The Perks of Being a Wallflower - Movie Review

Directed by Stephen Chbosky
Screenplay by Chbosky, based on his novel.
Running Time: 103 minutes (1h, 43 mins.)
Rated PG-13 (for mature thematic material, drug and alcohol use, sexual content including references and a fight - all involving teens).
Distributor: Summit Entertainment

Grade 9. Freshman year. New locker, new teachers, new atmosphere, new...everything. Been there, done that. So, to watch someone else starting high school on the big screen would be a little funny. It can also go what I like to call the "Disney Channel" route and have everything candy-coated and some of the little things exaggerated to the point where you've had enough. In The Perks of Being a Wallflower, that's not the case.

Stephen Chbosky adapts his own novel for the big screen and directs the story of Charlie (Logan Lerman), a awkward teen who's about to start high school in the wake of something tragic. Of course, struggling at first to really fit in this new stage of his life, Charlie meets Sam (Emma Watson) and Patrick (Ezra Miller), stepsiblings who don't have a care in the world. Throughout the year, they, along with Charlie's English teacher, help our main protagonist come out of his shell.

Not many movies really capture the shy, awkward experience of being a teenager like this and being a senior, I really was impressed. I hadn't read all of the book before my Toronto International Film Festival screening (although I knew the book was composed of a series of letters written by Charlie to a mystery "friend", some of which are in the movie), but I'm glad I didn't. The twists in the film come off better that way.

Performances are a delight to watch. Lerman has come a long way and though Percy Jackson got him somewhat big, this is the role that really showcases what he's got as an actor. His portrayal of Charlie is affecting. How he feels, we feel it too (or the other way around, I don't even know). Watson and Miller have to be singled out as well. While her first post-Harry Potter role didn't give her much to do unfortunately (My Week with Marilyn), that's not the case here. Watson is a revelation here, as is Miller, who seamlessly plays his role with humor and vulnerability. Mae Whitman is funny then there's Paul Rudd (who makes the most of his screen time) and I would be crazy not to mention Melanie Lynskey. While her character, Charlie's aunt, only appears in flashbacks, she also makes the most out of her screen time.

Overall, The Perks of Being a Wallflower is an impressive study of being in the stage of adolescence. In a way, Chbosky makes the few cliches of high school seem fresh, thanks in part to its witty, moving script and charming performances. Definitely check it out. Oh, and check out the soundtrack as well. Good stuff.

Rating: 8.5/10

Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Dog Days - Movie Review

Directed by David Bowers
Screenplay by Wallace Wolodarsky and Maya Forbes, based on Dog Days and The Last Straw by Jeff Kinney.
Running Time: 94 minutes (1h, 34 mins.)
Rated PG (for some rude humor).
Distributor: 20th Century Fox

Should I keep this short and sweet? Yeah, I should. 7 out of 10. Why? This is a better entry in this series, even though the screenwriters behind this don't know what story they want to settle on. Understandable, since two of the books were put together for this film.

Even as it veers towards stupidity (watch Devon Bostick do a punk rock rendition of Justin Bieber's Baby) and doesn't exactly deliver on the emotional moments, it does hit the sweet spot when it has to, making this third entry sort of onto the lengths of the first film and beats the second. So, as I said before...

Rating: 7/10

Step Up Revolution - Movie Review

Directed by Scott Speer
Written by Amanda Brody, based on characters created by Duane Adler.
Running Time: 100 minutes (1h, 40 mins.)
Rated PG-13 (for some suggestive dancing and language).
Distributor: Summit Entertainment

There are few dance movie franchises that have mangaged to survive on the big screen and not get put on a direct-to-DVD basis like Step Up. Sure, each entry improves on the dancing, but when it comes to everything else (you know, plot, dialogue, blah blah blah), not much is done. Hey, at least they make the bills. This fourth entry, strangely subtitled Revolution, isn't that much different.

I knew what I was getting into, despite being the only one I've seen fully on a big screen was the previous one, which was the first to be shot in the 3D format. That wasn't necessarily a good film, but it wasn't bad either. The first two I've seen when TBS plays them on a few Saturday afternoons, the time where nothing important or even watchable airs. I mean, come on. When you're spending $12 (3D price) for this kind of film, you're there for the main attraction, much in the same way you'd pay for another entry in a horror franchise like Saw or Friday the 13th. Here in the Step Up franchise, there's no inventive kills, but inventive dancing.

If I should even say inventive.

Each film has a guy and a girl wanting to dance for reasons that are range from obvious to just meh. The guy's part of a dance crew, the girl's just on her own, hoping to become a professional dancer. They meet, she joins, they dance and somewhere along the way, they fall in love. If you're new to the franchise, you're probably thinking that's it's cute. Ain't so, if you recycle that plot for four films in a row. Here, they move this plot to the sunny city of Miami, this crew called "The MOB", who set up very elaborate dance mobs to get 10 million hits on YouTube in order to receive the prize of $100,000.

While this very generic (for a movie, at least) plan is in motion, the crew's leader, Sean (Ryan Guzman) meets Emily (Kathryn McCormick), a gifted dancer who dreams of being a...you know where this is going. Her father (Peter Gallagher, whose no stranger to teen-based material) however is a real-estate tycoon who plans to build a large hotel in the neighbourhood their families and friends reside in. So, it's up to them to turn their performance art into protest art. Sooooo...no dance battles?

Yep. That's the one thing different. No reason to put this crew in various dance battles with another crew. Fine, but this new plot device ain't that good either and when you don't much of a good plot, you don't much of good performances. While few are decent (Gallagher and an appearance from Adam Sevani from the 2nd and 3rd film), most don't click mostly coming from Guzman and McCormick, the two leads. Let me put it this way: good dancers, bad actors. However, less of the blame goes to them as much as it goes to the script. It's the best one I've heard nor is it the worst, but there are many obvious moments that either close with a groan or a chuckle.

I mentioned before that the dancing is the main attraction of this series. Still is. It does have dance sequences that are undeniably impressive, three of which pop out in the 3D format, which somewhat is worth watching in.

I didn't mind Step Up Revolution. However, as impressive as the dance sequences are, the film isn't without its various faults. Generic plot, script and underwhelming acting plague the film and help solidify it as a franchise that doesn't seem willing to be creative when it comes to plot. Then again, who gives a f*** about plot in this? Yeah. That's what I thought.

Rating: 4.5/10

Total Recall - Movie Review

Directed by Len Wiseman
Screenplay by Kurt Wimmer and Mark Bomback, screenstory by Ronald Shusett & Dan O'Bannon and Jon Povill and Kurt Wimmer, inspired by the short story "We Can Remember It for You Wholesale" by Phillip K. Dick.
Running Time: 118 minutes (1h, 58 mins.)
Rated PG-13 (for intense sequences of sci-fi violence and action, some sexual content, brief nudity and language).
Distributor: Sony (Columbia Pictures)

Total Recall is one of those '90s films that can't be touched. Well, was of those '90s films that couldn't be touched. Believe me, I've seen it more than once. It was poorly adapted in a way for a long-forgotten television show and now comes this remake headed by the director who brought us the Underworld series. Might I tell you that this is the guy who doesn't yell "Action", but rather "GO!". So you know this is frenetic.

Frenetic in the way that it never slows down, somewhat unlike the original. While this is fine on some occasions, it gets a bit tiring since it doesn't have the time to really develop the characters like they should. Of course, the character the movie mainly focuses on Douglas Quaid (Colin Farrell), who's tired of the same old routine. Hey, who isn't? Obviously enticed by the ads that promote Rekall, a corporation that provides artificial memories of the life you want to live. Doug decides to give it a go. While getting hooked up to the chair, a Rekall representative finds that Doug is a secret agent (ironic since the memory that would have been implanted was the life of a secret agent). The dude finds himself on the run, the wife he thought he knew (Lori, played by Kate Beckinsale) isn't really his wife and ultimately joins forces with a rebel agent (Jessica Biel) to fight against the URB special forces, all as he tries to recover what's really in his head.

Now, I like the original (I've seen it enough times, however not enough to actually beat how many times I've popped in Scott Pilgrim vs. The World on my Blu-ray player), so I guess I could say I was a little worried about how it would turn out. Slightly better than I expected, but even with the breathtaking action set pieces and the visual eye candy (Beckinsale and Biel aside), I still hoped it would take a bit of its time to really develop things a bit further with character and depth. The actors do work as well as they can with the material given to them.

I liked Colin Farrell here. He was very believable in the role previously played by Arnold Schwarzenegger and even unlike the Schwarz himself, Farrell is more relatable since he looks like the ideal everyman instead of that guy with huge biceps. Beckinsale plays crazy well and Biel also acts well alongside Farrell and continues to prove she's the go-to girl for playing tough female roles. Bryan Cranston drops by in the film. Ever since Breaking Bad, he's been in everything now, as does John Cho. It felt like less of a big role and more of a cameo, unfortunately.

As much as I was expecting more depth (at least enough to fully care for what's going on), it wasn't surprising that there wasn't. Len Wiseman helmed this. This is the guy who created the Underworld series, a film series that, like other vampire/werewolf franchises like Twilight, you don't need a lot of brains for. He's also the main reason Kate Beckinsale's in this: she's married to him. You made a wise choice, Len. He, along with the screenwriters, do have some nods to the original film: the big lady and most notably, the three-breasted woman.

Overall, this Total Recall remake is passable. Like I said before, I wish it could have taken its time to really develop these characters, especially since the original film sort of did so, but that's probably asking a little too much. This works well as an action film. Not too much more.

Rating: 6.5/10

Trailerpalooza: 'Paranormal Activity 4' Trailer

God, I haven't done this in a while. Trailerpalooza returns, although shorter than most. I want to try and focus less on what's happening with the upcoming releases and actually review the upcoming releases, though I haven't done too much of that this year so far. Today, it's kind of hard to resist. One particular new trailer have been released through the magical wonder known as the internet today and I don't think I really have to say much about it, so let the trailer speak for itself.

Yeah, I know. Another one, but this time: Extra video chat! It's good that they're going to the (somewhat) present-time after they went back in time with the last film, but while it looks like the scares could be effective enough, it also looks like more of the same. And I'm not that big a fan of more of the same. Maybe I'll be wrong. At least Henry Joost and Ariel Schulman (the guys behind Catfish and the guys who directed the last film) are back, so that's cool. The film hits theatres October 19th.

To Rome with Love - Movie Review

Written and Directed by Woody Allen
Running Time: 112 minutes (1h, 52 mins.)
Rated R (for some sexual references).
Distributor: Sony Pictures Classics

The Woodman takes Rome! That should give you a clear idea of what European city he takes on next, after visiting London four times for Match Point, Scoop, Cassandra's Dream and You Will Meet A Tall Dark Stranger, Spain for Vicky Cristina Barcelona and Paris for, of course, Midnight in Paris.

Originally titled Nero Fiddled, To Rome with Love chronicles four separate stories set in the enchanting Italian city. One deals with a clerk (Roberto Benigni) whose life changes when he becomes a celebrity for no apparent reason. Another deals with a retired opera director (Woody Allen) who finds a way to come out of his retirement when he discovers a great voice in his future son-in-law's father. Only thing is he can only do it without fear in the shower.

The third follows a newlywed couple (Alessandro Tiberi and Alessandra Mastronardi) on their honeymoon. Well, it's more or less for the husband to get a prestigious job from his relatives. However once the wife gets lost, things get out of proportion when a prostitute (Penelope Cruz) goes to their hotel room. Suddenly, she acts as the husband's wife when the relatives come along. The fourth is a little hard to explain. Let's just say it's about a architect (Alec Baldwin) who revisits where he lived a year ago. He's introduced to a young couple (Jesse Eisenberg and Greta Gerwig) whose relationship comes to a crack when the girlfriend's best friend (Ellen Page) arrives.

As I mentioned before, none of the stories really have any connection and this was intentional. Aside from the generic title (even Allen himself says he hates it, but ultimately had to settle on it because Nero Fiddled would have been confusing), To Rome with Love almost succeeds. Sure, comparisons to Midnight to Paris are inevitable and while it does lack the certain flow that Paris and previous films of his had, Rome manages to work well all on its own.

I enjoyed three of the stories in the film, my favourite going to Baldwin, Eisenberg, Gerwig and Page. While it can be confusing at times (mostly with Baldwin's character), it's still an interesting setup of a piece that impressed me. The third one involving the couple starts off fine, but then grows dull. Ultimately, it picks back up again. Either way, it's great to these actors do what they do best, especially Woody Allen. Putting himself in his first starring role since Scoop 6 years ago, he proves that even as old as he is, he's still funny, along with Judy Davis, Fabio Armillato, Flavio Parento and Alison Pill, who despite being her second film with Allen, is sadly underused. Roberto Benigni (known best to North American audiences for Life is Beautiful) also hasn't really lost his touch as a comedic actor.

Bottom line: To Rome with Love, as I mentioned before, does lacks the certain flow most of his previous films (yes, including Midnight in Paris). However, I still found it to be an enjoyable comedy. It's not one of Allen's best, and of course he's done better, but I can still recommend it.

Rating: 7/10

Lineup for the 2012 Toronto International Film Festival

The lineup for the 2012 (technically 37th) Toronto International Film Festival was announced an hour earlier and let me just say, it looks to be even better than last year. We have another non-Canadian film kicking off the festival, however this one has been on my must-see list for a while now: Rian Johnson's Looper. It's being listed as a world premiere, among many others that include The Wachowski and Tom Tykwer's Cloud Atlas (which we have yet to see a trailer for even though Warner Bros. slated it for an October 26th release), David O. Russell's Silver Linings Playbook, Stuart Blumberg's Thanks for Sharing, Ben Affleck's Argo, Noah Baumbach's Frances Ha, David Ayer's found-footage like cop thriller End of Watch, Deepa Mehta's Midnight's Children, Sally Potter's Ginger and Rosa, Derek Cianfrance's The Place Beyond The Pines (speaking of that, I should really watch Blue Valentine) and Joss Whedon's adaptation of Shakespeare's Much Ado About Nothing. Other films making their International/North American premieres (which means they'll probably be at Venice first) include Joe Wright's Anna Karenina, Robert Redford`s The Company You Keep and one that was surprising to me, Terrence Malick`s To The Wonder. Films that came from Cannes include Rust and Bone, The Sapphires, Reality and The Hunt, films I`ve heard good things about.

You can see the full list of films below. The 37th annual Toronto Internation Film Festival runs from September 6th to the 16th.

(via Rope of Silicon, Collider and for info of the films, go to Deadline)

World Premieres
“Looper” (Rian Johnson) (Opening Film)
“Cloud Atlas” (The Wachowskis & Tom Tykwer)
“Argo” (Ben Affleck)
“The Silver Linings Playbook” (David O Russell)
“Love, Marilyn” (Liz Garbus)
“Free Angela And All Political Prisoners” (Shola Lynch)
“The Place Beyond The Pines” (Derek Cianfrance)
“Midnight’s Children” (Deepa Mehta)
“Hyde Park On Hudson” (Roger Michell)
“Great Expectations” (Mike Newell)
“Inescapable” (Rubba Nadda)
“Twice Born” (Sergio Castellitto)
“English Vinglish” (Gauri Shinde)
“The Perks Of Being A Wallflower” (Stephen Chbosky)
“Thanks For Sharing” (Stuart Blumberg)
“End Of Watch” (David Ayer)
“Imogene” (Robert Puccini and Shari Springer Berman)
“A Late Quartet” (Yaron Zilberman)
“Much Ado About Nothing” (Joss Whedon)
“Frances Ha” (Noah Baumbach)
“The Time Being” (Nenad Cicin-Sain)
“Writers” (Josh Boone)
“At Any Price” (Ramin Bahrani)
“Venus And Serena” (Maiken Baird)
“Byzantium” (Neil Jordan)
“Quartet” (Dustin Hoffman)
“Ginger And Rosa” (Sally Potter)
“A Liar’s Autobiography” (Ben Timlett, Bill Jones, Jeff Simpson)
“Foxfire” (Laurnet Cantet)
“In The House” (Francois Ozon)
“The Impossible” (JA Bayona)
“Hannah Arendt” (Margarethe Von Trotta)
“Mr. Pip” (Andrew Adamson)
“Capital” (Costa-Gavras”
“The Attack” (Ziad Doueriri)
“Zaytoun” (Eran Riklis)
“The Deep” (Baltasar Kormakur)
“Dreams For Sale” (Nishikawa Miwa)
“The Last Supper” (Lu Chuan)

International/North American Premieres
“To The Wonder” (Terrence Malick)
“Anna Karenina” (Joe Wright)
“The Reluctant Fundamentalist” (Mira Nair)
“The Company You Keep” (Robert Redford)
“Jayne Mansfield’s Car” (Billy Bob Thornton)
“A Royal Affair” (Nikolai Arcel)
“Dangerous Liasons” (Hur Ji-Ho)
“Thermae Romae” (Hideki Takeuchi)
“Caught in the Web” (Chen Kaige)
“Dormant Beauty” (Marco Belloccchio)
“Everybody Has A Plan” (Ana Piterbarg) w/Viggo Mortensen
“Kon-Tiki” (Espen Sandberg)
“Reality” (Matteo Garrone)
“A Few Hours Of Spring” (Stephan Brize)
“The Hunt” (Thomas Vintenberg)
“The Iceman” (Ariel Vromen)
“Lore” (Cate Shortland)
“No” (Pablo Larrain)
“Outrage Beyond” (Takeshi Kitano)
“Rust And Bone” (Jacques Audiard)
“The Sapphires” (Wayne Blair)
“Tai Chi O” (Stephen Fung)

Canadian Premiere
“The Sessions” (Ben Lewis)

The Dark Knight Rises - Movie Review

Directed by Christopher Nolan
Screenplay by Jonathan Nolan and Christopher Nolan, story by Christopher Nolan and David S. Goyer, based on Batman created by Bob Kane and published by DC Comics.
Running Time: 165 minutes (2h, 45 mins.)
Rated PG-13 (for intense sequences of violence and action, some sensuality and language).
Distributor: Warner Bros. Pictures

To begin this review, I just want to acknowledge those who were in the theatre shooting just on Friday: those who lived to see another day and those who sadly lost their lives. Even when that happened though, it still didn't stop me from seeing that movie on opening day. Besides, I bought tickets early anyway. I probably shouldn't even be writing a review for this film now in order to respect the victims, but a freelance amateur critic's gotta do what a freelance amateur critic's gotta do. By the way, if you're reading this and you haven't seen the film yet (maybe due to reasons mentioned above), don't worry: this review is as spoiler-free as I possibly can make it.

Taking place eight years after its incredible predecessor, The Dark Knight, The Dark Knight Rises shows Gotham City in peace, branding the late Harvey Dent a hero and Batman a villian, even though it was the opposite, a secret kept by Batman and Commisioner Gordon. Of course, Bruce Wayne is the Caped Crusader and since that day, he's hung up his cape and locked himself up inside Wayne Manor, not really wanting to come out. But then comes a mysterious cat burgler, however she is the least of the city's concern when a far more dangerous adversary in the form of Bane. And then of course, Bruce must put back on the cape.

Sometimes, I hate writing the synopsis for these reviews because I just make myself sound like some other reviewer, but you know how it is. Anyway, I'll just cut to the chase and keep it short (due to spoilers): this film isn't good. It's great. Yeah, sure, a few things could have been done a little better (I won't say what, again due to potential spoilers), but director Christopher Nolan still makes this an impressive conclusion in many ways, first and foremost the performances.

Christian Bale returns and is better than ever as the Caped Crusader. He brings more intensity and gets a little more darker with the role. Bane, the villian who looks like he took a (bleep)load of steroids, is played to menacing, somewhat muffled-voice like perfection by Tom Hardy (reuniting with Nolan after 2010's Inception). Yeah, Heath Ledger's portrayal of the Joker is still at the top, but Hardy comes pretty close. I was generally surprised with Anne Hathaway and her interpretation of Selina Kyle, who we obviously know as Catwoman.

True to the comics, she's slick and sexy and provides some of the film's comic relief. Marion Cotillard starts off in the film like one of those love interests that's just put in there, but as it progresses, she does truly hold her own. Like Hardy, this is her second film with Nolan after Inception. Same with Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who also holds his own. Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman return and both are great. It's also worth noting someone decided to bring Matthew Modine's career back from being stalled.

As crafted as it is character-driven wise (especially with its nearly three-hour running time), it's also, like the first two films, visually stunning. Nolan, co-writer/brother Jonathan Nolan and story writer David S. Goyer still keep the darkness that made the first two films memorable, but make it a little more ambitious with the action scenes. Character wise however, they stick true to the pain Bruce feels inside and out and make the audience invested in him more than ever.

Of course, they do the same with the other characters as well. Hans Zimmer gives us another memorable score, though not as memorable as its predecessor. Wally Pfister's cinematography is near perfection, especially on a IMAX screen (which showcases an hour and 12 minutes of footage shot with the IMAX cameras, presented in a 1:44:1 aspect ratio as opposed to the 2:40 aspect ratio that most of the film is shot in). You seriously owe it to yourself to see this in IMAX. It's the best way to see the film.

The Dark Knight Rises is a worthy conclusion to what is already a classic superhero trilogy that's more deeper than any other. Christopher Nolan, Wally Pfister, Hans Zimmer and the rest of the team deliver a finale that's dark, grand, emotionally resonant and cuts skin deep. Most importantly, it's one of the best films this year so far.

Rating: 9/10

Piranha 3DD - Movie Review

Directed by John Gulager
Written by Partick Melton and Marcus Dunstan and Joel Soisson, based on characters created by Peter Goldfinger and Josh Stolberg.
Running Time: 82 minutes (1h, 22 mins.)
Rated R (for sequences of strong bloody horror violence and gore, graphic nudity, sexual content, language and some drug use).
Distributor: The Weinstein Company (Dimension Films/Radius-TWC)

This is a little too late to review this film now, but since I couldn't keep myself from doing so, let me keep this review short and sweet: Piranha 3DD does not live up to its 2010 original (which in turn was based on the 1978 original). Now I know, this is supposed to be fun and granted I had plenty of fun with the first, but this sequel just comes off like an dull parody of the first. Honestly this time around, I just found myself bored.

I don't need to tell the story for this, because there is no story to this. It's the same as the first: hungry piranhas go terrorize a new town. There are some inventive kills, but not the kind that made me giggle, even one with a piranha chewing on some guy's penis. Of course as promised by the tagline, you get more naked women, enough to make college frat boys or even a 13-year-old boy drool (and granted, that may probably be the only reason they enjoy this film). Bad dialogue plagues this film and I'm talking Asylum-like bad dialogue (for anyone who's seen Asylum films like Death Racers or their most recent Abraham Lincoln vs. Zombies) and the actors (including one saving grace in David Koechner) do what they can with the underwritten roles they have.

I'll wrap this up by saying that Piranha 3DD is a boring, dull and derivative sequel that, despite some of the inventive new kills, ridiculous cameos (two big ones being Gary Busey and David Hasselhoff) and yes, double D's, offers nothing that I didn't see before. A sequel that was so promising is in the end, totally disappointing.

Rating: 2/10

New Release Day: The Amazing Spider-Man, Katy Perry: Part of Me, Savages, To Rome with Love and The Do-Deca Pentathlon

It's been long since I've done one of these. But summer is here and everything is red hot, especially the new releases at the box office: obviously the Spider-Man reboot, another concert doc, this time following Katy Perry, in 3D nonetheless and Oliver Stone back to making movies dealing with drugs. Woody Allen's latest goes nationwide and the new film from the Duplass brothers is one major limited release.

First off, The Amazing Spider-Man. The film already came out on Tuesday and has made so far made $71 million, but I had the great opportunity to check out the early advanced screenings a day before. I already reviewed the film calling it entertaining with nice action sequences, cool special effects and good acting, but did mention that there are a few plotholes and the romance between Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) and Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone) could have been worked on. Those reasons end up making the film less than amazing. You can read the whole review here. The film has 73% on Rotten Tomatoes and a 66 on Metacritic.

After the commercial success of Justin Bieber: Never Say Never, Paramount delves into the 3D concert documentary genre again this time with Katy Perry: Part of Me. The film follows a year in the life of the pop star as she goes on tours and deals with the divorce between her and Russell Brand. Oh, how I couldn't care less. Like Bieber, I find her music absolutely annoying and the film just looks like another stupid cashgrab. Surprisingly, most critics say it's more than that (notably A.O. Scott of the New York Times, saying it's more interesting and her negotiation of stardom and marriage is poignant). Still not convinced. I don't think I'll ever be convinced. RT: 78% (?!), Metacritic: 57

Savages marks Oliver Stone's return to gritty and violent filmmaking after giving us the Wall Street sequel and an interesting biopic of George W. Bush. Based off Don Winslow's book of the same name, the film tells the story of two pot dealers (Taylor Kitsch and Aaron Johnson) getting revenge on a Mexican drug cartel led by Salma Hayek after kidnapping their shared girlfriend (Blake Lively). From the looks of it, this is an action thriller on steroids. Or Ritalin. Whatever fits best. It'll be interesting to know what audiences think. While many critics agree it's a return to form for Stone, it's garnered mixed reviews so far, which worries me, especially two different ones coming from two of my favourite film critics: Roger Ebert says it generates ruthless energy and some humor while Peter Howell of the Toronto Star says the film is too dumb to know when to "sheath the blade". Again, let's see what audiences think. RT: 52%, MC: 62

His last stop was Paris, now Rome. Woody Allen head to the beautiful Italian city for To Rome with Love, which follow four separate stories with vistors and residents of Rome and the wacky misadventures they get into. Like many of Allen's films, this packs an all-star cast which includes Alec Baldwin, Jesse Eisenberg, Greta Gerwig, Penelope Cruz, Roberto Benigni, Ellen Page, Alison Pill, Judy Davis and Allen himself, his first acting role in 2006's Scoop. The film has mixed reviews, which doesn't necessarily bother me since I'm a fan of the Woodman. RT: 45%, MC: 55

And finally, The Do-Deca Pentathlon, the latest film from Jay Duplass and Mark Duplass. The comedy follows two grown brothers who secretly compete in an homemade Olympic-like competiton during a family reunion. This came out a few weeks before on demand, but I haven't gotten the time to watch it yet. It is pretty cool that it came out a few months after Jeff, Who Lives at Home, which unlike this film is star-studded. Nevertheless, good hopes for this one. RT: 67%, MC: 60

The Amazing Spider-Man - Movie Review

Directed by Marc Webb
Screenplay by James Vanderbilt and Alvin Sargent and Steve Kloves, story by Vanderbilt, based on the Marvel comic by Stan Lee and Steve Ditko.
Running Time: 137 minutes (2h, 17 mins.)
Rated PG-13 (for sequences of action and violence).
Distributor: Sony (Columbia Pictures)

So here we are again. 10 years after Sam Raimi put one of the most beloved Marvel superheroes to great effect and 5 years after his third installment proved to be less than impressive (but it was still a fine film), Sony has rebooted the franchise to its beginning, a story we all know too well. Being one who reads the comics and has seen all the movies (yes, even the third one) more than once, I was worried. Very worried.

Like anyone, I felt it was too soon to restart and tell the story the first film did a great job of doing. Even the stills (some of which I posted up a year ago) weren't that convincing. The first trailer sort of brought my hopes up, then the second one brought it down, then the third brought it up again and then that 4 minute trailer had me a little more convinced. Even with all that, I promised to keep my expectations low and I did.

With that, I probably don't need to write exactly what it's about. I haven't been doing that a lot lately in my reviews because let's face it, the people who read this are smart enough to know what it's about anyway. If you watched the first film (let's face it, who hasn't?), then let me tell you that this "re-imagining" isn't all that new in the storyline. However, it does manage to play it differently. Such as where 10 years ago, Peter Parker used his newfound skills to enter a wrestling competition for cash, here he uses his powers to test his skateboard skills.

It also brings a bit more realism (in terms of movies today that don't) as this film uses the version of Spidey that shoots artificial webs from wrist-mounted weapons that he built himself as opposed to the naturally shot webs in the previous films. I can name the number of similarities this has to the first film (one of them being the main antagonist is green, in this film being Dr. Curt Connors/The Lizard), but there's probably no need since I have a limit to the reviews I write.

Let me get to the performances: Andrew Garfield adds more energy to his portrayal of Peter, acting more like an arrogant, sarcastic individual before he becomes the web-swinger. Sure, Tobey Maguire's version still stays fresh in my mind, but Garfield's is something. Emma Stone plays Gwen Stacy, Peter's first love, to good effect. Separately, they're both good. However their romantic scenes together are very mixed for me. At times it was cute and awkward, at other times I felt they (well, mostly Garfield) were just showing off. Hey, I kinda felt the same way when he was with Mary Jane, at least more in the third film. Rhys Ifans is pretty cool as Dr. Connors (who appeared in the second and third films, but didn't turn into the Lizard in that franchise as he was more of a secondary character). Denis Leary is well-cast as Captain George Stacy, as is Martin Sheen and Sally Field as Uncle Ben and Aunt May.

This is Marc Webb's second directorial effort, three years after the remarkable (500) Days of Summer.  Now here I go making comparisons again: unlike the romance in the former, this film needed work on the romance between Peter & Gwen, especially since Gwen was his first love interest before Mary Jane came in the picture. I will also mention there are a few plotholes which I can't mention due to spoilers. The visuals (provided like always by Sony Pictures Imageworks) are impressive and the 3D isn't bad, coming into full effect during the battle between Spidey and Lizard.

The bottom line: The Amazing Spider-Man doesn't fully live up to its title, although there are some who think it really has (here's looking at you, Scott Mantz), and the romance could have been worked on more. Despite that however, it still is an entertaining film in its own right with a nicely chosen cast giving nice performances at that, impressive visuals effects and, although this wasn't written in, a script that makes old seems kinda fresh.

Rating: 7.5/10

Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter - Movie Review

Directed by Timur Bekmambetov
Screenplay by Seth Grahame-Smith, based on his novel.
Running Time: 105 minutes (1h, 45 mins.)
Rated R (for violence throughout and brief sexuality).
Distributor: 20th Century Fox

Never in my 16 years of living on this earth did I think I would review a film like Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. Why? While I was one of many who read the book, I didn't think this would come to the big screen. Maybe DVD perhaps, but in theatres?  Studios are way too concious to put a mash-up to the big screen, especially since the last one we got didn't live up to box office expectations (Cowboys & Aliens. It was a mashup of two genres).

Thanks to Fox, Tim Burton, Timur Bekmembetov, the director most North American audiences know for doing Wanted (though I know him for also doing Night Watch and Day Watch), and the author himself, Seth Grahame-Smith, Abe Lincoln's fake secret past is on the big screen. This has already divided critics and audiences: either they're with it or against it.

As for me? For the first hour, I was slightly going against it. The film had a cool opening in the beginning, but as it went by with a quick training montage sequence (probably the quickest I've seen), it slowly died down. The first three or four vampires kills by Lincoln felt so lame and it felt less fun than I wanted it to be. But then, it picked up. It went back to being what I asked for. Like the book, it's kind of smart, in the way that it manages to be historically accurate to everything that happened in the man's life as the 16th president.

Then again, I can get that historical accuracy when Steven Spielberg's upcoming biopic comes out this year, hopefully. Another reason this has divided critics and audiences is because of how the film takes itself seriously. The film didn't need to take itself seriously, that's for sure, but it does and strangely it works. There are times where it turns a little laughable, but overall it works in a strange kind of way that I really can't put my finger on.

For a film that has campy sensibilities, most of the cast pulls off good performances. Benjamin Walker (who people either know for his portrayal of Andrew Jackson, another American president, in the Off Broadway and Broadway incarnations of Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson or for being Meryl Streep's son-in-law) pulls off a breakthrough performance as Lincoln young & old. I was more impressed with Dominic Cooper as Henry, the man who helps Lincoln become the hunter. He has enough charisma, wit and depth for audiences to enjoy his presence on the screen.

Mary Elizabeth Winstead is also pretty game as Mary Todd Lincoln. Anthony Mackie is fine as William Johnson, Rufus Sewell could have done more antagonizing as Adam, but Alan Tudyk? He plays Stephen Douglas, who is as equally important as the others as he is the man Lincoln faces against politically (and the one who was previously engaged to Mary Todd), but he wasn't shown enough so it just seems like he was there for nothing.

As I mentioned before, Timur Bekmambetov is director and co-producer of the film and he's a pretty visual director when it comes to special effects and fight sequences. The visuals are somewhat impressive. I will admit some are a little cheesy (a little unsurprising since this is a film with campy sensibilities). The fight sequences, as repetitive as they can be with the slo-mo thing happening, are pretty good as well (the best one being the train sequence).

Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter is what it is, love it or hate it, with it or against it: a B movie with an A movie type budget and a somewhat recognizable cast. While the movie has a first half that starts off promising, but slowly dies down, it picks back up in the second, offering what the audience paid to see. There's probably no point of me giving this film a rating since I didn't expect more or less, but since it's necessary, a 6.5 out of 10 will do. This is pretty average camp and that's not a bad thing.

More Films I Forgot to Review

As I did with a previous post, let me review films I recently saw that I forgot to review. All are still in theatres.

Men in Black 3 (7.5/10)
It's a step up from the second film and a twisty storyline, along with hilarious performances (one especially coming from Josh Brolin's impressive younger version of Tommy Lee Jones' Agent K) make this third outing kind of memorable as the first.

Snow White and the Huntsman (6/10)
Nice visuals aside, it's an okay rendition of the classic fairy tale.

Prometheus (7.5/10)
Plot holes aside, the film is a entertaining wonder with great visuals and cool performances, the best one coming from Michael Fassbender.

Brave - Movie Review

Directed by Mark Andrews and Brenda Chapman.
Screenplay by Andrews, Chapman, Steve Purcell and Irene Mecchi, story by Chapman.
Running Time: 93 minutes (1h, 33 mins.)
Rated PG (for some scary action and rude humor)
Distributor: Disney/Pixar

Now this review is going to be short (way shorter than usual) and sweet (ish). Brave didn't fully live up to my expectations of what I would expect from Pixar as the film, despite some of its darker moments, plays it a bit too safe when it comes to the storyline (which thanks to how short this review is I don't have to really reveal). However, it is still entertaining. Beautiful animation as always, nice voicing from the cast (including a feisty one coming out of Kelly Macdonald's Merida), depth and some originality help.

The film gets a 7 out of 10. It's a good film, but being a Pixar film, it just could have been better.

Battleship - Movie Review

Directed by Peter Berg

Written by Jon Hoeber and Erich Hoeber, based on the Hasbro game of the same name.

Running Time: 131 minutes (2h, 11 mins.)

Rated PG-13 (for intense sequences of violence, action and destruction, and for language.)

Distributor: Universal Pictures

Let me start off this review with a question that been in many of movie bloggers' heads since this project was announced: whose idea was this?! Who at Universal convinced the studio to spend $209 million to make a movie based on a Hasbro board game that, I mind you, has no expansion to it (no action figures, animated series, etc.)? What could they possibly do with this unusual source material? Well, add an huge alien invasion (since we don't get enough of those), one of the biggest pop stars in the world, some kind of Friday Night Lights reunion between its director and two of its stars, and a load of explosions. You get a Transformers-looking version of Battleship. It's understandable, considering how much money the Transformers movies made altogether at the box office, but that doesn't mean it can be a good sign.

Taylor Kitsch plays Alex Hopper, a slacker who later becomes a lieutenant in the U.S. Navy. How? We get introduced to Hopper 7 years before in a bar, hitting on a woman named Sam (Brooklyn Decker) and manages to woo her when he breaks into a convienence store to get her a chicken burrito. We find out later on that Sam is the Navy Admiral's daughter who, of course, the superior (or shall I say, boss) of Hopper's big bro Stone (Alexander Skarsgard). Liam Neeson plays the Admiral, by the way. Fed up, Stone forces Alex to join the Navy.

As talented as he is now, Hopper still remains himself. He gets into a fight before the annual RIMPAC naval exercises start and could be discharged after the exercises are over. If only he could redeem himself...? That, my dear reader, is where the aliens come into earth. First they attack Hong Kong, then make their way to where the three boats are: Hawaii. From there mayhem ensues and blah, blah, blah...

I just want to add that the aliens come in for no particular reason, which one of a few (well, a little more than a few) problems this film carries. Another problem is its hokey dialogue, which is more said in the second half of its 2:11 running time. The movie could have also been trimmed more. The biggest problem, however was Rihanna. When it comes to this film (and as much as I never would hear these words come out of my mouth), she's a better singer than she is an actor. She doesn't say her lines with a lot of vigour. She just...says them, which I wasn't really surprised with.

At least Brooklyn Decker acts fine in this, and might I remind you, she made her film debut in an Adam Sandler flick (no, not Jack & Jill. The one before it.) Taylor Kitsch was okay, but he was better in John Carter (which as we know by the movie's dismal box office numbers, not enough people saw). Skarsgard isn't there as much. I won't reveal why. And Neeson...what's there say about him? He's awesome, but he doesn't enough screen time.

Peter Berg is behind the camera on this film, though it obviously looks more a Michael Bay film. And Michael Bay had no involvement with this film whatsoever. He reunites with Kitsch, who made his name on Friday Nights Lights, the show Berg developed from the movie he directed which in turn was based on a book. Another FNL co-star Jesse Plemons provides some of the film's comic relief. Sadly though, comedy takes a backseat in this. My guess is that it needed more comedy. The serious tone of the film (more so in the second half) doesn't really work.

Battleship is overall not a bad film. It was most of what I expected it to be: loud, mindless and fun. It lives up to be that, though that slowly starts to disappear in the second half, then when it comes to the end, slowly starts to come back to what it was made to be. I can't ignore that the problems that plague it though. At 131 minutes, it's a little too long, the serious tone that consumes the second half should've been gone and it does have lines that frankly, I've heard before. On the positive note, besides Rihanna's "performance", the acting isn't bad, the action sequences are pretty epic and the visual effects are top notch. These keep the film from really sinking. A 5 out of 10 will do. I will add this however. No matter what anyone thinks about the film, good or bad, it serves as a good example of why you shouldn't make movies out of board games, especially ones that don't have a story.

The Avengers, The Hunger Games and Other Films I Forgot to Review

As you can tell, I've missed out on reviewing a lot of films over the past few months either 'cause I've been in writer's block or I just didn't feel like it, which is normally what I should not be doing as a blogger. And I saw these films too. I'll give my rating for them, as well as one to a few sentences to explain my reasoning behind it. I'll go through each month. Some of these films are already out or coming to Blu-ray/DVD, some still in theatres.

January
Shame - 8/10: Despite all the hype due to Michael Fassbender's lead character *ahem* ing everything in sight, this is the least sexiest film I've seen. It just makes sex a little scary. Fassbender (in his second collaboration with director Steve McQueen) and Carey Mulligan deliver the hell out of this movie though.

February
Safe House - 7/10: A nicely made action-thriller with strong performances from Denzel Washington, Ryan Reynolds and Brendon Gleeson. (Coming to Blu-ray/DVD, On Demand and Digital Download June 5th.)

The Vow - 7/10: It's predictable and what was supposed to be unmemorable is somewhat the opposite with fine performances from its cast. (Out now on Blu-ray/DVD, On Demand and Digital Download)

March
Dr. Seuss' The Lorax - 5.5/10: While the environmental message that made the book so memorable is still there and voices are good, but the message is so kiddie'd down it lacks the fiery fever that fueled the book and the musical numbers, all except one, do not help. (Date unknown for BR/DVD, OD and DD)

John Carter - 7/10: While the film is not without its faults (Lynn Collins' performance is an example), the film is pulpy sci-fi fun. (Out on BR/DVD, OD and DD June 5th.)

Project X - 6.5/10: It's not that original and kinda mean-spirited, but Project X takes the teen party movie to another level. Most importantly, it feels real. (Out on BR/DVD, OD and DD June 19th)

The Hunger Games - 7.5/10: I read the book, so... (Still in theatres)

April
American Reunion - 7/10: It's nice to see everyone from the original three films (not those crappy direct-to-dvd sequels) back and while this new installment is a little stale, it still benefits from good performances and another good blend of raunchy humor and sweet moments. (Out on BR/DVD, OD and DD July 10th)

And now for the big kahuna...
The Avengers - I waited in line for half-an-hour just to get the good seats (and it wasn't the 3D version, by the way), my expectations were high and it absolutely lived up to them. Fantastic action, humor and performances help make the movie as memorable as it should be. The film gets an outstanding 9 out of 10 from me. (Still in theatres, making a billion worldwide. Coming to BR/DVD, OD and DD September 25th.)

The Five-Year Engagement - Movie Review

Directed by Nicholas Stoller

Written by Jason Segel and Nicholas Stoller

Running Time: 124 minutes (2h, 4 mins.)

Rated R (for sexual content, and language throughout.)
Distributor: Universal Pictures

After two great collaborations together, whether it was bringing back The Muppets or giving us the ultimate romantic disaster movie (Forgetting Sarah Marshall), actor/screenwriter Jason Segel and screenwriter/director Nicholas Stoller team up once again with producer Judd Apatow to give us The Five-Year Engagement, the unusual-but-ambitious story of a couple's engagement that spans half a decade due to the complications in their lives.

The movie starts out all and well for Tom Solomon (Segel) and Violet Barnes (Emily Blunt), but when Violet gets a post-doctorate job at the University of Michigan, Tom goes from his high-paying job at a fancy San Francisco restaurant to serving sandwiches in Michigan. From there, Tom starts to lose his mind, Violet's sister Susie (Alison Brie) marries Tom's best friend Alex (Chris Pratt) as they already hooked up at the engagement party, and the main couple transition from happy to depressed.

The Five-Year Engagement strays away from being just another formulaic rom-com. Not only does the Apatow-style of humor help, but shades of unexpected dark humor help as well. So does the performances from its talented ensemble cast. Segel and Blunt have believable chemistry. As does Pratt and Brie, two standouts. Rhys Ifans, Jacki Weaver, Mindy Kaling, Kevin Hart, Mimi Kennedy, David Paymer, Lauren Weedman, Chris Parnell, Brian Posehn and Dakota Johnson fill the rest of the ensemble with equally engaging supporting roles.

It doesn't beat Forgetting (or to a lesser extent, Get Him to the Greek, since that was a spinoff of Forgetting) and it is a little longer than it should be (which, like Tom & Violet's relationship, can strain even the plot a bit), but The Five-Year Engagement is still solid.

Rating: 7/10.

21 Jump Street - Movie Review

Directed by Phil Lord and Christopher Miller
Screenplay by Michael Bacall, story by Jonah Hill and Michael Bacall.
Running Time: 109 minutes (1h, 49 mins.)
Rated R (for crude and sexual content, pervasive language, drug material, teen drinking and some violence).
Distributor: Sony (Columbia Pictures)/MGM

...And the '80's remakes/reboots/throwbacks continue. We had many last year and it seems like the trend ain't gonna stop this year. 21 Jump Street, a remake of the late-80's television series about a group of police officers who could pass as teenagers with their youthful appearances and go undercover to investigate crimes in high schools and colleges, kicks it off. What's funny about it is that it's a comedy based on a show that wasn't a comedy. Does that make it a spoof? No. This film is much funnier than your regular spoof.

This Jump Street has Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum (both who are also executive producers) playing former high school classmates who meet again at a police academy. Hill plays Schmidt, who was a nerd, and Tatum plays Jenko, who was the jock.  After an arrest gone awry, the two men are reassigned to a specialty division revived from the '80's at 21 Jump Street (hence the title). Schmidt and Jenko then go undercover as students in a local high school to investigate a drug ring and discover that high school isn't the same as it was for them a few years ago.

Straying away from its source material, 21 Jump Street is filled with raunchy humor and silliness all around, and also makes nods to the original show (even two of the show's original stars, Johnny Depp and Peter DeLuise have hilarious cameos in the film). Hill and Tatum are hilarious. Who would've thought the comedy pairing of these two would work the way it did? Like all of the other films he's done, Hill has great comedy timing, but Tatum is a bit of a surprise. He has plenty of comedic chops that might surprise those who see him as an actor who's just the romantic lead. Ice Cube is memorable in the screen time he has, Dave Franco still has good comedic chops as proven in his role on the last season of Scrubs, Brie Larson plays a nice love interest to Hill's character and Rob Riggle is funny, but not as funny as he usually is.

The directors are Phil Lord and Christopher Miller, the duo behind Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs. They inject some of the style that made Cloudy such a winner in here, most notably in a scene where Hill & Tatum's characters are on the new synthetic drugs. It's inventive, a little animated and of course, funny. Screenwriters Jonah Hill and Michael Bacall show their love for the pop culture of today's generation while at the same time making fun of it. Environmentalism, Glee, you name it, it's there.

We've had a few disappointing comedies so far this year, but 21 Jump Street is an exception, thankfully. It's raunchy, inventive, silly, over the top and laugh-out-loud hilarious. For those who expect a bad farce, prepare to be shocked. I give the film *** (3 stars).

Friends with Kids - Movie Review

Written and Directed by Jennifer Westfeldt
Running Time: 107 minutes (1h, 47 mins.)
Rated R (for sexual content and language).
Distributor: Lionsgate (Roadside Attractions)

Okay, so we already know the existance of friends with benefits (two friends (man and woman) who decide to have sex without any emotions or commitment involved) as seen in two films last year, No Strings Attached and Friends with Benefits. Of course, one was better than the other (*cough* Friends with Benefits), but this year we get a break from that and enter a new kind of relationship: friends with kids. Yeah, if you thought two friends having sex was weird, this is even weirder.

The movie follows Julie (Jennifer Westfeldt) and Jason (Adam Scott), a pair of best friends who notice the effect children have on the married couples they know: Missy & Ben (Kristen Wiig and Jon Hamm) and Leslie & Alex (Maya Rudolph and Chris O'Dowd). Despite being unmarried or in any kind of relationship, Julie and Jason decide to have a child of their own, but date other people.

I'll be honest: I didn't expect a lot from this movie. Sure, it reunites four of the cast members from Bridesmaids (Kristen Wiig, Jon Hamm, Chris O'Dowd, Maya Rudolph), but still a movie with a plot like this (despite how clever it may be) can only go so far, which was the same thing with NSA and FWB. I left this film a little surprised, however. The film is an honest and funny look at relationships and even parenting. I wouldn't exactly classify it as a romantic comedy, until the second half of the film. That's where it slowly becomes a little cliched, but I could forgive that.

Earnest performances from its ensemble cast help keep the movie going forward. Westfeldt and Scott, the main couple, have a lot of chemistry to work with, despite the times where I felt Scott just came off as a poor man's Paul Rudd. Rudolph and O'Dowd are good as well as Wiig and Hamm. You don't see Hamm's character much in the film, but he has a chance to break out in a scene with all the couples having dinner. Megan Fox and Edward Burns have roles in here as well with Burns playing Kurt, the man Julie begins dating, and Fox playing Maryjane, the girl Jason begins dating. Both are good. They don't overdo anything in the roles that they're given, so that's pretty good in my opinion.

Speaking of the roles they're given, the woman behind creating those roles is Westfeldt, who makes her directorial debut with this film. You might know her for her breakthrough role in Kissing Jessica Stein, which she co-wrote. Otherwise, you might've seen her in episodes of Grey's Anatomy and 24. Like Kissing Jessica Stein and another film she wrote and starred in, Ira and Abby, the film has plenty of sharp, witty dialogue. It's also good to point out that this is the third film from Westfeldt that Marcelo Zarvos has composed. However here, he has help from the band The 88. If you watch Community, you'll know who they are.

It's hard not to be even a bit impressed with Friends with Kids. It takes a smart, funny, witty and honest look at parenting and relationships. Only question is with the friends with benefits trend going on (of course, that's been going on for a while, even before those two movies), will Friends with Kids start a whole new trend of relationships? If more people see the film, we'll see. But right now, I give the film *** (3 stars).

TV News: A Game of Mad Manniquins

Pretty good title merger there, right? If you don't think so, then whatever. TV is getting bigger by the minute today, thanks to two awesome shows: Game of Thrones and Mad Men, both of them returning with new seasons. Let's start with GOT. HBO released a new trailer for the second season, premiering April 1st and it's looks every bit more epic than the first as I (as well as many other fans of the show) hope it'll be. Watch the trailer right after the jump.

Now to Mad Men, a show that's equally as important as Game of Thrones. Okay, maybe a little more important, considering that the show was on a way-too-long hiatus. AMC just dropped a new poster for the show's fifth season, which features Don Draper himself looking at naked mannnquins. It obviously looks another situation that Draper would find himself going into. Not that he probably will again (at least, for now) since he proposed to Megan at the end of last season. We'll see how that goes (or how long that lasts) when the new season premieres March 25th.

Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance - Movie Review

Directed by Neveldine/Taylor (Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor)
Screenplay by Scott Gimple and Seth Hoffman and David S. Goyer, story by David S. Goyer, based on the Marvel comic.
Running Time: 95 minutes (1h, 35 mins.)
Rated PG-13 (for intense sequences of action and violence, some disturbing images, and language).
Distributor: Sony (Columbia Pictures)

There are times in every professional/amateur critic's life where they have to watch a sequel to a film they didn't really like. Or hated. In this case, it's Ghost Rider, the 2007 film based on the Marvel comic and definitely not one of the best superhero films of that year or any year. Then again, it could have been worse. It could have been the next Catwoman. Five years later, after a lot of tweaking, the anti-hero with the flaming skull is given a whole new vision, thanks to Neveldine/Taylor, the directing duo behind the Crank movies. The trailers promised to deliver an over-the-top, action-packed film, basically what the first one could've or probably should've been and after watching the film in its entirety, I couldn't help but feel a little, just a little, mislead. I'm going to post up the trailer. It's a simple story, so there's probably no point of giving a brief synopsis.

Don't get me wrong, I knew what I was getting into and in some cases, this was a slightly better film than the first, but there wasn't as much action as I hoped and there were times where it went too-over-the top, probably thanks to Nicolas Cage. It was inevitable, I knew that for sure, but Cage goes on with it too long, that by a hour in, it's not that funny. Or in a weird sense, engaging. I even thought for a moment, he was taking it way too far. But then I remembered Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans. But he was actually good in that movie, though. Here, he just isn't. Let's face it, he sucked.

By the way, if you haven't seen Bad Lieutenant: POCNO, then watch it. This clip from the film gives you a clear idea of how wack he was in that film. Beware though, it's a little disturbing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiGsS5JIJ-M&feature=related. Despite Nic Cage, there are some redeeming moments, mostly coming off of Idris Elba and Johnny Whitworth's performances. They're both having fun with their roles. Elba has a French accent and Whitworth plays a bad guy well. Ciaran Hinds and Violante Placido are okay. I forget who the kid is, but I don't really care. He sucked.

I talked about Neveldine/Taylor, the directors of the film. They know how to make edgy, over-the-top films and it was there, in some cases. I know this is a PG-13 film and that will kinda bog down their edginess. Had it been a R-rated film (because they make R-rated films), maybe it could have been better. I don't know where to go from here. I think I pretty much said everything I needed to say about the film and strangely, I'll give it **1/2 (2 and a half stars). Some people might hate me for this, but trust me, I've seen way worse. I can't say this is a bad movie, but it certainly ain't a good one. Sure, it has some bad moments, but it wasn't irritating and as I said before, this is a slightly better film than the first. So, yeah, **1/2.

(Editor's note: After watching the film the second-go-around, I still stand by what I said before. It is a slightly better film than the first, but it's definitely not enough for me to fully recommend. This review is actually the reason I gave up the star ratings because I felt it was limiting me. I felt like I was being too nice on the film only because I knew what I was getting into. When it comes to the numerical ratings I use now, it would probably get 3 out of 10. Like I said, slightly better but it still kinda sucks.)

The Artist- Movie Review

Written and Directed by Michel Hazanavicius.
Running Time: 100 minutes (1h, 40 mins.)
Rated PG-13 (for a disturbing image and a crude gesture).
Distributor: The Weinstein Company

This is the first review for this blog in 2012. I skipped all of January's releases, even Steven Soderbergh's latest. I'll catch up on that one soon, but for now since it's Oscar season and the nominees have already been announced, it's a good opportunity to catch on films I may have missed. This is just one of them. I've been meaning to see it for a while since its release, but with a flurry of other films, I just never got the chance. That is, until just a day ago.

I just want to make it clear that this is a black-and-white silent film, the way Hollywood used make their movies. No 3D, no talking. Just music, movement and gestures. The movie follows George Valentin (Jean Dujardin), a silent film star. His career has never been bigger. During a premiere of his latest film, he meets Peppy Miller (Berenice Bejo), just another film extra. As the movie goes on, his career is slowing down, due to the emergence of the talkies. As George's career is crumbling, Peppy has gone on to become a major star, starring in many non-silent films.

You would think that a 16-year old would get looks from older people for going into a silent film. Not bad looks, just puzzled looks, but that wasn't the case. I think the only time I got a puzzled look was from the cash register employee. The employee even reminded me (and my 11-year-old sister) that this was a black-and-white silent film. I kinda guessed that one coming. But I'm a film buff and I'm willing to watch films that actually take a risk, especially in this day and age. I can honestly say that I love this film. It's truly amazing how the simple, complicated and even heartbreaking things can be said, without actually saying a word. I felt like I was watching a classic silent film. So much in fact, that at times, I even forgot that this was made last year.

The performances (as silent as they are) are incredible. Jean Dujardin is engaging as the lead and Berenice Bejo is right up there with him. They also have great chemistry together, which is something I noticed a few years back when they starred together in OSS 117, a French James Bond parody, which was also directed by Michel Hazanavicius. John Goodman, James Cromwell, and Penelope Ann Miller fill the supporting roles and they're all great as well. Goodman plays a commanding producer, Cromwell is Valentin's trusty butler, and Miller is Valentin's wife. Malcolm McDowell has a part in here and if you watch How I Met Your Mother or to an animated extent, SpongeBob Squarepants, you'll notice Bill Fagerbakke in a very small role as a police officer. 

The film is written and directed by Michel Hazanavicius, who I mentioned before is the director of OSS 117 and its sequel, OSS 117: Lost in Rio, both starring Dujardin (Bejo, Hazanavicius' wife, was only in the first). In this day and age, a director bringing up the idea of making a silent film is risky, because let's face it, a general audience isn't gonna line up to see a silent film in theatres. Much of my generation won't see one either. But hopefully that changes soon. I'm not saying we should have a lot of them, just at least one a year or two. Ludovic Bource's musical score is phenomenal. It hits all the right notes from the jaunty and happy to the sad and emotional. Gorgeous cinematography is provided by Guillaume Schiffman. Here's a fun fact: though the film is shown in black-and-white, it was shot in color.

People were already talking about this film since its world premiere at the 2011 Cannes Film Festival. That talk continued to grow after its TIFF premiere and grow even further when it was released in November. Thankfully, I'm now part of the conversation. I went through this entire review without mentioning its 10 Oscar nominations. It's a frontrunner for the Best Picture category and I could definitely see why. This is a film that uses a technique Hollywood has mostly abadoned due to what the mainstream audience is hoping for and even wanting for. The Artist proves that it is important we never forget the way films were made. This is a film many people will remember for a very long time. I won't even repeat myself, so from everything I wrote about this outstanding film, I give it **** (4 stars).