and after reading it I knew it would be a good movie, but the director and the actors and the designers were able to turn the good script into an even better movie. Some of the cinematography is a bit iffy, such as the female giant at the end, for example, but I found myself not caring; the movie was based off a play and made itself look like a play.

The Baker (James Corden) and his barren wife (a pregnant Emily Blunt) want a child more than anything. "I wish...more than anything...." is probably the most well-executed song in the movie, the song that is sung by all the characters as we switch back and forth from Jack, to his mother, to Cinderella, to Red Riding Hood, to the Baker and his wife. Yes, it has that many fairy tale characters, and later we are introduced to Rapunzel--and I have to admit, this version of Rapunzel isn't quite as entertaining as the one in Tangled. Jack loves his cow and wishes that it would give milk so that he wouldn't have to sell it, his mother wishes he weren't such a fool, the Baker and his wife want a child, and everyone wishes something. Everyone eventually gets their wish (except for maybe Red Riding Hood), but the Baker has to reverse a spell the witch put on him before his wife is able to give birth. He needs four items: the cow as white as milk, the hood as red as blood, the slipper as pure as gold, the hair the color of corn. Good musical scores and humor follow as he and his wife pursue these items.

Into the Woods is a wonderful combination of multiple fairy tales, making a very Grimm-like movie with a sort of crazy plot that reflects the Grimm brothers' works. The movie is also dark, the production design fits perfectly with the movie, and the movie is really just another great example of great American cinema.

91/100
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Max (I) (2015)
5/10
"Max" Could Have Been So Much Better...With a LOT of Changes
28 September 2015
I can't wait for a movie about a military combat dog. And although Max may appear to be one, what it's really about is a boy named Justin, taking possession of Max after Justin's brother, who happened to be Max's owner, dies, and Justin has to train him and then they save the day together. So basically, it was your average family movie, showcasing hardly anything new. Although Max's name is in the title, the movie is more about Justin, the sour teenager who hates his brother's and father's patriotism, and pirates video games to make a few bucks. I would have preferred a movie about Max, since he's a great dog and a great actor (yeah, the dog's the best actor in the film, except for maybe Thomas Haden Church, Justin's dad), but the film leaves us utterly disappointed in that aspect. As one critic said, "It's as if the Coen brothers, or maybe Quentin Tarantino, were invited to script a few scenes in Dora the Explorer." That's about the best way to put it; that's how painful it is when movie makers try to make a family movie, while mixing in violent themes. Lassie meets American Sniper. I'm sure that sounded funny in the pitch. If only it would have tried better to be the dog version of War Horse, then it might have been better. But then again, War Horse had Spielberg.

Although the movie doesn't get off on the right footing, one scene is executed well: at the funeral, Max drags his carrier through the aisle, jumps up on the coffin as if trying to find his master, then lays down loyally on the ground in front of the coffin. The funeral proceedings proceed, and then one of the only well-crafted scenes is over. Max's friend Chuy tries to provide some comic relief, but ultimately fails, since the movie would need a lot more than just him to make up for its disappointments. Justin's character is completely uninteresting, his mom is the only character that tries to be inspiring...but she fails, his dad is annoyingly gullible, and, well, this list could go on for a while longer. There were so many extremely agonizing moments, scenes, etc., I practically forgot them all.

But, after a long wait, the kind of exciting climax (almost) saves the day; well, it would be a stretch to say almost, because unfortunately, it would have taken a lot more than just one decent climax to save this movie. The movie is full of clichés, but the climax is a totally surprising turn for a children's movie, and although for an action scene it was not very tense, at least it felt like it after the mind-numbing first hour. After Max, I will open my arms to any other military combat dog movie, under a couple of conditions:

1) It actually has real war--which means it has to be PG-13, and 2) It doesn't star a bratty teenager

The movie still might be very good, but it's hard to imagine it would be worse than Max.
11 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Verbinski and Depp Are Back For Another Exciting Action Movie
28 September 2015
After Rango, one of the best kids movies ever (although it was more for adults), Depp and Verbinski reunite once again for another good film. While Depp does good acting as Tonto, the lunatic Indian that wears a dead bird as a hat, Verbinski is the real winner for his amazing directing, crafting the action scenes with such grace and beauty, resulting in some of the best action scenes in a while. The Lone Ranger is a sort of slapstick western, but doesn't do as well as Rango, which was less slapstick, more real comedy. Sometimes The Lone Ranger can be monstrously funny; then there are the moments where the jokes fall so flat, one has to wonder if an actual joke was being told. Especially in the moments where Verbinski tries to go from dark, disturbing moments, straight to un-amusing humor.

A miraculously aged Tonto is on display at a museum in 1933 and comes to life to tell a young boy dressed as the Lone Ranger the story of the Lone Ranger. The story is an exciting one, starting out almost immediately with a miraculous train-fight scene. The movie also ends with an even better, albeit longer train scene. Bandits invade the train, full of Protestants, to free the cannibalistic Butch Cavendish, who is on his way to a public hanging in another car. A fight ensues: Tonto and John Reid against two of Cavendish's thugs. Cavendish gets free, John Reid arrives in his childhood home of Texas, and his brother, the head ranger, recruits him and takes his team to pursue Butch Cavendish. They're ambushed, and the mission is a fateful one. After the ambush, Tonto thinks that John Reid died, so he puts him in a grave and brushes some dirt over him. To Tonto's horror, John Reid suddenly wakes up, and panicked, Tonto knocks him back to unconsciousness with a rock. That's some of the better comedy the film manages to pull off.

Then a white spirit horse comes and stands by John Reid's grave, apparently signifying that John Reid is the chosen one, of sorts, and he cannot be killed in battle. Tonto is appalled at the horse's choice, and tries to get the horse to select Dan Reid, but the horse has made up his mind. Apparently the horse is omniscient, and can fly, and teleport, and who knows what else. He appears on roofs to rescue them, stands on a tree limb to eat the leaves...how did he get on that tree? As Tonto says, "Something very wrong with that horse." That's probably understating it a little, but at least Tonto did the best he could with his limited vocabulary.

Tom Wilkinson as the scheming Latham Cole and William Fichtner as the deformed Butch Cavendish do exceptionally well, along with Helena Bonham Carter as Red, a lady with an ivory leg that shoots bullets out of the heel. The Lone Ranger is a wonderfully made western, and although it falls short at moments, it succeeds in being a gripping, gritty tale that is sure to go down as a classic.

92/100
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Son of Batman (2014)
5/10
If "Son of Batman" Proves Anything, It's That A Batman Movie Can Be Bad
19 September 2015
Warning: Spoilers
In fact, it would be injustice to even call it a Batman movie. It's really about Damian Wayne, the hot-tempered son of Batman, who we are introduced to in the opening of the film. Almost every aspect of Son of Batman is bad: the voice acting, the half-anime animation, and Damian himself has to be one of the most aggravating characters in the history of film. For me, Damian has always been the worst of the numerous Robins, but all this movie did was make me hate him worse. His morals represent the post-Lazarus Pit version of Jason Todd, slaughtering anyone he believes deserves to die, which puts him as low as they. That is by far the worst aspect of this pitiful excuse for an animated DC Universe movie: the titular Damian Wayne. He is cocky and way better at fighting than anyone his age should be, even in a fictional movie. Sure, he was raised and trained by the infamous Ra's al Ghul, but somehow, at the age ten, he appears to be able to even beat Ra's al Ghul. The dialogue is completely flat, delivered by even flatter characters. Although Damian is the most unlikeable character in the movie, Batman is almost as bad. I almost feel like a traitor saying these words, but, alas, it's true. I'm not even sure Batman was in the movie; perhaps the character that dressed like him and had the same alter ego was a Batman from an entirely different universe, albeit a plainer, less advanced one. Throughout the movie it seems Bruce Wayne/Batman constantly gets showed up by his bratty twenty-five years younger son. Batman lacks the detectiveness, the authority, the complete Batman aura, and most importantly, the right voice acting. At a couple of points in the movie, Batman has to ask Damian about locations to Ra's al Ghul's lair or something like that, leaving every Batman expert wondering, "Don't you have some sort of portable GPS thingy or something you can pull out of your pocket and locate in a couple of milliseconds?" Worse, he has to ask him right in front of a dude they're interrogating, which, if I were Batman, would be totally embarrassing. I'd like to think he was trying to instill confidence in Damian, or using some other sort of Batman strategy, but sadly, I believe that wasn't the case.

The movie starts with the League of Assassins being betrayed by Slade Wilson a.k.a. Deathstroke. Being one of the best DC Comics supervillains, I was expecting a much better portrayed version of him, but he was only another victim of bad voice acting. Ra's al Ghul fends off the attackers as best he can, deflecting all of their arrows with a sword, like a Jedi would deflect laser blasts with his lightsaber. That's the first sign that this movie is going to be completely ridiculous. Ra's continues to slice his way through Slade's followers, blood spurting everywhere on the screen with each victory. Then Slade shows up and, of course, wants to finish off Ra's himself, so he orders his men to stand back. He kills the legendary Ra's way too easily, and with the little life Ra's has in him he crawls his way to the Lazarus Pit to cheat death once again and resurrect himself. He dies before he reaches it. Damian shows up, and heartbroken to see his grandfather dead, he tries to drag him into the Lazarus Pit. Somehow his grandfather is way too heavy for this kid that can fend off adults seven times his size and strength. It doesn't matter, because his mother, Talia al Ghul, shows up and stops him. Talia is perhaps the best example of bad voice acting and bad dialogue, saying the most clichéd things in such an uninterested voice. I want to say that she would have been best left out of the movie, but regrettably, she is too important to be left out.

Filled with wrath and vengeance, Damian brutally cuts his way through the traitors, just like his grandfather, until he reaches Slade...and stabs him in the eye. How could a ten year old so easily defeat the man who murdered his grandfather, who taught him everything he new? Throughout the movie such questions perplexed me, and left me utterly annoyed. Slade Wilson leaves, having accomplished his goal, and vows they will meet again, so he can get revenge, although Damian hasn't yet achieved his revenge, so he's more than happy at the thought of meeting up with Slade again. Talia al Ghul decides it's time for Damian to meet his father, so they travel to Gotham, and she leaves him with Bruce Wayne, a.k.a. Batman. They reach the Batcave and Damian examines it with his critical, or more appropriately, spoiled eyes. "So this is the acclaimed Batcave. Smaller than I expected. But efficient." Alfred, who does the best voicing for this movie, immediately dislikes Damian, which is the exact same first impression I had. If you want to know exactly what was said, watch the movie yourself or look it up. I would recommend looking it up. Eventually, Damian goes hunting for Deathstroke and finds one of his employees, a hulking thug with Wolverine-like claws. One of my least favorite scenes in the movie ensues, Damian using a sword to block the thug's blows. How can he match the strength of someone seven times his size? He actually almost kills the thug, until Nightwing, the original Robin, interferes. He finally finds his match in Nightwing, who defeats him and ropes him up from a streetlight...but gaining cuts all over his body in the process. In the comics, Nightwing would have easily defeated Damian, but this movie insists upon making Damian as invincible as possible; a poor decision because it ruins the whole movie. I take that back. The movie was already ruined.

My Official Score: 53/100
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Jumper (2008)
8/10
Unoriginal, But Still An Entertaining Action Flick.
18 September 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Hayden Christensen will never be as good as he was in Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith. Many critics and even viewers disagree with me, saying that in the final installment of the Star Wars saga he mistook an evil, meaningful performance for "pouty faces and mumbled lines". Or something like that. I must agree that he had an interesting selection of evil faces; they looked like evil was totally warping his face into a wide-eyed, hate-filled glare. I just think that it worked for him.

In Jumper, though, I would fully understand--and possibly agree with--anyone maligning his performance. It wasn't the worst acting; maybe it was just the fact that he was cast for the role, considering that his interesting character and voice inflection definitely doesn't fit with most roles that can be provided for him. Jumper was a good action movie, with good directing, cinematography, and editing. The jumping was handled well, and the fight scenes likewise provided exciting entertainment. Considering the storyline, though, I believe that the movie had a lot more potential, and could easily have been a great movie. But the writing is unoriginal, as is the dialogue, and the characterization could have been done much better. Also, it was completely unnecessary to bring along a white-haired Mace Windu, with a reconstructed lightsaber, and then make him into some sort of "religious nutjob" serial killer, trying to kill off all of the Jumpers because, "Only God should have this power." I've heard of men like this in jokes, not movies.

The movie starts with teenage David Rice, discovering that he can jump (teleport) through time and space to different locations...simple enough. He keeps jumping to the Ann Arbor Library (Did it have to be Ann Arbor, Mr. Goyer?) on accident, and after his first jump, of course he wants to try it again. Most people probably would have needed a manual, like "Teleporting 101", but to make the movie work, he just practices it and...Voila! He finally gets it down--sort of. Just like every superhero, he decides to keep his talents a secret...but not for very heroic reasons. For whatever reasons, he figures his skills would be best put to use robbing a bank. "Hey, I was a kid. What would you have done?" I dunno, but I definitely wouldn't have robbed a bank. Oh well, we're all raised differently.

Fast forward a few years, David's all grown up, and he's living in a mansion, with a closet full of dough. Maybe it's not a mansion, but it's quite a house, that's for sure. I forgot to mention, ever since his first jump, everyone has thought he was dead...how could you be living in a mansion if everyone thinks you're dead? He gets by somehow, until Mace Windu shows up, no longer a Jedi; instead he's a Paladin. It's quite a shock to David, after convincing himself after all these years that he's safe, to have someone invade his house and try to kill him. So he goes on the run, meets up with his childhood crush, and offers to take her on a vacation to Rome. She asks what job he has. "I'm a banker." L. O. L. So they take off for Rome. Very smart, David, while you're being chased by evil villains--what other kinds of villains are there?--why don't you bring along your clueless girlfriend. Forgive my sarcasm; turns out bringing his girlfriend along wasn't a very good idea, considering he once again gets attacked (Surprise, Surprise!) in the Coliseum, meets another, more experienced Jumper, and follows his "jump scar" to his lair. The other jumper turns out to be someone named Griffin, a smart-alek, rather unattractive person played by Jamie Bell, who has been jumping and living alone longer than even David has. David Rice follows him around everywhere, asking questions and irritating him, but perhaps he's not as irritated as he should be. "Paladins kill Jumpers. I kill Paladins. Class dismissed," says Griffin. The chemistry between the two continues to be interesting and humorous.

Despite the ridiculousness of the movie, Jumper still manages to be an entertaining, if disappointing, action film, and although Hayden Christensen has lost the touch he had in 2003, he's still a good actor. David S. Goyer will never again create a film as good as the Batman trilogy, which he and Christopher Nolan collaborated on together, but this movie proves that he still has his writing touch. The movie keeps you excited and entertained throughout, providing good imagery and clever dialogue and characterization.

My Official Score: 84/100
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
"The Fault, Dear Brutus, Lies Not In Our Stars, But In Ourselves..."
18 September 2015
Warning: Spoilers
The infamous quote from Julius Caesar basically translates: "We make our own fates; the stars don't tell us them." John Green contradicts Shakespeare with his title "The Fault in Our Stars"; he's saying that children diagnosed with cancer, like Hazel and Augustus in the movie, have their fates written in the stars. The title itself demonstrates how intelligent and deep the movie is. Before watching this movie, I didn't know what to think. I was really expecting it to be just another average romance, and I hadn't even known that it was a tragedy. Hazel's opening monologue made it clear that it was, and my expectations immediately changed.

Somehow I've been able to enjoy both the Divergent series and The Fault In Our Stars, despite my dislike for Shailene Woodley. One reason I didn't like her in Divergent is because she was the wrong actress to portray Beatrice Pryor, and I didn't like the character presented in the movie anyway. I can't say for sure whether or not Shailene Woodley was the right choice for Hazel in this movie, but at least she did her best.

The beginning of the movie starts out a little clichéd and uninteresting. Hazel Grace Lancaster goes to a cancer support group, after being forced to by her parents. The support group is at a church, "literally In the Heart of Jesus". The first day is just as bad as she expected. The leader is a complete weirdo, and she's not interested in making friends with any of the other cancer victims. The second day, before even entering the room...she bumps into Augustus Waters, and they both are immediately interested in each other, just like in any every other romance movie. She fixes her hair in the restroom mirror before going into the meeting room, and when the group sits down, all Augustus can do is stare at her. She tries to avoid looking back at him, but it's obvious that she's enjoying the attention she rarely gets. Obviously they become friends, he invites her over, and they borrow each other's books. An Imperial Affliction, a novel about a cancer patient, is the book she gives him, and I don't remember the book that he gave her; it's an irrelevant detail. I don't know what she thinks about his book; I don't recall it ever being mentioned, but after he reads An Imperial Affliction, it's all the two of them can talk about. She has sent the author numerous fan letters, but none of them have been answered. Augustus surprises her by reaching Van Houten's personal assistant, and reads her the letter over phone. Of course, as soon as she can she emails the assistant, and the next thing you know they've been invited to meet him in Amsterdam. After a few complications, they finally get to go to Amsterdam, and they eat out and have a great time at a fancy restaurant. Gus tries to pay for the meal, but the waiter declines. "Your meal has been paid for by Mr. Van Houten." The next day they visit Van Houten (Willem Dafoe), and the visit is quite disappointing. I'm not sure why, I quite enjoyed the (was it Swedish?) hip hop.

The movie turns out to be surprisingly good and meaningful. The dialogue and writing are a couple of the stronger points of movie, and they help a lot in delivering the message. Some of the movie presented dialogue so deep, so trivial, so meaningful, so powerful you can't help thinking about it for days on end. The Fault in Our Stars is an excellent example of a tragedy at its best.

My Official Score: 83/100
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
All Is Lost (2013)
9/10
Terrific Lost at Sea Story
16 September 2015
All is Lost is an excellent example of excellent filmmaking, even better than Life of Pi. Life of Pi delivered beautiful cinematography and a wonderfully thought-provoking story, but even though All is Lost's cinematography doesn't quite match Life of Pi's, it is an intelligent, mature film that definitely deserved a nine-minute standing ovation.

Robert Redford doesn't need more dialogue to show how strong of a performance he--once again--delivers. "Our Man" is wholeheartedly determined to survive, keeping his calm through the worst (for the most part), and taking care of any problems in a way as to appear as if he'd been preparing for this disaster his whole life. Disaster after disaster strikes, but all he does is make a face, pull out some Elmer's sticky glue, and patch up the hole...until even sticky glue won't help. Perhaps he already believes he's doomed, he's just too stubborn to admit it. Is there a difference between stubbornness and determination? The unique style of this movie completely works; it's almost as if hidden cameras have been set up and we're observing the average lost-at-sea life. The decision to immediately throw us out to sea with him and leave out any other characters was a good decision; it helps us feel as lost and alone as Our Man is. In Life of Pi, Pi wasn't completely alone; he had Richard Parker, as little of a companion as he sometimes was. During the calm moments of Lost at Sea--really, there aren't that many--as we watch Our Man steer the boat, fix up the damage, eat dinner in his lonely cabin, he seems almost at peace, and I almost feel as if I would be at peace. But no, as good as being alone feels sometimes, Our Man has been lonely for too long.

Lost at Sea was a great movie, and all the ending does is make you love it even more. The ending leaves one question hanging in the air: What just happened to him? It all depends on how you see the hand. You'll know what I mean when you see the movie.

My Official Score: 96.5/100
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Citizen Kane (1941)
9/10
"Rosebud."
14 September 2015
Without subtitles I thought that Charles Foster Kane had said "frostbite". In the opening minute I almost thought I was watching a horror movie, the way the cinematographer went from one scene to another, aided by the fact that Xanadu looked haunted.

The trivia for "Citizen Kane" was some of the most interesting trivia I've ever read. Orson Welles wrote and acted the character of Charles Foster Kane superbly well, and I suppose also did well directing himself. If this movie does anything, it is displaying yellow journalism and corrupted almost-politicians. Only Charles Foster Kane would think it "fun" to run a newspaper. At times Kane appears to be the man he wants people to think he is: a loving, kind, honest man, who would fit better than any other eligible man as the governor. Thanks to his friends, we brutally discover the true man underneath the layer of fake skin: a selfish, heartless man who only has one true goal in life: success, which he believes will also bring him happiness. But success cannot buy happiness, which he seemingly doesn't find out until his final dying moments.

This movie was definitely not one of my "Great Movies", as it was Ebert's. As interesting as this movie was, the thing that nagged at my mind the most was the fact that, if he died when he was alone, how does anyone know what his final words were? Somehow, amazingly, this thought apparently never did occur to Welles or any of the other cast, crew, or producers until after it was released, whereas it occurred to me within ten minutes, as I'm sure it did to many other viewers. Did Ebert himself miss this fact, even after hundreds of viewings, or somehow shrug it off, even after doing an audio commentary on it? Perhaps I can see how he shrugged it off, considering I have done the same on other movies I've enjoyed, though the problems were less obvious and less important to the plot.

This movie seems almost documentary-style, first giving us a summary of his life, then going back and addressing each plot point in more detail. The movie's strong points were the directing, characterization, and cinematography, and Welles' acting, although the other actors were quite disappointing. The movie was interesting and fun to watch, and the mystery kept us intrigued, although it was not quite what I was expecting. Charles Foster Kane was a very entertainingly arrogant character, and quite an incredible debut for Orson Welles. The end reveal is fascinating and meaningful in itself.

My Official Score: 89.5/100
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
The Best Movie Kevin James Has Starred In Yet
14 September 2015
The only movie with Kevin James in it that I can recall liking better than Paul "Blart: Mall Cop 2" was "Hotel Transylvania", but this is the best starring role James has been in. Considering the fact that this movie has a 4.4/10 average on IMDb, 7% on Rotten Tomatoes, and a thumbs down on Roger Ebert's site, I was quite believably expecting this to be even worse than the first one, which is one of the best examples of Kevin James' un-clever, un-funny acting. Zookeeper was probably his worst performance ever, and I would not be surprised to see its title listed as a synonym of stupid in a thesaurus. Here Comes the Boom is perhaps the best-made movie he has ever been in, just not as entertaining to me as Mall Cop 2. Please don't even get me started on his old sitcom, The King of Queens. I'll just say that I would rather watch Zookeeper twice in one day than a single episode of King of Queens, and I'll leave it at that.

So, before I watched Mall Cop 2, I was understandably prepared to despise it, especially considering how much I disliked the first one, and the fact that the majority of people like the first better than it. This movie blew my expectations out of the water. The acting's bad, there are too many Disney channel actors, the plot is contrived, the whole idea is childish, and the characterization is the most pitiful point of the movie, even worse than the first I daresay. But it actually succeeded in it's one goal: trying to be funny. That is Kevin James' biggest failure: trying to make comedies, when he is one of the least funny people I have ever observed. But this movie at least lives up to its genre, and although even the funniest part only gets a silent chuckle out of you, and Paul Blart's insane character is as annoying as it tries to be funny, you can forget about the poorly-made parts, the cheesy dialogue, the bad scripting, and try to enjoy it. That's about the only way to enjoy it.

My Official Score: 58.5/100
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

Recently Viewed