Review: The Way, Way Back

Movies that are picked up (bought by a studio to distribute to theaters) from the Sundance Film Festival have a mixed record both critically AND in the box office.  You can list on one hand the movies that have had wide commercial appeal that come out of Sundance. They have also been hit or miss for me personally, which is one reason why I'm glad I've never attended the film festival.  However, sometimes there is a diamond in the rough that makes the film festival worth it.  The Way, Way Back is such a film in that it has redeemed my faith in movies after the awfulness that was this summer.

THE GOOD

Let's start with the two younger actors.  Liam James, a new comer that debuted his acting career in this film as the star of it, is perfectly believable in his role as an low-confidence teen in search for acceptance and meaning in his life.  AnnaSophia Robb (Soul Surfer and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory) plays the young Susanna, a neighbor and potential love interest that is also dealing with the same coming of age problems, albeit in different ways.  I had no idea that she could act so well!  I put the amazing acting of these two youngsters entirely at the feet of the directors, Nat Faxom and Jim Rash, who are masters of character.

One of the more interesting elements of this film is that it takes some major Hollywood names and casts them as characters that are opposite of the roles that they normally portray.  For example, this is the first performance by Steve Carrell that I've seen where he is the main antagonist, and he pulls it off well.  I never knew that Carrell could be unlikable as a character, but that's certainly what he does here.  Also, Allison Janney gives one of the best performances of her life as a divorced mother going through a perpetual mid-life crisis and reminds us why she is so considered to be among the best actresses in Hollywood today.  And while Sam Rockwell plays a variant of his Justin Hammer character (Iron Man 2) his bravado and likability are just so striking that you couldn't help but want to give him a golden statue of some sort.

All the other characters are great, but the few I have mentioned are the stand-outs.  This film is a wonderful example of an ensemble picture, with a fairly star-studded cast.  Each of these actors embody their character flawlessly and they have spectacular chemistry together.   

The film's emotions are raw and real.  The experience watching this movie was just awesome.  I laughed hard, although it's quite not a comedy.  I will admit that I cried at the end, even though it's not a sad movie.  This film embodies why I go to the movies: to experience. 

THE BAD
There really isn't anything I didn't like about this movie.  Some have said that it is a little slow to start, but I found it to be riveting from start to finish. 

CONCLUSION
As of right now, this is my favorite movie of the year.  I haven't laughed and cried in a movie this much since Toy Story 3.  I give it 5/5 Disco Balls.

PARENTS GUIDE
There is a fair amount of language in this PG-13 movie, but I wouldn't call it excessive.  There is one F-Bomb and a bit of sexual dialogue, though nothing too explicit. 

Review: RED 2

It's been pretty hit and miss for both Bruce Willis and Jon Malchovich in the last few years.  And by 'hit and miss,' I really mean almost entirely 'misses.'  Can anyone think of any decent movies from either star besides the first RED movie?  They are both capable actors who, like many modern teeny boppers, need New Direction(s), or at least good ones (I know, that's a bad pun).  And they seem to have found it and amazing character writing in their latest endeavor, RED 2.

I adored the first movie to the point that I own it on Blu-ray.  It was a refreshingly unconventional take on the spy genre in that it was well executed AND it didn't take itself too seriously.  Any film that tries to break convention gets points in my book.  Add some marvelous acting and character development, and I'm sold!  Now, I don't want to turn this review into a review of the first film, yet I would be remiss if I didn't note how much I loved it and how much I was anticipating the sequel.

THE GOOD
First and foremost, this movie is character-driven.  And the characters are likable to the point of them being Whedon-esque.  I will go through each of them individually because I enjoyed them so very much.

Mary Louise-Parker is, in my humble opinion, the most under-used actress in Hollywood right now.  She is even better in this movie than she is in the first.  Not to be a dead horse, but her character is so likable, quirky, and yet the most grounded of them all.  She is the character that the audience relates with most, and I would suggest that her performance is flawless here.

Jon M. and Helen Miren are both also better than the first film, which I would have thought impossible. Their chemistry, along with most of the rest of the cast, is electrifying. I enjoyed all their interactions so very much.  Even Byung-hun Lee's character had good chemistry with them, although I think that was more due to wonderful writing and directing than his actual acting ability.

This movie is the funniest film I've seen all year.  So, if you liked the first one, this one delivers the goods in spades.

The set piece transition mechanism is also a step up from the last movies' postcards.  They basically use the comic book images to transition between scenes.  I really enjoyed it.

THE BAD
Although the acting was good with most of the main characters, there were blaring exceptions.  Neal Mcdonough, Catherine Zeta Jones, and Anthony Hopkins were just so-so performances.  McDonough felt out-of-place, like he didn't belong in the same league as the other legends.  Whereas Zeta-Jones and Hopkins are in the same league, but just didn't deliver on the same level as the 4 protagonists.

The story was campy and outlandish, something that a lot of audiences don't have tolerance for post-Bourne.  I was willing to give an exception here, however I can see why some would find it too corny.

CONCLUSION
I really loved this movie.  I recommend it to anyone who liked the first one and I certainly can understand why this isn't for everyone.  Critics have been hard on it and part of me understands why.  It is quirky and not everyone loves that.  4.25/5 Disco Balls.

PARENTS GUIDE
The language isn't too bad, yet there is a remarkable amount of killing.  I think if someone were to do a body count I wouldn't be surprised if it was in the 100s. They don't show a lot of blood.  But, don't be mistaken: this is a horribly violent film.

Review: Pacific Rim

Let's get this out of the way: I hate Anime.  I've tried on multiple occasions to appreciate the art form, but just can't get into it.  And if you watch the trailer for Pacific Rim, it's likely that you will compare it to Anime, because that's essentially what it is.

Despite my lack of enthusiasm for this film, it was recommended by some REALLY respectable folks in the critical and even directorial community (Rian Johnson, one of the biggest up-and-comer directors, tweeted that he saw it twice on opening day).  As a result, I gave it a shot.  And as a result of me giving it a shot, you get to read this review of Pacific Rim and make an informed decision of whether to see it.

THE GOOD
First, let's start with the special effects and Computer Generated Imaging (CGI).  The special effects were out of this world.  The monsters were so well crafted and so scary that I didn't once question their veracity.  I think that this is where most of the $200 million budget went to.  The robots, or Jaegers if you prefer, were so beautiful and awesome to behold.  I couldn't get over how cool they looked and how realistic they were.

If you want some summer popcorn action, Pacific Rim delivers it in droves.  I cannot stress how enjoyable the fight scenes are to watch.  Imagine a 13 year old boy's dreams, and this is how it is.  They are executed flawlessly, with the correct amount of tension in the right spots, as well as exhilarating payoffs.

The actual story and premise of the movie is actually quite interesting and is setup very well in the opening exposition/montage.  The movie is also remarkably well paced, never lulling, yet also not non-stop to the point of exhaustion.  Guillermo Del Toro (the director) knows how to craft a good story and make an enjoyable film.

Although I didn't dig the color palette, it did make for some refreshingly unique visuals.  The camera work was good too.

THE BAD
I wasn't a big fan of the soundtrack.  It sounded like it came from (GASP) an Anime cartoon.

Where this movie really didn't work for me was the cartoonish characters.  Like everything in this film, it felt like they drew on Anime for their inspiration, and those types of characters just don't speak to me.  This made the middle third of the movie a bit hard to watch.  Even Idris Elba (possibly one of my favorite actors in the world right now, and if you haven't watched Luther on BBC do it now) didn't do it for me.  I blame the script and directing, not necessarily the actors. Also, there is a Chinese girl in the movie that I really couldn't like.  I tried, but her acting was just too terrible.

CONCLUSION
Overall, I enjoyed this film.  It's probably one that should be seen in the theater too, because those action scenes are just incredible.  3.5/5 Disco Balls.

PARENTS GUIDE
There is hardly any human blood or gore in this film, but the giant monsters take quite a brutal and graphic beating.  No sex, not a lot of swearing.  I really recommend that anyone under 13 not see this movie.

Review: The Lone Ranger

I promised myself that I wouldn't watch this movie, mostly because I felt that I had a pretty good idea of how awful it was going to be.  Gore Verbinski, the director, has a really bad track record with me.  His only coherent film is the first Pirates of the Carribean film, while the others are just awful and unwatchable.  He actually started off directing Budweiser 'frog' commercials, and then got his break with Dreamworks with a film called Mouse Hunt.  Suffice it to say, I think he gets one more strike with Disney, and then he's out (not including this film).

REVIEW
The movie starts out quite compelling, with Johnny Depp stealing the screen and a really good musical score.  However, it goes WAY downhill after that. 

Everyone did adequate acting, but the characters that they were given to portray were ridiculous.  Armie Hammer's Lone Ranger is not a hero in any sense, unless you believe that a hero should be a blabbering moron.  His ideals are high, but then he 'must' break them and therefore becomes a 'hero' because of his lack of trust in any institution.

Johnny Depp's Tonto was equally adequate, but not nearly as interesting as his other characters.  Many will tell you that this Tonto is nothing more than an American-Indian Captain Jack.  I highly disagree.  Jack Sparrow was way more interesting and likeable.

There were a lot of great actors in this, but they were all wasted!  Helena Bonam Carter barely had 4 minutes of screen time!  William Fitchner did the best job of all, but not enough to save the movie.

The film had an identity crisis: it didn't know if it wanted to be a comedy, a drama, an action flick, or a horror film.  It switched its tone between these more than any live action movie I've ever seen.  It was horribly uneven, and by the end I really wanted to leave the theater.  It was that awful of an experience for me!

The main message I got from the film is "Don't trust any institution."  It openly paints corporations and government alike as greedy to the point of being willing to kill for it.  I'm no pro-government enthusiast, but the heavy-handedness with which this was doled out was quite despicable and unbecoming of Disney.  There is a native american massacre at the hands of both institutions in this film.

The PG-13 rating is way too low.  There is a scene of canibalism that should have pushed this over the top to R.  A lot of folks feel that Disney must have pulled some strings to get it passed as PG-13, and I tend to agree with them.

CONCLUSION
The Lone Ranger is easily the worst film I have seen all year and one of the weirdest films I've ever seen.  It wasn't very funny or very pleasing to look at, though it tried very hard to do both.  1/5 Disco Balls.

PARENTS GUIDE
This is one of the hardest PG-13 films I've ever seen.  It should be R and the MPAA should be ashamed of themselves.  No children under 16 should see this movie.

Review: Under the Dome (Pilot)

It is a strange time to be a television viewer.  It used to be the norm to accept bad acting and silly lines in order to appreciate most television shows.  Shows like The West Wing and Law & Order stood out like diamonds among the rough, while shows like Smallville caused us to suspend our better tastes in order to stomach it.  Then, cable networks like AMC, FX, and USA started to offer up shows like Mad Men, The Walking Dead, Breaking Bad, Justified, and Suits, forever altering the way I personally view television. I no longer accept mediocrity when watching TV shows.  I realize that this is a high bar to hold something like Under the Dome to, but unfortunately that's the reality.

SYNOPSIS
Based on Stephen King's novel, an invisible force field descends upon a small town in the northeastern part of the United States.

REVIEW
First of all, the premise is quite interesting.  It's a mix of character drama, suspense, survival, and a pinch of apocalypse.  The underlying mysteries of why the dome is there and what's behind these folks' facades are actually quite compelling.  Unfortunately, with Stephen King behind it, it's going to end up in a very dark place, which is admittedly not my thing.  It reminds me of Lost in many ways, although nowhere near as well executed (Lost's Showrunners Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse openly admit that King's The Stand was the show's primary inspiration).

The opening shot sequence was really effective.  However, there wasn't much more of the effective camera work throughout the episode that we saw in the beginning.  I guess i shouldn't expect amazing camera work on a TV show, but I was teased with the opening and then it didn't pan out (figuratively or literally).

The acting was okay, but Brian K. Vaughn (the writer) is NOT a character-driven writer, at least as far as I can tell.  Some of the acting was good, but most of simply acceptable.  I feel almost nothing for these characters after the first episode, so I'm actually not inclined to continue watching.

The special effects were really good.  They are better than the ones on Once Upon a Time, which is the other effects-driven network show that it's comparable to.  There is a scene where a truck hits the dome head on and I have to say it was one of the coolest car crashes I've ever seen.  Kudos to them.

The sex and violence in here are not effective and seem to be for the risque value instead of actually adding to the story.  I openly chuckled at some of the silly gore that they felt compelled to include.

CONCLUSION
I guess it's a decent summer show.  I'm not sure if they're planning on it being a mini-series or continue on if the ratings are good.  But, I don't think I will continue to watch.

2.5/5 Disco Balls. 

PARENTS GUIDE
This is a pretty hard TV-14.  They put everything in there that they are allowed to.  There is a fairly graphic sex scene and some gross gore.  Not recommended for children.

Review: Monsters University

Pixar has had a rough go the last few years.  Brave and Cars 2 were lackluster (sorry Zach, but I think Wreck-it Ralph was robbed by mediocrity at last year's Oscars).  It seems that the Brain Trust has been brain-dead since Toy Story 3, which had me slightly worried about Monsters University.  The first film is a masterpiece in animation and story but it was certainly plausible that they could mess it up.  I needn't have worried: University is easily their best fare since Toy Story 3 and lives up to Pixar's gold standard of storytelling.

SYNOPSIS
A look at the relationship between Mike and Sulley during their days at Monsters University -- when they weren't necessarily the best of friends.

THE GOOD
First of all, as with all Pixar productions, the animation is beyond beautiful.  The colors are vibrant and it looks so real.  It was 'drawn' better than The Croods, which was the best animated feature from Dreamworks EVER.  Also, the short before it, entitled The Blue Umbrella, is the most beautifully animated piece to come out of ANY animation studio.

The voice acting is really good for the most part.  It was fun to hear Alfred Molina (Doc Ock from Spider-man 2) and Nathan Fillion (Castle) as supporting characters.  Billy Crystal really outdid himself in this one.  He provides more depth than his previous performance.

The film is remarkably funny and has an amazing sense of timing.  The jokes hit just right and the originality and creativity were in full swing.  It's a return to the cleverness that audiences have come to expect from the animation and storytelling giant.

What makes University so great is its characters.  Most of the new additions are refreshingly unconventional and original.  I just couldn't get enough of the main support cast.

Another amazing aspect of this movie are its stark moral messages.  They are strong and to the point, which makes me want to recommend it to parents and children alike.  I won't go into what these messages are in order to avoid spoilers, but suffice it to say that this is a refreshingly moral film.  It's easy to compare it to other college-themed films, which deploy cheap sex-themed humor to get its laughs.  It SHOULD be compared to such films to show that humor of such a base nature isn't required to make a great film.  In fact, that base humor can easily detract from the heart of a story.

THE BAD
The only bad things are John Goodman's simplistic performance and the formulaic nature of the first half of the story.  John Goodman plays a 'Rad, dude!' type character that is a little too undeveloped until the end.

The first little bit is REALLY formulaic but, luckily it redeems itself at the end.

CONCLUSION
This movie works so well, to the point that it's my favorite movie of the year so far.  It is so fun and has gobs of heart.  I wouldn't put it above Wreck-it Ralph, but i would say it's a solid entry into the Pixar canon.  I recommend this to everyone except Nate Cooley, who will somehow find a way to not like it.  4.75/5 stars.

PARENTS GUIDE
Although this movie is rated G, it should be PG.  I don't know what the MPAA was thinking.  The scary parts are scary enough that a sensitive 4-year-old (like the one that I have) would not fare well.

Review: Man of Steel

Superman: The Movie is my first love.  I was exposed to a lot of great movies as a child, but before Star Wars or Condorman, my little heart was smitten with Superman.  I recently got the movie on Blu-ray, and it has aged well.  It was an emotionally-driven story with remarkably well-defined characters.  There is a sense of magic and awe in seeing Clark become Superman and seeing the world react to him.  It was the first superhero movie, and the only one that was watchable for more than 25 years (or until the release of Bryan Singer's X-Men). 

This sense of awe and innocence is what I expect from a Superman movie and was greatly disappointed in 2006's Superman Returns.  In my last review I spoke of why I think that Superman Returns is a pale imitation of our hero.  My main question going into Superman's latest cinematic excursion, Man of Steel, was, 'Could this new movie keep that awe and innocence whilst delving into the grittiness that Christopher Nolan was known for?'  I am pleased to say that it did! 

THE GOOD

Henry Cavill, although a Brit, is an excellent Superman.  Better than Brandon Routh (Superman Returns), Dean Cain (Lois & Clark), and Tom Welling (Smallville) combined.  He is able to embody the type of hero that sincerely wants to do good in a world that is fighting against that good.  At first I was really nervous about him as Clark Kent, but he did such a brilliant job.  In all seriousness, his performance is on par with Robert Downey Jr. in Iron Man with the way he just owned the role.

Kevin Costner (Jonathon Kent) and Diane Lane (Martha Kent) were easily the next best actors in the movie.  I was scared that Costner would give a crappy performance, but he did the opposite: he and Diane Lane really drive the emotional core of this story and I honestly don't think the movie would have worked without them.

Although Hans Zimmer's score is very repetative and doesn't necessarily work as a stand-alone piece of art, it is PERFECT for this movie.  It really struck the right notes (figuratively AND literally) for the tone of what they were portray with the emotions.

As with most of Zach Snyder's movies, it is beautiful to look at.  The color palate fits perfectly and a great experience to look at.  I will need to see it again in order to gauge the quality of the cinematography against some of his other movies (i.e. Watchmen, 300).  I was enthralled with the story that I didn't get a chance to notice, which is how a good movie should be.

THE BAD AND NEUTRAL 
Amy Adams did a decent job, but I wasn't really convinced that she was the Lois Lane of lore.  I suppose that they were trying to make this Lois different from other Lois's, but they really changed the character to the point of making her unrecognizable.  Although, it should be stated for the record that out of all characters in the Superman universe to cast/play, Lois is without a doubt the hardest.  I feel like Erica Durance (Smallville) was the only one that really worked for me.

This is a personal preference, but I really hate it when most people speak with a British accent in a place (i.e. Krypton) except for one person.  Michael Shannon was a fantastic Zod, but everyone around him had a British accent, whist he kept his Midwestern enunciation!  It felt inconsistent and almost ruined the Krypton-based scenes. ALMOST. 

Critics are being really hard on this movie, mostly because of the more or less mindless action in the middle of the movie.  I'll admit, I tend to agree with them on this: the action was not as good as it could have been (especially when compared to something like the The Dark Knight) and felt mind-numbing more often than not.  However, the person I brought with me to the screening had the opposite opinion of me in that enjoyed the action way more than the emotional core. I think that Mr. Snyder is trying to play it both ways:  he tried to make a good emotional story while keeping the potential for high international box-office present.  Also, I think another reason might have been that the studio wanted more action because the lack therefore was the most common complaint for Superman Returns.

CONCLUSION
Man of Steel is an emotionally-driven story with some popcorn action in the middle to please the public.  The emotional core of this film overrides the mind-numbing action.  However, I think that the general public won't mind the action in the same way that I did.  I can't recommend this movie enough.  It is better than Star Trek Into Darkness and Iron Man 3 and I have hard time believing that any other movie (except for Monsters University) will be able to beat it in my mind.  4/5 Disco Balls.

PARENTS GUIDE
This film is emotionally heavy, and should not be viewed by young children or even some adolescents.  It is very violent, although not distastefully so. There is no sex, and not much language at all. 

Why the world doesn't need Superman Returns: A Retrospective Review

With the release of what is considered to be the most anticipated movie of the summer/year, Man of Steel, there has been a lot of buzz defending Superman's last cinematic endeavor, Superman Returns. Folks are defending it both as a movie and its box office record.  While I can't speak with much authority about whether or not it was a flop, I can state with some authority as to why it belongs near the bottom of the superhero movie heap.

Bryan Singer came onto the scene, at least for me, with what I consider to be the advent of the modern comic book movie in X-Men (2000).  It brought a visceral realism (AKA verisimilitude) to a fictional modern universe, which is something that had never successfully been done before.  Then, with X2 he brought it to a whole other level, making the characters even more complex and likable while moving the audience through an entirely relevant story.  So, when Jon Peters (the producer who had been charged with producing the next Superman film) got together with Singer, it seemed like a match made in heaven.  Could Bryan Singer bring that same realism to a Superman movie?  Yes and no.

First of all, Superman Returns is a beautifully made film.  The cinemtography is top-quality.  The editing and pacing are just phenomenal.  The effects were the best of its time, and still stand up nicely today.  Singer's ability to utilize the camera in order to move the story along is just fantastic.

The acting is quite good as well.  Brandon Routh does a fantastic job embodying Singer's interpretation of Superman.  Kevin Spacey is a remarkably better Lex Luthor than his predecessor, Gene Hackman.  Every time I watch it, I wish that George Lucas would have cast this little kid as Anikan.  I could go on and on.

The music is really great too!  Easily Jon Ottman's best score to date (it doesn't hurt that he was encouraged to use John Williams' iconic themes).

You are probably wondering why, with all this praise, I can possibly find it to be a dismal disaster.  The heart of the matter is that by Singer bringing his verisimilitude to this project, he changed Superman's character to the point that he was no longer Superman.

Superman stands for many things, but encouraging infidelity is not one of them.  It's pathetic to think that Superman would even consider breaking up an engaged couple (and one that has supposedly produced a child, no less!) because he is in love.  I know this sounds cliche, but Superman is the ideal gentleman.  Recently Charlise Theron starred in a film where her character is a home wrecker and is rightly vilified for such behavior.  How is it that we are supposed to see Superman differently or hold him to a different standard?  Don't even get me started on Superman as a peeping Tom!

The creation of Superman has been classified as the creation of American mythology, and I certainly agree with that.  He is the ideal that we all strive for: a powerful man, both morally and physically, who uses that power for good.  Superman represents the best in us.  The type of story that Singer, et al. try to tell is a good story; it's just not good Superman story.

A Note on Box Office
People are bringing up that this film made almost as much as Batman Begins, and therefore should have deserved a sequel in the same way.  Well, I think that Warner Bros. decided (smartly, IMO) to go a different direction because of the negative reaction to the movie by the paying public, and not the critical community.  Fans and critics alike praised Begins, while this film received a lot more of a mixed reaction from both.  There is no way that the hype would be as strong for a sequel to Superman Returns as it was for The Dark Knight.

Review: The Internship

I'm not sure I would have thought that Google would ever be the type to buy and pay for a film in the same way that Lifelock did for Identity Thief.  Nor would I have guessed that Vince Vaughn would ever be one to sell out by making a more or less sequel to Wedding Crashers that doubles as a commercial for Google.  But, that appears to be exactly what The Internship is.

While I did find much of Wedding Crashers funny, I also found much of the humor to be too cude (I dislike crude humor because I find it offensive and I think it's the easy way out to get laughs, requiring no creativity).  So, my expectations were a bit mixed, and were actually quite low because of the REALLY bad press it has received from the critical community.  However, I was pleasantly surprised. 

THE GOOD

Vince Vaughn is one of the more charismatic comedic actors currently working in Hollywood.  His charm alone can carry a movie quite easily.  He is so likable and funny in this film.  The salesman character he embodies is the type of person you want to be inspired by.  

The film is quite funny when it works, which fortunately is the majority of the time.  Vaughn and Wilson have such a good sense of timing and director Shawn Levy knows how to utilize that.

The supporting cast is quite good and actually remarkably realistic.  As a software engineer, I can safely say that I know individuals that fit each of the personality types that they decided to showcase.  They may have augmented the personalities for comedic effect, but make no mistake: those are realistic nerds through and through.

THE BAD
The product placement got out of hand and I found myself rolling my eyes at some of the more ridiculous attempts.  Also, the jargon that they used tried to be realistic, and while they used the right words, the context was completely off.  The shining example of how to do geek culture and dialogue right is Big Bang Theory.  Everything they do in there is spot on.

Owen Wilson's character, while fun and charismatic, felt more shallow than almost any other performance I've seen him in.  It felt like he phoned it in, or wasn't given proper directing.  On a side note, iff you want the best performance that Owen Wilson can give, watch Midnight in Paris, which is a delightfully perfect film in every way.

CONCLUSION
I laughed pretty hard at this movie and had a great time.  Everyone else in the theater seem to as well.  If most folks go in with a grain of salt with regards to the 'Googliness' of the picture and I think they will enjoy it too. 3.25/5 Disco Balls.

PARENTS GUIDE
There is no nudity, but the sex references are plentiful to the point of me questioning the PG-13 rating.  Also there is a big scene that takes place in a strip joint. There is a lot of language, including an f bomb. 

Review: Fast and Furious 6

There is a substantial segment of the film criticism/movie news community that is in love with the Fast and Furious franchise.  In the lead up to the release of Fast 6 (or Furious 6, as the filmmakers would apparently like us to call it) Twitter was aflutter with excitement from some very respectable commentators.  I was baffled by this early buzz. Confession time!  I had never seen a Fast and Furious film until my dear sister dragged me to a showing of Fast Five when she was visiting two years ago.  I went in with high expectations because of the 78% rating it had on the Tomatometer (a sky high rating for a movie geared to teenagers, I thought).  I was shocked at how bad the acting and dialogue were and laughed out loud more than once at its open-faced silliness.

So, when I decided to go see Fast 6 I had conflicted expectations.  On the one hand, I expected the terrible dialogue and acting as well as outlandish action scenes that will defy any sense of realism.  But, on the other hand, I wanted to undergo what many folks experience when seeing these movies.  My encounter was something else entirely.

The Good
The action scenes are extremely well executed.  In fact, I would daresay that the action sequences in Furious 6 are the best since Casino Royale.  I found myself entirely engaged with the actors and their escapades.

It is also well shot.  The camera is well placed and expresses a scene fairly accurately.

The characters are quite fleshed out and are actually very funny at times.  The parts that are funny are very funny and work well.

The Bad
Apparently the folks in the world of film criticism I look up to most have no problem suspending disbelief when enjoying these movies.  There is a plethora of scenes that not only break the laws of probability, but also break the laws of physics and reality.  Early on in the film, I just expressed incredulity inwardly or to my brother-in-law (whom went to the movie with me) about how ridiculous a scene was.  Then, as the film progressed, I found myself laughing out loud at just how absurd a stunt was.  By the end, I was laughing so hard that it apparently became infectious because everyone around me was laughing as well.

In my mind, there is a motion picture pantheon of probability that goes like this:

Bond films

Superhero films

-

-

-

-

Fast and Furious 6

You will notice that there are four layers between the Superhero genre and this movie.  That's how much disbelief must be suspended in order to enjoy this movie.  

The acting wasn't absolutely terrible, yet there were some painful performances.  Gina Carano stood out like a sore thumb, which is too bad because I really liked her in Haywire.  I guess this shows that having a character-driven director like Soderbergh really makes a huge difference. 

The emotional closure/climax scenes in this particular piece of cinema are worse than just about anything I can think of right now.  It is on the level of Eragon, which I consider to be the bottom of the barrel of fantasy films.  

Conclusion

Overall, the movie is fun and pretty much defines the popcorn flick genre.  When compared to other popcorn films, it's quite good and well worth your time.  However, when I try to compare it to other cinema this summer, it falls very much short.  I'll recommend it to those who have enjoyed the other films in the franchise, but to none else.  2.5/5 Disco Balls. 

Parents Guide

While there is no explicit nudity, there is an awful lot of skin.  I felt that the violence was pretty mild, with very few people actually dying.  With that being said, that is a lot of hand-to-hand combat and some very tense chase scenes.  

Star Trek Into Darkness

I'll admit it: I'm not a Trekkie.  In fact, I have never enjoyed a single episode of The Next Generation, albeit I did enjoy most of the TNG movies.  I realize that this makes you question my geek credentials, but it's true.  However, I did enjoy the 2009 reboot, with its more accessible characters, breathtaking camera work, and breakneck pace.  In 2009, it was my top movie of the year.

So, the question I had going into viewing Star Trek Into Darkness was, 'Could JJ Abrams do it again?'  I do contend that his 2009 masterpiece is his best to date, despite Super 8 being a disaster.  I'm here to answer said question, and I will try as hard as I know how to avoid spoilers.  There are more twists in this film than at my local Taco Bell, and these twists are what determine whether it's just a good film, or a great one.

THE BAD
There were times that some of the emotional climaxes seemed forced, or just not well thought out.  I realize that my expectations were undeservedly high, but I just expect better from Damon Lindelof (a writer on the film whose claim to fame is his work as a show runner on Lost) in regards to emotional depth.

Without giving too much away, the twists in the film felt borrowed and even slightly gimmicky   They took a risk in strongly evoking another story, and I'm not sure that it paid off.

There is a scene about halfway through the film that I feel slows it down. It speeds back up, but it felt uneven, even if it was just for a few minutes.

THE GOOD
The acting was marvelous.  I would dare say that Chris Pine (Kirk) outdid himself.  His character had more depth and is showing why he is one of the most promising young actors around.  The villain, played by one of the best actors of our day Benedict Cumberbatch (from the BBC's Sherlock), shines as much as he has in his other projects.  Also, Zachery Quinto (Spock) gave a great performance.  Although, I think that it wasn't quite as good as the last movie.

The camera work is amazing!  I urge you to look at some of the shots and how expressive they are.  Abrams aspires to be another Spielberg, and while I wouldn't go THAT far, he certainly knows how to use the camera to express the emotion of the scene.  It is completely complementary as opposed to deliriously distracting.

As with the first flick, the pacing is fantastic. The action scenes are marvelous and fun.  As the folks on What The Flick! said, the action scenes are so compelling that it makes any of the plot holes insignificant.

The music was wonderful, and I would dare say that the score is better than the first one.

CONCLUSION
Darkness is a fantastic ride and I certainly want to see it again.  The twists REALLY threw me off.  I didn't expect them at all.  Star Trek purists are going to HATE it.  I recommend it to everyone else but Trekkies.  4/5 Disco Balls.

PARENTS GUIDE
The adult content of this film is almost exactly on the same level as the first film.  It has some subtle sex references and some pretty tasteful violence.  There also is some language.  Not recommended for young children, but a 10-year-old should do fine.

Review: Now You See Me

I really like Jesse Eisenberg. I thought his performance in The Social Network was out of this world awesome.  I also really like Mark Rufalo.  His roles in The Avengers, and Just Like Heaven proved how great of an actor he can be.  I even like Isla Fisher and Woody Harrelson! And, needless to say, I adore Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman, two of the greatest actors of their generation.

All this adoration leads up to my excitement for a hugely anticipated film called Now You See Me.  Then I saw that the director was Louis Leterrier, which gave me pause.  Letierrer rarely rises above the material he's given (Clash of the Titans, The Transporter movies).  In fact, the only movie I've ever really liked of his was The Incredible Hulk, which I think the only thing he added was excellent action scenes.  So, I went into this movie cautiously optimistic with lower than normal expectations.

THE BAD
 Although the characters are likable enough, there is a famine of character development in this film.  Almost every character is quite shallow.  I found myself wanting to see the mystery resolved, but not out of any attachment to the characters.  This was so surprising to me because of the immense amount of talent involved.  It felt like the screenwriters were bent on creating a mystery film with lots of twists and turns, but most of these don't involve much emotional resolution.

I didn't find much satisfaction in the big twist at the end.  It felt contrived and made the investment that I had made (i.e. Over an hour of my time) seem almost not worth while.

In attempting to create some tension in the first Vegas show (at least I think that was their intention) they circled the stage multiple times.  Although it was a cool effect, it made me a bit dizzy, which was NOT the desired effect, methinks.

THE GOOD
No one ever said that Mr. Leterrier doesn't know how to pace a film. And it shows: the pacing of the film is fantastic. There is never a dull moment, and the action plays out quite nicely.

Woody Harrelson is his best in this movie. I really liked his character and wanted to see more of him.

The pull of the this movie is the magic tricks: both watching them being performed, and having Morgan Freeman's character deduct how the illusions are actually done.  This, the actions scenes, and the banter between the four magicians are what make this movie worth seeing.

CONCLUSION
This movie is ultimately a popcorn flick: an action packed thriller that will both make you think and not think at the same time. It is a fun watch without much character development.  3.5/5 Disco Balls.

PARENTS GUIDE
It's rated PG-13 for an almost sex scene, sexual references, and some really intense action scenes.  There isn't much blood, but it is scary.

Review: Iron Man 3

In order to prepare for the release of a movie sequel (especially ones I like), I usually watch the previous installment(s) of the franchise.  It was a sweet experience to remember the magic of my first viewing of Iron Man, and to remember the great spectacle of Iron Man 2.  Those films hold a special place in my heart in that they raised the bar of comic book cinema to the level we currently expect.  But, in this particular instance of preparing for Iron Man 3, I think it was probably a mistake.  As you will soon learn, I felt that the movie in question was a great movie, but it didn't feel like an Iron Man movie.

THE BAD

The movie started out quite off-beat.  It was a funny opening to be sure, but it felt so very different from any of the previous Marvel movies.  I honestly felt like I had stepped into an Iron Man knock-off film.  And this feeling was fairly pervasive through the movie for me.  

I realize that after having Tony Stark as part of The Avengers, certainly leeway should allowed to venture into the supernatural and/or unbelievable landscape that a movie like Thor would encounter.  However, it felt like the writers didn't even try for verisimilitude, which I would argue is a huge component of why the first two films were so successful. The magic of watching a guy NOT using magic become a superhero was severely absent. Also, I think in going for more depth in the characterizations of the main cast, they took away the type of light-hearted fun that the previous two installments were famous for. 

I'm kind of neutral on the musical score.  It wasn't memorable, but it also wasn't overdone, which is the tendency for many of these movies. 

THE GOOD

This is without a doubt the funniest of any of the Marvel films, if not the funniest superhero film ever.  The timing and banter are so well executed that there were times I thought I was watching an Aaron Sorkin scripted scene.  Shane Black, the director, certainly knows his way around comedy.  Jon Favreau's attire and hair in those first few minutes were just spectacular. 

Richard Roeper said that Robert Downey Jr. deserves awards consideration for his performance in Iron Man 3.  While I wouldn't go THAT far, I would say that he gives a fine performance on caliber with his others.  I think that he was going for more depth, which he arguably achieved.  

Gwyneth Paltrow was just amazing in this.  She had an even bigger and better role here and she also showed a lot more depth.  But, again, I think that her character was different than the other films.  You could definitely feel the difference in directors, and it allowed her to give a deeper performance, for better or for worse. 

Don Cheadle was probably the biggest surprise in this one.  He rose above his previous performance and proved why he was chosen to replace Terence Howard.  

There is a tween boy, Ty Simpkins, that shows up about halfway through the movie, and I must say he was a delight.  He is probably the only child in the world that can go toe-to-toe with Robert Downey Jr. in regards to dialogue, and actually remain unscathed.  He held his own in ways that a lot of other actors can't.  

CONCLUSION

Like I said in the intro: this is a great movie.  It just didn't feel like an Iron Man movie.  That being said, it should not be missed.  It is well-paced and is likely to please audiences of all types.  4/5 Disco Balls.  

Definitely stay after the credits.  It was so very funny, although not quite on par with The Avengers post-credit schwarma-scarfing-session. 

PARENTS GUIDE

There wasn't much explicit profanity, but there was some sexually related dialogue present. There wasn't any nudity. There was some implied sex and immodesty, but nothing explicit.  The violence is a bit much and would be scary for younger children.  

Review: Mud

Every once in a while, I get to see an independent film in the theater (as opposed to at home on DVD/Blu-Ray/streaming).  The reason that I don't see them very often is because they usually aren't playing in a theater close to me, and they don't look good enough to make the trek to where it is playing, which can be upwards of 40 minutes.  Independent films almost never get what's called a 'Wide Release,' which means that they only release them in select theaters in big cities across the country.  They usually are distributed by smaller studios, such as Lionsgate and The Weinsteins, and don't go Wide because they don't have mass appeal.  This is fine with the studios because they usually don't cost very much to make.

So, when I was checking the upcoming slate of cinema coming out, I saw that there weren't any Mormon-friendly films getting Wide Release this weekend.  I proceeded to look at the ones getting limited release and saw a film called Mud.  It hit all the soft-spots: it's PG-13 with no nudity (I will see some R-rated movies if they don't have nudity), it was playing within a 20-minute drive, AND it had a sky-high 98% on the Tomatometer.  I was sold.  Chandler Fashion Mall Harkins Theater, here I come!

If you watch the trailer for this film, it gives you almost no idea as to what the movie's theme is.  I watched it twice and had virtually no clue, so I more or less went in blind.  This is actually a preferable method of seeing movies, because you aren't tainted or spoiled from a trailer.

SYNOPSIS
Two teenage boys encounter a fugitive and form a pact to help him evade the bounty hunters on his trail and to reunite him with his true love.

THE BAD
Nothing.

THE GOOD
Once or twice a year I see a movie that fits in the category "There's no good time to get up and use the restroom."  This movie was so compelling and well-paced that I prolonged my bathroom break until I could hold it no longer.  Every single scene is purposeful and compelling.  It never drags.

The acting by all is phenomenal, but Matthew McConaughey gives the best performance of his life.  He was himself, but subtly different.  I found myself thinking more than once: "Is this really the guy from Sahara?"  I'm not positive he will get nominated for an Oscar for this role, but he certainly will be considered.  Also, the main teenage boy is remarkably believable and likable. I certainly hope we see him again.

As opposed to many movies about the South, this film paints a picture of the it that is very rich and realistic.  It never treats the culture with contempt, although I can't say that it's an endearing depiction either.

It is beautifully and subtly shot.  The color palette matches the story, shapes the mood, and the shots are never shots for shots' sake.

CONCLUSION
I adored this movie.  It's my favorite movie of the year so far, although there's not a lot of great competition.  If you enjoy Independent cinema, then you will most certainly enjoy this Mud.  However, if you consider yourself to be more mainstream, then this is not for you.  4.75/5 stars.

PARENTS GUIDE
There is quite a bit of language and some violence, particularly where one women is thrown around by a man. Not much sexual content, although there is some.  No nudity.

Review: Oblivion

I remain among the minority that still think that Tom Cruise is a fantastic leading man.  I have pondered about his films he has made over the last few years, and there is actually a decent lineup.  I adored Knight and Day and Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol is a masterful piece of work.  Also, I will watch War of the Worlds any day of the week!   Cruise is so charismatic that I can't do anything BUT enjoy his performances.  Do I disagree with his religious views, among other things?  Yes.  But, if we, the viewing public, were to boycott films that star people that we disagree with, we would end up not seeing any movies.  As a minority among critics (I'm a conservative Mormon), I would have to limit myself to Michael Bay movies.  So, I think that when considering any form of art, we shouldn't discriminate based on the artist's beliefs unless they are forcing them down our throats.  

Oblivion is directed by Joe Kosinki, the director of a little known film called Tron: Legacy.  I adored said film, and was determined to look past the early negative reviews of his new venture because of my love of Tron.  Ultimately, the only prep that one should have going into this film is that it is a love letter to the sci-fi genre and in particular to that genre's best films.  People are complaining about this and the plethora of plot twists.  Neither bothered me.  

THE BAD

The first act and much of the second drags.  I actually blame this on the trailers: I've seen the film's many trailers many times and it gives away the revelation that happens in the first act.  Also, the trailer was deceptive in giving false impressions of how the mood of the film would be.  It was REALLY different than I was led to believe it would be.  

THE GOOD

The plot twists are fantastic.  I really felt that the actual reveals were subtle enough to evoke real emotion and allow the audience empathize with every one of the characters.  I compare the twists to the ones in The Village in that all the problems that many of the character and verisimilitude issues that I thought were present in the first hour were explained and actually well done.  

The music is really quite good.  It feels like it could have been by Daft Punk and has a similar feel to Tron: Legacy.  I wish that the trailer that we as regular movie-goers were bombarded with had included this because I think it would have been a good selling point.  

Morgan Freeman phones in his performance, but even his phoned-in performances are spectacular!  Also, I feel like Cruise gave a great performance.  

It seems that every review that I read mentioned how beautiful the film looks, and they weren't kidding.  The special effects are breathtaking.  The lighting is really good too.  Also, the sound effects (a trivial thing, I know) were well above average.  I wouldn't be surprised if this film takes the Oscar for sound editing. 

CONCLUSION

I started out not caring for this film, but as the plot progressed and I reveled in the reveals, I found myself to be really satisfied.  It's still not one I will own, but it's worth seeing.  4/5 Stars. 

PARENTS GUIDE

This has a pretty intense sex scene for a PG-13.  It has sexual nudity.  Also, it's pretty violent.  NOT FOR CHILDREN.  The sex scene is pretty pointless.  

Man of Steel Trailer #3

CinemaCon is this week, and it's proving to be the release of some pretty substantial content.  Here's the new trailer for Man of Steel.

Star Trek Trailer #3

This is the best trailer of the ones I've seen.  Less than a month away!  #TeamKirk!

Catching Fire Teaser Trailer

Here's the trailer for the most anticipated film of the fall of this year.  I honestly don't know how they are going to keep this rated PG-13, but we'll see.

42: Movie Review

Although I had hoped that a movie called '42' was a sequel to a fantastic film called Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (if you don't get the reference, you should probably read the book and thank me later), a sports movie about racism is a good second prize. 

Doing a race movie can be hard and there are so few that have done it well, which is why I think there aren't more of them (I've often wondered why there hasn't been a biopic of Martin Luther King Jr.).  I will always love Remember the Titans, despite it being one of the more emotionally manipulative films I've ever seen.  Also, Invictus remains one of my favorite Eastwood films.  As a result, and as with most films this year, I was cautiously optimistic. 

It has come to my attention that some of my readers are reading 'The Bad'  section and assuming that I despise a movie because of some harsh critiques.  Please read on!  Film criticism is what this blog is about!  And especially read the conclusion because that's where I give my final verdict.

The Bad
The first 10 minutes felt way too heavy-handed for my tastes.   The setup is really in your face and emotionally manipulative. 

Harrison Ford's character (not his acting, mind you) seems to be the only non-racist white man at the beginning of the movie, and that's the extent of him.  He seems to be one-trick pony, having conviction for conviction's sake.  He came across more as a plot element than an actual character.  That being said, Ford did do a good job in what direction he was given.

 Most of the support players are not going to win any awards for their acting capabilities, either.  They were as one-dimensional as Harrison Ford's character, playing plot devices rather than characters.  I suspect this is the result of bad directing more than anything (although the director was also the writer). 

The Good
The film did a great job helping the audience feel what it must have been like to be a black person pre-civil-rights in America, which I think is what they were trying to accomplish.  There were many times that I teared up because of the cruel realities that African-Americans had to deal with.  I also got emotional when certain characters experienced changes of heart. 

I liked the cinematography more than most, and probably the best I've seen this year (although the competition is far from stiff).  The dugout is a good example of expressionism in film if you'll ever find one in mainstream cinema. 

The fellow that plays Jackie is really versatile and believable.  Also, the main antagonists were really good; they made me believe that they were sincerely racist and had malice in their hearts. 

Conclusion
Overall I quite enjoyed this movie and I recommend it heartily to ALL.  Is it going to win any awards? No.  But it does remove you from the present and teaches the lessons of history in an effective and enjoyable way.  3.75/5 stars. 

Parents Guide
I can see why the MPAA gave this  a PG-13, because it is disturbing to watch the racial cruelty.  However, it is the lightest PG-13 I've come across in a long time.  I would consider this to be a family movie, except for small children.  No nudity, no violence.  Just tense scenes. 

What's on Netflix: Butter

Ever since I was introduced to Juno (a brilliant film that should be seen by all) I have found myself on the lookout for off beat, quirky comedies.  This has produced mixed results, but on the whole I am a fan of this unique film genre.  So, when I was perusing upcoming releases a little under a year ago I saw a film called Butter.  I'm not sure that there is a better name for a movie, so naturally my interest was piqued and I vowed to see it. Unfortunately, it wasn't playing anywhere close to me so I had to wait for DVD or Netflix.  I finally got to see it last week and I was surprised by the result.

SYNOPSIS
In small-town Iowa, an adopted girl discovers her talent for butter carving and finds herself pitted against an ambitious local woman (Jennifer Garner) in their town's annual contest. (via IMDB here)

THE BAD
Jennifer Garner is a great actress, and she can play a superhero/secret agent rather well.  Unfortunately, her talent doesn't extend to character acting.  She over-acts pretty much the entire movie.  I suppose they meant for it to be this way, but I just couldn't empathize with her.  Also, the nature of the caricature that she portrayed was pretty unbelievable.  They seemed to paint any right-wing stay-at-home-mom in Iowa to be a freak without ability to think normal thoughts.  I suppose this provided comedic value, but it didn't do anything for me except turn me off.

THE GOOD
The rest of the cast is fantastic, with Yara Shahidi stealing the show.  The satiric nature of the butter carving contests is done very well.  Also, Ty Burrell (Modern Family) proved to me that he is quite versatile and belongs among the greats.  He is very subtle here and really makes the audience like him and sympathize with his character.  Also, Hugh Jackman's part, although small, is great too. It amazes me that he is so type-cast.  Although I despised Les Miserables, I was glad to see that he got a gig outside of an X-Men/action flick.

CONCLUSION
This was a fun movie, although I can't put it on par with Juno, Up in the Air, Thank You For Smoking, etc. because of some major pacing issues and the over-acting by Jennifer Garner.  3/5 Disco Balls.

PARENTS GUIDE
This movie is Rated R for language and sexual content.  It basically has a bunch of f-words, a scene in a strip club, and a non-explicit sex scene.  I recommend watching it with a filter like Clearplay, partly because of the content it edits, but also it sufficiently removes the poorly paced scenes.  I can't recommend it otherwise.

Netflix movie of the week: 30 for 30 Broke

Of all the ESPN documentaries that are on Netflix, this one is the best.  You don't need to know much about sports and you will walk away with a completely different perspective on athletes.  Just freaking brilliant.

Click Here.

Trailer for Percy Jackson: The Sea of Monsters

I really felt that they messed up the first one, so I'm cautiously optimistic with this one.  I adore these Novels.  

Movie Trailers - Movies Blog

The Wolverine trailer is here!

So...it took a long time for them to get a trailer out for this movie, but it's finally here. Enjoy!

Review: The Croods

For its first post-Paramount-parent animated feature, Dreamworks made a family film revolving around a family of cavemen.  They are really getting better at storytelling, but still have a long way to go to produce anything as perfect as most of the Pixar films. 

My expectations were pretty low before the reviews starting coming in, which only mildly improved them.  In the end I was impressed, but there were some major problems with it.

THE BAD
The first act was utterly intolerable, with the exception of the quality of the animation, which I will go into further down.  It was hard to look past Nicolas Cage's voice or how unlikable his character is caricatured as.  The first act's message is that all change is bad and that the family should live in constant fear. And then you are told again. And again.  And again. And again.  At one point I wanted to whisper to the person next to me, "I wonder if they think change is bad," in the same way that Dot Matrix in Spaceballs replies to Princess Vespa's tirade of "I'm glad! Glad, glad, glad, glad!" with "I wonder if she's glad?" I felt as if the message was figuratively beat into the audiences' skulls with a club.  I have sympathy for the filmmakers who probably just wanted the story to move along rather than take the time to craft it subtly.  Unfortunately, this hastiness was more annoying than helpful.

THE GOOD
The quality of the animation was so brilliant that I found myself questioning whether some of it was actually animation.  It is the best CG animation I've ever seen, and they do a remarkable job showcasing it.  Christy Lemire (AP's film critic) said that it reminded her of Avatar, which isn't a bad comparison.  This film should be watched for the animation alone.

As soon as the first act is over, the film finds its groove.  It's not a perfect groove, but it works.  The timing is much better and the movie is much less cliche. 

The voice acting is pretty good, although when compared to Disney or Pixar films, it sucks.  Emma Stone was fantastic and so was Ryan Reynolds.

The climax sequence is very touching, especially for a father such as myself.  I'll admit that more than one tear was shed by yours truly.  The moral of the story is still slightly muddled, mostly because I found that my interpretation was very different from many reviewers.   

CONCLUSION
Ultimately I enjoyed this movie.  There were some pretty substantial problems with it, but in the end it is a positive addition to this year's slate of movies.  3.5/5 Disco Balls. 

PARENTS GUIDE
Although this movie has some scary moments, it is very safe for children.  It's very funny for both parents and children. 

Star Trek Into Darkness International Trailer has arrived!

Here's the international trailer for arguably the most anticipated film of 2013.  Let me know what you think (with the exception of the Alice Eve's underwear scene; it's best if you keep that to yourself).

Review: The Host

As a representative member of the male half of our species, I can't be blamed for not liking any of the Twilight films.  I could go into why that is, but I'm certain you've heard it before.  Yet, I do indeed respect its box office accumulations.  I haven't done the math, but I'm pretty that the saga has made enough money to feed several small countries.

Because of my natural distaste for Stephanie Meyer's previous films/novels, I was understandably wary of The Host.  My dear mother swore up and down that I would enjoy the book even though I despised Ms. Meyer's previous endeavors.  So, in honor of her, I went into it with an open mind.  I was happily surprised by the outcome.  

SPOILER-FREE SYNOPSIS

In a dystopian future when an unseen enemy threatens mankind by taking over their bodies and erasing their memories, Melanie will risk everything to protect the people she cares most about, proving that love can conquer all in a dangerous new world. 

REVIEW

I have a lot of respect for Andrew Niccol (Gattaca,Truman Show, In Time), who adapted the novel into the film's screenplay and directed it.  But, I must admit that the first 20 minutes or so is the clumsiest filmmaking he's ever done.  When I told this to my mother, she said the book was that way too.  So, it's possible that he was given certain constraints in how to adapt it instead of changing it around a little bit to make it not so awkward.  The early romance stuff was epicly sappy.  

Yet, despite its rocky start, I was hooked at about the thirty minute mark.  And it only got better as the film went along.  The character development was so strong and the depth of the characters so firm that I found myself forgetting that this was the same author who brought us the books that must not be named.  The point where it started getting good was about the moment that the story stopped taking itself so seriously.  There was some seriously clever writing and those moments were executed masterfully.  

Saiore Ronan (Melanie) has a place among Jennifer Lawrence and Anna Kendrick as the most promising young actresses of our day.  Her performance is rock solid and I really look forward to her future endeavors.  The other performances are great, with the exception of her younger brother.  It felt like Anikan Skywalker all over again. 

I am usually pretty hard on films' soundtracks, but this one was really good.  The score was memorable and moving, and I am looking forward to listening to it again when it's available. 

The film really causes us to rethink many of our assumptions about Utopian ideals and what we as a human race would be willing to do to keep our free will, which is probably the reason that Hollywood's resident deep thinker, Mr. Niccol, took on the project.  I was subtly moved at the end.  

CONCLUSION

The question that most fans of the book will be asking is whether it stays true to the material, and to that I unfortunately can't answer reliably.  However, as I described the film to my mother, she seemed to think that it was quite faithful.  

This movie has a very different feel than probably any other piece of cinema you've seen.  It was disconcerting, while still refreshing.  I really liked it and hope that it does better at the box office than I am cynically predicting (it comes out the same weekend as GI JOE, which is bound to take a lot of its steam).  

4/5 Stars

PARENTS GUIDE

The film was actually pretty violent, with quite a few graphic killings.  Lots of blood that is definitely not suitable for pre-teens. There were a couple sensual make-out scenes, but no nudity.  

Review: Burt Wonderstone

It has been a long time since Steve Carell has done a decent movie.  I think the same can be said for Jim Carrey. Alas, it was never meant for them to do movies together.  They did Bruce Almighty, but Carell was more of a supporting character.  Now, Warner Bros. has decided to do a movie about Las Vegas magicians AND have two of the funniest men alive star in it.  Which begs the inevitable question: What could go wrong?  It turns out more than I thought possible.

This movie was actually pretty decently marketed, yet it is bombing at the box office.  WB can't catch a break this year!  Jack the Giant Slayer was slain at the box office, badly.  It's a good thing they have the next Hobbit movie coming out, otherwise they would be in for a rough year.  They are also releasing Man of Steel, the new Superman movie, which will probably do really well.  They are probably very sad that both the Batman AND Harry Potter franchises are done.

THE GOOD
The actual tricks that they do in the movie were fun to watch.  They are well done and give the audience a sense of awe.

Steve Buschemi is good.  He is a lot more believable than Carell or Carrey.  And Alan Arkin steals every scene he is.  Arkin makes the movie half-way watchable.  Also, the lovely Olivia Wilde is great as always.

THE BAD
There are so many clever ideas in here.  However, they are poorly executed.  Steve Carell's character is so unlikable that when there is finally some closure for him, it doesn't feel that great.  The same thing with Carrey.  I really blame the directing for the bad performances.  Both actors can deliver, but were obviously directed to be lifeless.

CONCLUSION
To go along with the cliche, this movie is anything but incredible.  It is so poorly put together and clumsily executed that you shouldn't even spend Redbox money on it.  Even if it makes it to Netflix, don't waste your time.  So unfortunate.  It could've been great.  1.5/5 Disco Balls.

TV Review: Scandal

Kerry Washington is beautiful.  She's also a decent actress.  And who doesn't want to see more of Desmond from LOST (Henry Ian Cusick)?  Throw these two into a Washington DC, politics-based drama and what could go wrong?  I'll tell you: A LOT.

I was told to watch this series by a colleague whom I respect, in particular their taste in cinema.  And it seems to win both ratings-wise and critically.  So, on Saturday I decided to try out my new ROKU 3 and its new 'headphone-in-remote' functionality to finally watch ABC's +Scandal in order to not disturb my napping children. I watched the Pilot and the second episode of the first season.  Here are my thoughts.

THE GOOD
Of all the actors, Henry Ian Cusick was the best, with a close second to Katie Lowes as the outsider meant to give the audience someone to relate to.  (Fun Fact: Katie Lowes was the voice of Candlehead in Wreck-it Ralph) 

THE BAD
The writer of this show has some SERIOUS Aaron Sorkin envy, and she should probably have that looked at before it festers.  The dialogue tries to be snappy, but never works quite right.  The characters are over-the-top and borderline annoying.  Ultimately, this show thinks it's smarter than it is.  It feels like this show belongs on Fox, not ABC, which usually houses much better drama.

CONCLUSION
I apologize if I have offended you by saying how awful this show is.  In the end I'd rather watch The Newsroom (which is the smuggest of all television shows right now) than this, which isn't a compliment.  2/5 Disco Balls.

#12: The Incredibles

God bless Brad Bird.  Most people don't even know the name, but you've most certainly loved his work.  He works include The Fox and the Hound, The Simpsons (he is credited for directing the first appearance of Sideshow Bob, the best Simpsons character of all time), The Iron Giant, Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol, Ratatouille  and most importantly The Incredibles.  I will argue with anyone that will listen that next to Steven Spielberg, Mr. Bird is the greatest storyteller in Hollywood right now.

The first time I was introduced to The Incredibles was on a date while in college at BYU.  This girl (we will call her A. Menlove, or maybe Amy M.) raved about it, and I, wanting to impress her, decided to take her to a showing of it.  The last Pixar film I had seen was Finding Nemo, which I was sinfully unfond of.  I was pleasantly surprised by Incredibles, not only for its superhero aspects, but also for its family values.  As my movie tastes have matured, I have fallen even more in love with this film.  

REVIEW

There is so much to like in this movie, I'm really not sure where to begin.  Like most Pixar movies, every scene is perfectly pristine, working on every level.  I'm constantly amazed at how these guys run such a tight ship.

The voice acting is spectacular.  I have to remind myself who those actors really are, because I'm constantly lost in their performances.  I can safely say that this is Samuel L. Jackson's BEST ROLE TO DATE as Frozone.

The music is among the best Michael Giacchino has done, and is probably the Pixar soundtrack (although Up gives it a run for its money).

The story works so well and despite it being about superheroes, is really easy to relate to.  The family chemistry is so real.  It teaches timeless lessons about staying together through the rough times.

TRIVIA

• Edna Mole (the superhero costume designer) is voiced by the director, Brad Bird. 
• Was originally supposed to be called 'The Invincibles.' 
• In order to give Dash a realistic out-of-breath voice, Brad Bird made Spencer Fox run laps around the studio. 
• When Edna gives Helen the homing device for the first time in the laboratory, the GPS zooms into the San Francisco area, where the Pixar Animation Studios is located (Emeryville, California) and the old studio building in Point Richmond. 
• Edna, the costume lady, is based on Edith Head, who worked as a studio costume designer on hundreds of movies over more than fifty years. 
• Brad Bird was listening to Public Radio International and heard Sarah Vowell, a frequent contributor to the PRI program "This American Life". He felt her voice was perfect for Violet even though she had never acted before. To convince her, Pixar animators animated one of Vowell's segments from "This American Life" and sent it to her. 
• The movie went through 3 different composers, finally settling on Michael G.  Michael Kaman (Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves) was first in line, but unfortunately died during pre-production.  Then they went with John Barry (James Bond movies) and he ended up doing several demos before leaving.  

CONCLUSION
My confession is that this is my favorite (gasp) superhero movie.  It is the most polished, most relatable, and most fun.  If you haven't watched it, it is very important to do so.  Your life may depend on it.