Django Unchained

Twenty years ago, we were introduced to a little independent film called "Reservoir Dogs," written and directed by Quentin Tarantino, who today is regarded as one of the greatest directors of all time. He's one of those directors that's old school, by being one of those directors that still uses actual film for his movies. And today, we take a look at his newest film, "Django Unchained."

The film tells of a Civil War slave named Django, whose taken under the wing of a bounty hunter named Dr. King Shaultz. In exchange for taken out some heads, Shaultz agrees to help Django get his wife from Calvin Candie, and be granted true freedom. While it's one of the more simpler plots of Tarantino's films, it doesn't mean it can't be great. This film is a true love letter to all those classic spaghetti westerns from back in the 60's. Top it all off with some very gory action scenes, a third act that is the biggest blood bath you'll ever see, and you've got a Tarantino Western.

The characters are very enjoyable in their own little way. Christoph Waltz gives a great performance as the good Dr. Shaultz. His presence gives off a unique fell to it, that makes you wonder if you should fear this guy or be relieved. Those types of wild card characters are one of the many, MANY charms of a Tarantino film. Leonardo DiCaprio really does a magnificent job as Calvin Candie, playing just a sleazeball and a classy businessman all in one. There's one scene where DiCaprio accidentally cuts his hand by accident, but still carries on with the scene. That scene ALONE gathers this as DiCaprio's best performance in a movie. Samuel L. Jackson is also a great character, playing Calvin's trusted worker, and he gives it the traditional Jackson/Tarantino performance. What really caught my attention, was that it was hard to tell who was the true villain of the movie, DiCaprio or Jackson? While DiCaprio is the plantation owner, Jackson seemed to have that presence showing it was HE who was in charge, giving DiCaprio the information needed. Whatever the case, the relationship between the two was stunning.

However, the performance that really stole the show, was Jamie Foxx as Django, and he gave it his all for this movie. He's soft spoken, but can be aggressive if pushed to his limits, as well as being very funny. This definitely set the bar for him, as it is Foxx's best performance yet. I've heard that he would be playing Electro for "Amazing Spiderman 2," and I can definitley see that, and that's something I'll be looking forward to.

Overall, "Django Unchained" is one of Tarantino's best and stands as one of my favorite movies of this year...speaking of which, it's time for the yearly rundown of the best and worst. Stay tuned for that, coming soon.

Rating: 10/10

Rise of the Guardians

Well, Christmas time is here once again. Seeing a whole bunch of lights up, shopping marts being overcrowded for the right gift, trying to pay up on the years final payments, and best of all...Christmas movies. Every year, there are film studios that try to make the next Holiday classic, or just re-release their old ones in theaters, such as "Home Alone" and "A Christmas Story." But for now, we're going to take a look at one I've seen recently in theaters, "Rise of the Guardians."

Now, when I first heard word about the film, I thought it wasn't going to be anything special, even if it had a good cast and the fact that Guillermo del Toro was producing it. But when trailers started showing up and that my friend Zack was talking about it so much when it did, I took a look and got very interested in it. Further trailers also had it look very epic, almost like Dreamworks was trying to make their own little "Avengers-esque" movie. However, I didn't quite see it the day it came out, but I've heard good things from it, so I decided to give it a chance.
So what did I think of it?...Well, I can definitely say that this is, by far, Dreamworks Animation's best movie, and that's saying a lot!

"Rise of the Guardians" tells the story of Jack Frost, the spirit of snow, who apparently not everyone believes in. When he's called upon by Santa, the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, and Sandman, he is told to beto be the new guardian by the man in the moon, to fight Pitch Black, the Boogeyman. During this time, Jack has to learn why he was chosen to be a guardian, as well as find out about his memories in his past life.

What really stands out in this film is how it doesn't pander to its audience, and adds a lot more to the logic and rules of this world. I really thought the idea that believing in these spirits is what gives them their powers is really clever. When it really got down to the tender moments of the story, I really felt their sympathy for it.

The character of Jack Frost was a very well developed character. He's the mischievous underdog with a heart of gold, who only becomes interested in his work until he finds out something that catches his attention very. Yeah, it's cliche, but if done well, then it can work.Not only that, but am I the only one who thought he looked like Danny Phantom? That means, I see a full result for a "Danny Phantom" movie to be made. While it does have Santa and the other guardians, and make them so likable, it still stands as Jack Frost's story. We do see the corruption that can be brought upon him, when he's confronted by Pitch, who is a great villain. He knows how to push at Jack's buttons, but it's done so well, and his ways of world domination are very well done.

The animation in the film was absolutely great, and some of the best CG animation I've seen from Dreamworks. Hell, I'd even say it's better than "Brave," and that's saying a lot. It's fast paced, it's colorful, and the action scenes are very good! This film is often compared as "The Avengers" of CG animated films, but I'd say that this was BETTER than "The Avengers," by a long-shot!

Overall, "Rise of the Guardians" is a fantastic movie that's fun for the whole family. With great voice acting, fantastic animation, and a strong story, it's easily one of the best this year, and one of my favorites.

Rating: 10/10

007 Skyfall

Probably everyone in the world knows about the most famous, fictional, British spy himself, James Bond. Ian Flemming's character has shown to be a strong immortal icon, and after about fifty years of this fame on the silver screen, every generation has their own version of Bond. From Sean Connery, to Roger Moore, to Pierce Brosnan, to the one who holds the current place, Daniel Craig. Because there are about twenty three Bond films as of now, we're only going to focus on talking about the Daniel Craig movies, just to keep things short.

The start of the "Craig Bond Trilogy," is with "Casino Royale," which was actually a remake of another movie based on Ian Flemming's character, but was actually a critical failure. This film started off Craig's work of Bond, just after Pierce Brosnan had finally bowed out and passed the torch on. It told of Bond retrieving his Double 0 status, and is assigned to go after a billionaire terrorist named Le Chiffre, by first bringing his bank account down and bring him to justice. Martin Campbell, who had directed "Goldeneye," a film that was the start of Brosnan's Bond, had delivered a very solid movie. It wasn't the typical Bond with all the gadgets and so-forth, but a fresh new Bond, one that actually had much more to it in a way. While it wasn't my favorite at the time, it was still a damn good movie and well worth the price of admission.

The second film, "Quantum of Solace" however, wasn't quite given the same recognition as "Casino" got. The one thing people complained about was that it was a sequel to "Casino" and that there were just so many things that didn't make it like a Bond film. Personally, I had no problem with that. I enjoyed the path that this film took, being different than most other Bond films, AND being a sequel to it, continuing its story. Sure, I'll admit it's the weakest of the trilogy, but that doesn't make it terrible. For Bond fans, yeah I can see the hatred, but for casual viewers who enjoyed the last film, it's well worth it.

Now we get to the new film, "Skyfall," just in time for the 50th anniversary of the first Bond film, "Dr. No," with Sean Connery. So, how was it exactly? I found it to be my new favorite Bond film.

"Skyfall" tells of 007 on another mission, but fails after being shot by his colleague in the process. After a while, MI6 starts being hacked, and the item Bond was supposed to retrieve was a list of the Double-0 agents identities. When Bond returns after a period of time, he tries to get himself back on top and finds the culprit behind the attacks before all agents are killed. Now that's only a little bit of the plot, because if any more gets revealed, then it's in spoiler territory, but it still showcases a strong story.

Now, I've heard this film from many people to be the "Dark Knight Rises" of the "Craig's Bond Trilogy," even to be called "James Bond Rises," and I can see that resemblance very well. Bond's been broken down, and now he has to face an enemy he's not quite ready for, due to his absence softening him. However, unlike "The Dark Knight Rises," we actually see how Bond gets injured and just how he's gotten down to this low. I was really fascinated by this, and I only can guess it was just a coincidence  since both films were released the same year. That and two other things did spark it. #1: "The Dark Knight" did receive criticism for feeling more like a Bond film than it did a Batman film, so I can see how it works. #2: Chris Nolan DID say, he had interest into directing a James Bond film, so I highly look forward to see that day come. Plus, unlike "DKR," this film actually has an important character die, which is something I felt would have made "Dark Knight Rises" a much stronger film.

Judi Dench does reprise her role as M, and she does a fantastic job once more, playing the bossy and cautious character that she is, which would be the reason she's called "Mom" by other agents. Javier Bardem as Silva was a very interesting villain for me, but I will admit, his first appearance did seem a bit...how to put this...awkward. If you see the movie, you'll know what I mean. But none the less, he was still a very calculative mastermind, especially being a former MI6 agent at a higher level, meaning he knows more about M than Bond thinks. RaIph Fiennes and Naomie Harris were both equally great in the film, as Mallory and Eve. Just they way they had their performances executed and how you couldn't keep your eyes off either of them shows how good their work can be. Ben Whishaw was also great as the new Q of MI6, and deliveres a very strong performance. It may be nothing new of the character, but it still works with how strongly it was done.

The most fun about the film was seeing the little nods and tributes to previous James Bond films. A prime example of it was Berenice Lim Marlohe as Severine, and how her performance had the presence and inspiration of Famke Janssen's character from "Goldeneye," Xenia Onatopp. That was what stood out for me, especially since Brosnan in "Goldeneye" was the Bond film and Bond I grew up with...that, and it had a really damn good N64 game, but I watched the movie too. There are others like that, but I feel like it would be fun for you to catch them for yourselves.

Overall, "Skyfall" stands as not only my new favorite Bond film, but also one of my favorite movies of the year. If you want to see a strong, fresh, and great Bond film, check it out before it goes out of theaters. Trust me, it's worth it for the big screen.

Rating: 10/10

Wreck-It Ralph

Video games and movies never seem to mix well with people. Whether it's a movie licensed video game or a movie based on a video game, they just don't seem to make any progress with critics and fans. As for films ABOUT video games, the only film that has done that was "The Wizard," starring Fred Savage...That is until a little animated film came along from Disney, under the name "Wreck-It Ralph."

Now when the trailers first pop up in theaters and the internet, it sparked interest in more people than I could count. To me, it looked alright, and I felt like it was going to be Disney's attempt to be a love-letter to classic gaming for kids. It didn't look like anything special, mostly due to the fact that while it had some good people behind it, it wasn't a film that quite caught my attention, especially since Sarah Silverman was apart of the film. I'm sorry, but I really don't like Sarah Silverman, she's just one of those comedians whose just unappealing to me. But despite that, I still decided to give this film a try, due to the criticism I've been hearing about it.

So, when I bought my ticket, when I missed a chance to see "Skyfall," what did I think of the film?...I'm going to be honest...This was something that was MORE than what I was expecting, and it surpasses even THAT! What really comes out of this film is something that only comes once in a while, and I was glad for that. It's got a great story, it's got excellent animation and voice acting, and it's characters are so well developed. I would explain what the premise is, but I really want you to see the movie, so anything other than what's shown in the trailers is up to you to see.

With the characters, I got into at the drop of a bat. John C. Reilly gave a very soothing tone to his character of Ralph, as the bad guy who just wants to be given a bit of respect every once in a while. You feel strong sympathy for him, and it actually delves into what the bad guy thinks about all this. Jack McBrayer as Felix was also a very interesting character, and sold his performance well. His character is what you expect, basically playing Jack McBrayer. If you're not too familiar with Jack McBrayer, then you'll do fine with the film, as did I. Jane Lynch also has a role in the film as Sergeant Calhoun, and she does it fairly well, giving probably one her best performances to date. She tough, mean, and with how they explained her character was both funny and a bit sad. And you probably think I hated Sarah Silverman's character of Vanellope, but the biggest accomplishment this film was that she was more than just likable. I adored her character, she was cutsely annoying, she was funny, I even cried at the tender moments with her. THAT'S A HARD THING TO DO PEOPLE!

The animation and 3D were just fantastic, and what was really fun was seeing all these different video game characters in the background, which can be a fun little game for those watching it. The film was directed by Rich Moore, whose work consists of many episodes of "The Simpsons" and "Futurama." Most notable for "The Simpsons" are the first "Treehouse of Horror" and "Cape Feare," and "Futurama" are "Space Pilot 3000" and "Roswell Ends Well." It was very pleasant to see him take on a film of this kind of stature, and it shows much more than can be expected.

Overall, ‎"Wreck-It Ralph" isn't just some kids movie that's trying to be a love letter to classic gaming. It's a very strong hearted film with great characters, brilliant story telling, gorgeous animation, fantastic 3D, and is a film that parents of kids today can look at and say that it's something they'll cherish in their hearts for years to come. Moments that almost made me cry with how beautiful it was, is a sign of not just a good movie, but one that's very special and reminds me of the time when I was younger and loving every moment of video game playing with my older brothers and sisters. And if you guys are reading this, know that I miss you dearly, and I want you to know that "Wreck-It Ralph" is a film that will probably make you feel the same way.

Rating: 10/10 (I wish I could give it more!)

Argo

Ever since the hit success with "Gone Baby, Gone," Ben Affleck has really cemented himself as a very strong director. His style of passion in what he does is somewhat in the same style of Quinton Tarintino, where it can be both funny and serious at the same time. While I did enjoy "Gone Baby, Gone" and "The Town" which are both great films, it hasn't been enough for me to call Affleck my favorite director yet. That is until we got his most recent film, "Argo."

The film, based on a true story, tells of a man named Tony Mendez, an agent of the CIA who is assigned by his boss, Jack O'Donnell, to figure out how to get six Americans in Iran, who have information on the country's current prime minister. To get them out, Mendez teams up with John Chambers to pose as a Canadian film crew for a fake Star Wars knock-off called "Argo," and be filming in other countries. I was really intrigued by this film, in just as many ways as I could find. But not only that, but it really does showcase it as a film that's for fans of filmmaking, BSing your way out of things, and having strong tension.

Ben Affleck really did a great job as both the director and star of this film, and it shows very well how he's evolved as an actor since "Chasing Amy," "Good Will Hunting," and "DareDevil." His style of directing has grown more and more stronger with every passing film, and this film's his best by far. Bryan Cranston plays Jack, and his performance is as good as any. For a guy who grew up watching "Malcolm in the Middle," it really is a interesting feel, seeing this actor in such a serious role that turns out to be his best by far. John Goodman as John Chambers was just hilarious to watch. His timing with jokes, just the way he thinks, it's all such a great character. I love how he has this smartass attitude that really gets me laughing every time, and he really sells the role. Kyle Chandler also has an appearance as Hamilton Jordon, who was the Chief of Staff during Carter's years as president, and he has great character as this person. This film is surely to appeal to those who either grew up about the events that happened, or anyone who's heard about it, and it is a film that works on almost every level.

Overall, "Argo" is a fantastic film, and now with it being Oscar season, this is probably going to be up there for "Best Picture," "Best Director," "Best Supporting Actor," and "Best Make-up." Ben Affleck has, yet again, delivered an great film, and is now among my favorite directors.

Rating: 10/10

Silent Hill: Revelation 3D

I've got nothing...I'm sorry, but I've seriously got nothing on this one.

If you're a Silent Hill fan, you'll hate it. If not, you'll be confused if you didn't see the first film.

Good: Production value, sets, costumes, effects, acting, and 3D.

Bad: Dialogue and story.



Rating: ?/10

ParaNorman

Zombies are a genre that have stood as one of the most iconic creatures. The film that started the whole thing out, was George A. Romero's "Night of the Living Dead," being the start of the films. "Dawn of the Dead" had stepped things up as the first Zombie film in color, and much gore to it. "Shaun of the Dead," while a parody of the genre, still stayed fresh in it's own right. And last, but not least, "Zombieland" stands as the film that perfected it. Now, we take a look at the first animated zombie film, "ParaNorman."
The film tells the story of Norman Babcock, a boy who has the supernatural ability to see ghosts, but no one seems to believe him, except his friend Neil. One day, his uncle comes to warn him that the witch's ghost is about to awaken, and Norman is the only one who can fill in the position that he did. But things go wrong, when he runs out of time, and soon zombies that executed the witch comes back to life, and now Norman will need help to solve the crisis ahead and save the town.
The animation was really astonishing, being the best stop-motion animation I've seen since "Nightmare Before Christmas," and that's saying a lot. I also was really greatful on how it's a strong homage to classic horror films in the passed, all while being its own original story. The zombies were really creative in how they were made, and looks greatfully like a zombie in how it looks. If there was one part that I would say stood out, it would have to be the writing, due to it being very witty and creative. There's so much great humor in the film, that it fits for both adults and kids alike, even if it's sexual humor.

The characters were also established well, because they felt like actual characters, and not just cardboard cutouts of characters. With Norman being the sort of outcast character, but you actually feel sympathy for him. Norman's sister, Courtney, was pretty much what most teenage girls are now today, so it was funny to see this character develop like an actual character. My favorite character out of them would have to be the little chubby kid, Neal, we was a very likable character, and just whenever he was on screen had a funny moment to it. Even his older brother, played by Casey Affleck, was an enjoyment, especially at the end, and is one of the most humorous twists I've ever seen.

Overall, "ParaNorman" should be a great time to watch for horror fans, animation goers, and movie goers alike. If you haven't seen it on the big screen, don't miss your chance to see it on the small screen.


Rating: 10/10

Next Time: Silent Hill: Revelation 3D

Frankenweenie

After the COLOSSAL disappointment that was "Dark Shadows" and "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter," I was starting to lose interest in Tim Burton's work. It was just so annoying how his work in the past decade has ranged from either good, bad, or just okay. That's when I made this promise, that if his next film wasn't good, I would be officially done with Tim Burton. So now we have "Frankenweenie," and continuing on with the Halloween film reviews.

First, a little backstory. "Frankenweenie" was originally a black-and-white short film, made in 1984, and was one of Tim Burton's first projects, when he first worked for Disney. It was about a boy named Victor Frankenstein, who after witnessing the death of his dog Sparky, decides to bring him back to life. How? With SCIENCE of course! For a short film, it's not too bad. The acting's pretty good, and the nice little references were pretty funny. However, this short never saw the light of day, until it was on VHS in the 90's, when Burton became more well-known. This project is what got him fired from Disney, thinking it was too scary, and wouldn't be with the re-release of "Pinocchio." Yeah, kids can take children turning into donkeys, but CLEARLY a boy bring a dog back to life is too much. And this was BEFORE cencorship got too much.

Since then, Burton's gotten to become a household name, and when he started to collaborate with Disney again, signing on to do two 3D films, the other being "Alice in Wonderland," Burton was set to do a remake of the short that he made, longer and in stop-motion. How did it turn out? Well, better than what I had expected, and even more! This was a glorious movie to watch, just in time for the Halloween season.

The film does follow the same formula as the last, but with some added context to it. We see more of Victor's relationship with Sparky, and what he does in his time. He's into making his own little movies with Sparky, and it's very creative to see how well they do it. Not only that, we're introduced to more of the neighborhood, including some of Victor's classmates and see what's unique about them, like how one girl's very creepy and has a cat that can predict the future, one kid looking like the Frankenstein monster, and another looking like Igor, even being named 'Edgar E. Gore,' as well as Victor's neighbor and assumed love interest has the last name, 'van Helsing.' I also found it pretty clever, how the teacher Martin Landau plays looks like Vincent Price, whom Burton draws inspiration from.  And let's just say the other elements added the film were very fun to watch, and give the movie some pretty interesting substance, but I'm I the only one who thought the added stuff made this movie darker than the original? I'm not saying it's a bad thing, I'm just making a point.

The stop-motion animation was pretty good, and it was just so much fun this year, to see three great stop-motion movies this year. And needless to say, Burton finally delivered a remake that was actually better than the original, and it was of his own work. This is by far his best film since "Sleepy Hallow," which is another good remake. The 3D was also used very effectively, and the imagery really captures on how 3D and stop-motion can be used right.

Overall, "Frankenweenie" is a great Tim Burton movie that goes back to his roots, and is one of my favorite movies of the year. Sadly, I wished this film wasn't bombing at the box office as hard as it was, because it's definitely worth the price of admission, especially for the 3D.

Rating: 10/10

Next time: ParaNorman

Hotel Transylvania

Well, it's that time of year again for the Halloween spirit to take over the place. We'll be seeing decorations in stores, many costumes being made...but sadly, that charm among most has been growing dimmer and dimmer, due to some "parents" thinking Halloween should be safer and more friendly. But THAT'S not what I'm here about! This year, we'll be talking about the Halloween films of this year. What qualifies as a Halloween film? Well, it has to be A) The film takes place on Halloween the entire film; B) Have classic monsters in it, or have reference to them; or C) A horror film released during late September or during October. So without further ado, let's start with "Hotel Transylvania!"

"Hotel Transylvania" tells the story of Dracula, who creates a incredibly hidden castle, that is the sanctuary for all monsters, but was created to protect her daughter, Mavis, from the outside world. But when a mountain climber named Jonathan arrives at the hotel, Drac has to keep him hidden from the other monsters, all the while Jon and Mavis start to grow more attached to each other. Now, you might think this sounds simple, and it is for the most part, in a good way. It knows how to keep itself entertaining and still enjoyable for what it is.

The casting works in its own way. Adam Sandler plays the role of Dracula, and he gives it the typical Adam Sandler performance, in terms of voice acting that is. Being the second animated Sandler film (after "8 Crazy Nights" back in 2002), it's a big improvement. Not only that, but they give him a strong backstory to why he has a dislike for humans in the first place. I was really taken by that, so I give props. Mavis played by Selena Gomez was pretty good for what she did. Originally, Mavis was said to be played by Miley Cyrus, but she dropped the project. I'm glad they went with Gomez instead, since I think she's the better actress. And I'd be lying, if I didn't say Mavis was cute. Andy Samberg as Jonathan was also a joy to watch, being the man of the modern world, but not to a certain extent. I probably would have walked out, if he said anything that the typical high school idiot would say...oh god, just thinking about it makes me cringe. I also found the other characters to be enjoyable, like Kevin James as Frankenstein's monster, Steve Buscemi as the werewolf, David Spade as the invisible man, Cee Lo Green as the mummy, etc. All of them were enjoyable in their own right.

The animation in the film was just spectacular in several ways. Sony Animation has really shown to do great animation, just like with "Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs." It was well paced, it really had so much to look at, and it showcases many monsters in such creative ways. While knowing Adam Sandler and Andy Samberg were in the film was a good enough treat, what made me really enjoy the film was the director, Genndy Tartakovsky, the creator of "Dexter's Laboratory," "Symbiotic Titan," and "Samurai Jack," three of my all time favorite cartoons. I'm glad to see that he's still getting work, and I'm hoping that sooner or later he gets a studio to green-light him to do a "Samurai Jack" movie, after over a decade.

Overall, "Hotel Transylvania" is a film that is ripe for the Halloween season. It's fun, its humor is clever, its got fantastic animation, and it's one of my favorite movies of the year so far. If you're a fan of Adam Sandler, Andy Samberg, or Genndy Tartakovsky, you'll love this movie. However, if you're not into CG animation, Samberg, or Sandler, then you'll skip this.

Rating: 10/10


Next time: Frankenweenie

Taken 2

In 2008, we were given the Pierre Morel film, "Taken," starring Liam Neeson. It told the story of Bryan Mills, a former CIA agent who's daughter was kidnapped, while on a trip to Paris. When Mills finds out about it, he goes the extreme to find the culprits, kill them, and get his daughter back. While it was a simple premise and critics were a bit mixed by it, the film has gained a strong cult following from action fans alike. Not only that, this film is what made Neeson a successful action star, appearing in such films as "The A-Team," "The Grey," and "Unknown."

Now we've come to the 6th, and sadly final, movie that Liam Neeson appears in for this year. The sequel to the film that made him the badass he is today, "Taken 2." How was it? Maybe not as good as the original, but still an enjoyment either way.

"Taken 2," takes place after the first film, with Bryan Mills' daughter and ex-wife coming with him to Istanbul for Spring Break, while he's at work. However, the relatives of the people that Mills killed are hunting him down, and now it's a game of cat-and-mouse for Mills and his hunters. While the plot might be simple, it doesn't mean it's bad if it knows how to make it work right.

As always, Liam Neeson gives a strong performance as he did in the original. He's smart, he's cautious, and he still has the same intimidation factor as with the first movie. I was generally surprised by Maggie Grace's performance, now that she has more to work with, other than being a hostile character from the first film. She does try to keep herself strong, as long as she's following her father's guild-lines  and it works. However, that doesn't quite make up for her atrocious performance in "Lockout." Yeah, thought I forgot about that movie, didn't ya?

As for the rest of the cast...well, not much can be said. The villains wanting vengeance are what they are, so nothing much can be said. The mother played by Famke Janssen, while not bad, didn't really leave much an impression. That might be due to her being a minor character in the first, but thankfully it doesn't take away anything from the film. Many of the other characters, like Mills friends in the CIA, are on the same level, and like I said, don't take anything from the movie.

The action scenes are great, but don't really hold up to what the original had. Instead of Pierre Morel as director, we have Olivier Megaton, who was the director of the Zoe Saldana film, "Columbiana," and it's a vast improvement in terms of action. It was also produced by Luc Besson, producer of the first film, as well as the "Transporter" trilogy, the "Taxi" quadrilogy, and "The Fifth Element," which he also directed. His production value really helps this film, and the shots of Istanbul really work well for this movie.

Overall, "Taken 2" may not be as good as the original, but it's still just as fun watching. If you're looking for a good time, then give this movie a go, and if they DO decide to do a third film, I'll be there for it.

Rating: 8/10

Looper

Time travel movies are a genre among themselves, but seemed to have been taking a set back for some time now. While there are a few that pop up, none of them have been as iconic as certain films. "Back to the Future" still stands as the most iconic of the genre, as well as being one of the greatest film trilogies ever made. There have been other movies that had time travel, the more recent being the new "Star Trek" and "Men in Black 3," but none of those films hold a candle to the new film, "Looper."

"Looper" tells the story of Joe, played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who is one of many specialized killers that execute criminals from the future, and collect the silver sent to them. If a looper has their future self sent as their next target, they have thirty years left to live, before they're put in that place. When Joe gets his future self, played by Bruce Willis, he hesitates, giving the older Joe a chance to get away. Now Present Joe has to find his future self, and either kill him or find out certain info his future self knew. This film is just breathtaking with every moment shown. The depth, mystery, and logic is not only clever, but downright glorious. The elements of time travel done for this film, and doesn't leave as many confusing resolutions as any other time travel film.

The casting works excellent in this movie. Joseph Gordon-Levitt does a fantastic job in this movie, and gave quite possibly the best performance I've seen him give. With what his character does is pretty expected from someone who works with this type of organization. Paul Dano appears in the film as Joe's friend, and he did a fantastic job, despite the screen time he has. Sure, he plays a bit of a smart-aleck, but he has depth in his character. Jeff Daniels plays Joe's boss and leader of the organization, and gives a fantastic performance. In one scene, where he's interrogating someone, he doesn't do the stereotypical thing where he tortures a guy. Instead, he just has a talk with him, and it's all just calm and smart. Definitely one of the most original interrogation scenes I've seen in film. Emily Blunt plays the mother of a child, and delivers a great performance along with the others. All I can say, is that she definitely made up for "The Five-Year Engagement." Bruce Willis as the older Joe was a great choice to play an older Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and how both actors work off playing one in the same. Not only that, but his backstory on how his life was before going back was resonable at times, but it makes you wonder which Joe should you actually root for. And some of the actions that Willis does make you hate him for it, but also makes you feel what Willis felt in the film.

The film was written and directed by Rian Johnson, who also directed "The Brothers Bloom," and "Brick," which is another film starring Gordon-Levitt. With this being his third film and best film, he's marked his place as one of my favorite directors proudly. If any other film of his is planned out soon, then I'll be seeing it the weekend it comes out.

Overall, "Looper" is by far the best time travel film I've seen since "Back to the Future," as well as being a strong contender for best film of the year. It's dramatic, it's action-packed, it has a good western feel to it, and keeps the sci-fi element subtle. If you get a chance, I highly recommend it.

Rating: 10/10

The Expendables II

If you grew up in the 80's to 90's, or had siblings who did, then you would have seen at least one cheesy action film. Films like "Commando," "Cobra," "Judge Dredd," "Independence Day," "Rocky 2-4," "Die Hard," "True Lies," "Predator," "First Blood," and many others. Many people have grown up with the action stars of those generations, one way or the other.

In 2010, there came a film that was a giant comeback to classic cheesey action films of the 80's, under the name "The Expendables." It had stars like Sylvester Stallone, Jason Statham, Dolph Lungren, Jet Li, Terry Crews, "Stone Cold" Steve Austin, and many others. It was an answer to many people wanting to see an old-stlye action film. People enjoyed it for its simple premise, huge amounts of action, and great one-liners, coming from some well developed characters. But what really stood out for the movie, was that moment when Sylvester Stallone, Bruce Willis, AND Arnold Schwarzenegger are all in the same scene, and are having a small conversation. This was an action movie fan's dream come true, and it stands as one of the most famous moments in movie history.

After the success of the first film, you know that they'd make a sequel to it. And with Arnold returning to acting again, it makes perfect sense to do it. Not only that, but they've also been getting others in the film as well. So after the midnight premiere, how was it? FRIGGIN' AMAZING!

The film continues from where the first film left off, as Barney Ross and his friends return from a mission with their new member, Billy "the Kid." However, before they can rest, Church finds Ross again, and says that he has to find a case with blueprints to a plutonium mine. It's as simple as you'd expect, but what matters is how well it's executed.

It has a lighter action cast, but it's well worth it. Stallone, Stathan, Couture, Crews, Lungren return as the main team, and Li, Willis, and Schwarzenegger come back with some good screentime, and it's WELL worth it! Would you honestly believe Arnold got all of his scenes filmed in one day? But despite that, it also has Liam Hemsworth as a new recruit in the film, and he is pretty damn good. They were also able to get Jean-Claude Van Damme as the villain, who is just this despicable douchebag, but in the way you love him for it. Not only that, but they got Chuck Norris to appear in the film, and you could tell his character was just made to be played by him, because they make a Chuck Norris joke in it. I'm not kidding, they do that. What really took me off guard, was that Jet Li leaves after the first few scenes, which was a bit disappointing since he was such a joy to watch in the first film. But, maybe he'll return for the third film.

The action scenes are some of the absolute best I've ever seen, for a full-on action flick. I really did feel like I was watching those action flicks of the 80's on the big screen. I was enjoying the film enough as it was, but when it got the the third act, it became something only those could dream of. If the third act wasn't done as well as it was, then I wouldn't have loved it as much. I praise this film for those final scenes.

The film was directed by Simon West, who was also the director of "Con-Air," "Lara Croft: Tomb Raider," and....ugh..."When a Stranger Calls"...Yeah, he's not a very good director. However, this is a film where I can say, he did everything right! So I give my most humble gratitude to West on this film.

Overall, "The Expendables II," is one of the best sequels ever made, possibly the best pure-action film I've seen, and is one of my favorite movies of the year. If you're looking for some kick-ass moments in this movie, see this one. And with word of the third one in the works AND that they're trying to get Clint Eastwood and Harrison Ford in it, let's hope that it happens!

Rating: 10/10

ted

Seth MacFarlene is certainly one of those workers in animation that's very hit and miss with what he does. He's mostly known for "Family Guy," and his two other shows, "American Dad" and "The Cleveland Show." However, some seem to forget that he got his start working as a writer for Cartoon Networks' first three Cartoon Cartoons: "Dexter's Laboratory," "Cow and Chicken," and "Johnny Bravo." But whether you like his work or not, you can at least say his work is...something. And today, we're here to talk about his first feature film, "ted."

"ted" is about a young loner named John, whose never had any friends that will hang out with him. One Christmas, he gets a teddy bear and wishes he could talk to him, and on the night of a falling star, Ted comes to life and fame comes to him, but still stays with John as his best friend. Fast forward to 27 years later, and Ted's now a pot-smoking former celebrity, and John's still a kid at heart, working at a car-rental. On his four year anniversary with his girlfriend Lori, John has Ted move out and get work, all while trying to decide on if he should still be hanging out with Ted or move on in life with Lori.

Now with what I saw in the trailers, it looked pretty good, and it got me hoping that they weren't the funniest parts of the movie. Luckily, I was treated to so much more in the film, with great humor, great acting, and some great chemistry between the characters. You might think it's the same typical humor from "Family Guy," but this is something different.

Mark Wahlberg plays John, and it's one of his best performances. Since Wahlberg is a great comedic actor, he was a great choice in the film, and delivers some great dialogue. Mila Kunis was pretty good too, and her being in the movie was a bit expected, since this IS a Seth MacFarlene movie. Speaking of which, Alex Borstein and Patrick Warburton are in the movie as well. Borstein appears in the beginning of the movie as John's mother, but that's it. She doesn't appear anywhere else. Patrick Warburton plays John's co-worker, Guy, and I felt that he should have been in there more, but that's a minor gripe. It was said that Seth Green wouldn't be in the movie, mostly because he and MacFarlene aren't as friendly as they used to, so I don't know. Sam Jones, who you may remember as Flash Gordon, is in the movie playing himself, and what he does is hysterical. He was such and enjoyment to watch, and you could tell that MacFarlene was a "Flash Gordon" fan, with many references to it. However, the performance that really stands out, is Seth MacFarlene as Ted. He does the motion-capture of Ted, and his performance, timing, and everything else really does an excellent job, and at one point pulls reference to "Short Circuit 2," in a way.

Overall, "ted" is one the best comedies I've seen, as well as one of my favorite movies of the year. It's funny, it's clever, it's acted great, and it has a very unique charm to it. Was it better than "That's My Boy"? In a way, yes, because as I look back at that film, I feel that there were some other comedies that I liked better, and "ted" is one of them. Don't get me wrong, I still think "That's My Boy" was great, but I think I gave it a bit too much praise, saying it was the best comedy I've ever seen. But still, both films are great, especially since both of them have similarities with their premise, but I recommend "ted" more.

Rating: 10/10

Man on a Ledge

When it comes to the modern day action star, Sam Worthington is one of those who actually does a failry decent job. Even with films like "Avatar," and "Clash of the Titans," he's still a good actor. It just depends on the right role in the right movie. Thankfully, earlier in the year he starred in the film, "Man on a Ledge."

The film tells the story of Nick Cassidy, an ex-cop who was sent to jail after being framed for stealing the monach gem from David Englander. When he escapes, he goes to New York City and stands on a ledge of a building, which turns out to be a distraction while his brother and brother's girlfriend try to steal the monach gem from David, to prove he's innocent. What really astounds me, is that this film is more than what it seems. It's very clever at parts, leaving you on the edge of your seat, and really keeps you wondering what will happen next.

Sam Worthington as Nick Cassidy does a great job as always, and it's really good to know that he's got a good role in a good movie. He's clever, has a very well thought out plan, and it's very believable. Elizabeth Banks plays Lydia Mercer, who is the detective that is trying to reason with. I really enjoyed her performance in the film, and the way her character is structures is actually quite impressive. I also enjoyed the performances by Jamie Bell and Genesis Rodriguez, who are also both really great to watch. The chemestry between the two as well as scenes where they work off each other is quite stunning. I really hope to see both of them in the future. Ed Harris as David Englander was a bit cliche on parts, but it's done in the right way. His reactions and timing were done so perfectly, that it shows that one actor can do so much with a stereotype. Anthony Mackie as Nick's old partner Mike, and he was genuinely good, though I wished they showed he and Nick working together when he was a cop.

The heist scenes were pretty entertaining, and the dialogue was delievered pretty well. I found much about the film to be entertaining on many parts, though some scenes can be a bit pretentious, but I won't spoil them. The film was directed by Asger Leth, and this is his first film, so I can see some aspects of that. I also found it kind of shocking how he ACTUALLY had Sam Worthington on the ledge of a building, instead of green screen, so props for that.

Overall, "Man on a Ledge" is a pretty underrated film, and I think it deserves more than it got. It's entertaining, it's well thought out, it really knows what it's doing, and I found it a great film to watch. If you get the chance, check it out.

Rating: 9/10

Gone

Ever since the whole "Twilight" craze came up and about, directors where probably thinking that if they had an actress just as bland, they could get just as much money. And thus, we have Amanda Seyfried. Despite having a good start in her career with "Mean Girls," everything else went downhill for this woman, being in films like "Dear John," "Jennifer's Body," and one of the year's worst from last year, "Red Riding Hood." I've also heard word that she'll be appearing as Cosette in "Les Miserables," and after her work in "Mama Mia," I'm worried about that film, as much as I'm worried about Jonah Hill appearing in "Django Unchained." But right now, I have to worry about Seyfried's recent movie from earlier this year, "Gone."

The film tells us about Amanda Seyfried, who plays Jill Conway, a girl who was kidnapped and almost killed by a mysterious man named Jim McCoy, and is the only one who got away from him. Shortly after, he's returned but instead captures Jill's sister Molly, and now it's up to Jill to track her down in the next 12 hours or she's through, all while the police are after Jill since she has a gun with her.

Now despite this being an interesting premise, there's just so much that really brings the film down. And when I say down, I mean DOWWWWNNNN. I mean, everyone in the film was just painful to watch. The police are just some of the most unrealistic I've ever seen on film. The only one who actually has a small BIT of character is Wes Bently, YES the same guy who played the villain in the first "Ghost Rider." But even then, he's terrible since he doesn't do that much. As for Amanda Seyfried, her performance, much like "Red Riding Hood," gives a blank emotionless face throughout the movie. She didn't get me invested into the movie, and I almost fell asleep during this movie. Yeah, she's that terrible. Her backstory about her and Jim McCoy are completely stupid, because it has no structure, accomplishment, and she's a complete idiot, falling directly into his trap. She also "develops" to be as bad as Jim, because *spoiler alert, which doesn't matter anyway* she just flat out kills him. Not only that, but when her sister is found and tells the police that Jim's back, Seyfried just says that it was all in her head. Okay, I just have to ask...WHO WROTE THIS CRAP?! And as a mystery thriller, there's no suspense built, nor is there anything solved here. It turns out to be some jackass serial killer, and you aren't sucked into nothing at all, except this bullshit excuse of a movie.

That's all that I can actually say about this movie, since that's honestly all there is to it. Overall, "Gone" has a title that makes me wish this movie was in my memory. If you have any interest in watching this movie, DON'T! This film was supposedly recommended to watch on Netflix and Redbox. Well, guess what? This film isn't even worth the 50% bargain bin at the dollar store!

Rating: 1/10

The Amazing Spiderman

Spiderman. He is to Marvel the same way Batman is to DC. I had gotten invested in the character of Spidey, though not enough to read the comics, that I watched as much as I could of the animated series. To me, Spiderman is the icon of Marvel, and while it has many other characters that I got invested into, Spiderman sticks out in a good way. And when it came to films, it got me more into the character, starting with the trilogy from "Evil Dead" director, Sam Raimi, and starring Tobey Maguire.

The first film was considered by many to be a shining light to fans. It told the origins of Spiderman on how he got his powers, and showed how he started to become the hero he is. Many people loved it, others found it alright, but it was a big hit at the box office. While I do enjoy the movie, some of the dialogue and effects were a bit wonky, but I didn't let that get by me. One of the big things pointed out, was the villain of the film, the Green Goblin. Granted, Willum Defoe was pretty good, there were moments that went overboard, and that costume was a bit...silly. I mean seriously, he looked like he just came back from a Power Rangers convention. But aside from that, it was pretty good.

The second film was given much higher praise with its updates. The effects had gotten better, the dialogue was polished well, and the acting was better in terms of the main characters. Not to mention, Alfred Molina as Doctor Octopus did an excellent job, which was a big improvement from the Green Goblin. And need we forget, probably one of the greatest trailer themes of all time? The fact that they got Danny Elfman to do the music for the films, is another reason why I enjoy these films, with it's music. For a while, this was considered the best of the "Spiderman" films, but not for me. It's good, but not my favorite.

Then we got "Spiderman 3," and people were thinking the series would go higher in terms of how good it would be. However, all I ever hear about this film was nitpick after nitpick after nitpick. What did people not like about this movie? Too many villains, emo Peter Parker, certain characters thrown in for no reason, little to no Venom, them killing off Venom, and blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Well for me, I actually liked this film, thinking it was the best of the trilogy. And before some of you start to pester me about how it's a piece of shit, hear this. The main reason Spiderman 3 was hated, was because most of the fans wanted Venom to be in it, even though Sam Raimi didn't want to. Same thing happened with Sega when they made "Sonic '06," where fans pestered Sega to release the game earlier than what it was intended for. Yeah, I just compared "Spiderman 3" to "Sonic '06," but it's the truth. If you have anyone to blame, blame the people who pestered Sam Raimi. On some aspects, yeah, there were certain moments I can agree with, but it wasn't horrible as people said. To me, it's a guilty pleasure, and I actually thought it was better than "Spiderman 2," due to it being action packed, and actually pretty funny.

Plans were made for a "Spiderman 4," but when Sam Raimi left the project, Sony had to just cancel the project all together. In result, Sony had decided to reboot the series all together, making it in the same sense of Chris Nolan's Batman films. I was a bit off with that, especially with the teaser trailers making it look like a Twilight-clone and then more like a film adaption of the game "Mirror's Edge." Granted, I'm big on POV shots in 3D, but there's a limit. But as further trailers were released, my hopes got a little higher.

So after attending the midnight showing of this movie...I was blown away by how good this was. This was SUCH a fantastic movie! In this new film, it had so many things about it that made it so much more passionate than the other three films. It's simply amazing, hence the title, and it's a film that I had enjoyed with every second until the end of the credits. To describe the plot to you, would be just a crime for me, because I want you to see this movie.

The casting was such an enjoyment to watch on screen. Andrew Garfield as the new Peter Parker was SUCH an improvement, compared to Tobey Maguire. Despite my dislike for "The Social Network," I enjoyed his performance, and when I heard he was playing Spiderman, I bought it. His performance in this movie just kept me begging for more. He's much more realistic as the character he portrays, and when dramatic moments happen, he's brilliant. Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy, I absolutely loved in the film. I've heard much skepticism about her playing Gwen Stacy, saying that she should have been Mary Jane, since she was a redhead anyway. However, after seeing her in "The Help," she's a decent blond, and this film is no exception. Her performance as the character works, and I was one of those people who was anything BUT skeptic about her. The romance between her and Peter was just excellent, and I simply got hooked into this. Rhys Ifans as Dr. Connors was a great character to watch. What really struck me about this film was that Ifans had his character portrayed in the same escence as Jeff Goldblum in "The Fly," and I praise that film for pulling omage to that film. I honestly couldn't get enough of him as Dr. Connors, because it worked so brilliantly. As the Lizard, I was actually intimidated by him, despite looking a little off. By that I mean, he had the flat face look of Voldemort, instead of a snout like in the animated series. However, I let that go, because I liked that they tried something new with it. Denis Leary in the film, was AWESOME! His character of the chief of police and Gwen's father was just brilliant. Two scenes that I loved watching him in were the dinner scene and the climax. He's just a joy to sit through, and this movie gets props for giving him much character and personality. Martin Sheen and Sally Field as Uncle Ben and Aunt May were just enjoyable to watch. I couldn't help but enjoy every bit of their relationship with Peter, and the scene of Uncle Ben's death was more believable and heart breaking. I was actually surprised to see that C. Thomas Howell, who was in the Francis Ford Coppola film "The Outsiders" and the original "The Hitcher," was in this film. I don't want to spoil what he does in the film, but let's just say he lends a helping hand to Spiderman in the third act. Not only that, but it has Stan Lee's best cameo in any of the Marvel films, and it's just hilarious!

The special effects in this movie were fantastic to watch, and the 3D is some of the best I've ever seen! This was entirely what I wanted the new Batman films to be. I wanted them to be darker, but at least have a bit of camp-value to them, and this movie does a lot of that! After 10 years since the first Raimi "Spiderman," I can definitely say I want this over them.

The film was directed by Marc Webb, who directed my all-time favorite movie, "(500) Days of Summer," and he delivered ANOTHER fantastic movie! In fact, during the film, you can see some elements of that film present in this movie, but not as much as for me to just feel like watching that movie. Granted, I still think "(500) Days" is still my favorite movie, but this came pretty damn close. Yes, I loved this movie that much.

Overall, "The Amazing Spiderman" is MORE than amazing! Now you might be wondering, do I like this better than "The Avengers"? More than you'd ever imagine! While "Avengers" was a great film, and has been built up for many movies, "Amazing Spiderman" had one film that was more than a treat! It's dramatic, it's funny, it's breathtaking, it's sad, it's scary, and is HANDS DOWN...the best film of the year! It is now competing with Tim Burton's "Batman" for my favorite comic book movie, and I'm proud to put it up that high.

Rating: 10/10

Brave

I've said beforehand, I'm a fan of the work done by Pixar. Even with some of their weakest entries, like "Cars" and "Cars 2," I still enjoy them. They've shown how great their animation has gotten over the years, from working with toys, to bugs, then monsters and fish, and it all looks excellent. I love how wonderous their animation, pacing, and characters have become, and it's easy to say they earned the title of "Cinematic Guardian."

With their newest film, "Brave," I was looking forward to it, with much anticipation. The animation was great, and I felt like Pixar was going to give us another fantastic action movie. At first, it seemed like a good movie was coming out, however later in the year I was a bit worried about the man directing the movie. Mark Andrews, whose been apart of Pixar for years, was the director and writer for the film, but he was also part of the biggest box office bomb in history, "John Carter," which made me doubt the film a bit. Basically, I thought "Brave" wouldn't be as good as I would be expecting.

However, I was totally wrong. Not only is this a good film, but it's honestly one of the best films that I had the pleasure of sitting through!

The film tells the story of the Scottish princess of the Clan DunBroch, Merida, who is a skilled archer, which doesn't seem to please her mother, Queen Elinor, who wants Merida to be acting like a lady, and follow tradition. On the day she is to be wed to one of the first born princes of the other three clans, Merida sets up an archery competition, in which she is the one who wins her own hand and gets all three bullseyes. However, Elinor becomes enraged by her daughter's act, and throws her bow into the fire, causing Merida to run off crying. Soon, Merida encounters a witch, and asks for a spell to change her mother so her fate can be changed. Unfortunately, it's not what she expected, and now Merida has to figure out how to fix things, as well as change her mother back.

What realy sets this apart from other Pixar films, is simply how you look at it. This film was advertised to be in the same story structures of “The Little Mermaid,” even to where some people could complain this film stole from that film, but it's so much more. Throughout this movie, the film has many interesting characters, fantastic visuals, and becomes a film about a mother-daughter relationship, determination, regret, and by the end: redemtion.

The characters in this were such a joy. King Fergus was a really fun character to watch, being a brute who cares about his family, and also cares about her daughter being who she wants, but is basically stamped on that by his wife. It's obvious that the queen is in charge, due to keeping control of her king. Which brings me to Queen Elinor, played by Emma Thompson. She's basically portrayed as the over-motherly character, but when you get into it, you understand why she does this. She's afraid that if tradition is too broken out, then bad things will happen, like in the legend of the Four Clans. I won't say what it is, because I want you to see the movie, but let me tell you, it's pretty good. Merida herself is very well established, due to having such a colorful personality, and being a fierce archer as well. Now due to this film being compared to “The Little Mermaid” was because of the character and plot-points of Merida and Elinor being similar to Ariel and Triton. Well, while I do agree that they are similiar, I think this film did it better than “The Little Mermaid,” mostly due to this film actually showing more of the relationship between Merida and Elinor, and the fact that Merida actually learns something from what she did. To me, that's what sets this movie apart, with the fact that it actually shows chemistry between these characters. When seeing how strong the bond between a mother and her kin can be, it can make one think about the heartbreak it will be when they're ready to leave. It's a very powerful and believable relationship that isn't very present with most films these days. I also want to say that Merida's triplet brothers were hilarious to watch. Everytime they were onscreen, they got me laughing at whatever they were doing. Plus, how they help Merida in the third act, had the best line in the entire movie. The other clans leaders and their sons were a joy to watch as well, especially when they're arriving at the kingdom at the same time.

The animation and 3D in this film was what held this gem together. It was simply brilliant, and I just kept begging for more of it. It was also told that they had to update with the the technology for this film, to get the animation right on Merida's hair. That shows a lot of hard work for filmmaking in terms of animation. Also, this was probably one of the more adult of the Pixar films. Not in terms of “Toy Story 3,” where it got darker for the audiences growing up. I'm talking about the OTHER kind. Let's just say, I think this the first time Pixar showed this much ass in any of their films...Yeah, THAT kind of adult. But I didn't let that distract me.

Overall,  "Brave" is a film that DEFINES masterpiece, and is by far one of my favorite movies of the year! It shows how much passion Pixar can have for it's films. Its story is told in a very brilliant matter, the character development is astoundingly brilliant, the pacing is just a joy to sit through, the action scenes are done fantastically, and the animation is PHENOMENALLY breathtaking! I loved this movie! I really, REALLY, loved this movie, and it's absolutely impossible to find anything that's not to enjoy about it!  If you have family with nothing to do as of the time, then ask them to see this movie with you. I HIGHLY recommend it with full force.

Rating: 10/10

Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter

Last night, I had attended the midnight showing of the newest film from producer Tim Burton, and that is "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter." And for those who don't know, let me answer your question. YES, they made a film with that title. It was actually based on a novel of the same name, written by Seth Grahame-Smith. Now honestly, I'm really not into the whole "Presidents doing some adventurous things" because it's mostly been happening with current ones. However, when it happens with presidents that have passed on, like Abe Lincoln and they make him into a vampire hunter, then it works. I haven't read the novel, but I'm hoping to aquire it someday.

But that's not what you want to hear, you want to hear about the movie that's based on the book. How does it work out? Well, it gave me what I was expecting...but at the same time it felt like it wasn't enough.

The film tells the story of young Abraham Lincoln, who lost his mother to a vampire after trying to help his friend whose being beaten by the vampire's goon. Years later, he meets up with a man named Henry, who trains him to hunt down vampires, eventually leading to the one who killed his mother, only to realize that now he's got himself in deep shit, when the head vampire is a plantation owner in the south, leading to a crossing battle of actions and words, leading to the Civil War.

For a film as ridiculous as "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter," you expect this film to be a complete toungue-in-cheek ridiculous. It does have a couple moments like that, where you laugh at how ridiculous it was, but it's different for the rest of the film. The film basically dives into parts of Abe's life, like when he meets Mary, up to the events of the Civil War. That bothered me, because it made parts of the film feel a bit loose and a bit unfinished. It should have dealt with one part of Abe's life that would lead up to certain moments. That would have worked better. Another thing is that they establish throughout the film that silver is a vampire's weakness, which is inaccurate on many levels, since silver is a weakness to WEREWOLVES! I'm sorry, but how could you screw that up?! It'd be better if Lincoln and the soldiers had a cross bullets or neckaces of garlic with them, and they'd have to deal with the struggles on if they had faith or not. But my biggest problem with the movie is the tone of it, taking itself seriously, and it shouldn't. When you think of something like "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" you'd expect a so-bad-it's-good kind of movie like "Piranha 3D," or "Cowboys and Aliens". It just doesn't seem to take advantage of itself and it tries to act like a supernatural bio-pic. But it doesn't feel as well done on parts, ESPECIALLY in it's second-half, which doesn't get any better until the climax. From what I heard, there was so much changed and cut from the book. I would have said that the writers were disregarding the author's work...but the writer of the screenplay WAS the author of the play, Seth Grahame-Smith, so I guess somethings I can let go.

The casting of this film was decent from what I saw. Benjamin Walker as Abe Lincoln does a pretty decent job, and I liked his portrayl in the film. However, when he's at the point where he's an old man, he just doesn't fit the role of Lincoln anymore.  One thing that I would have loved to see, is Abe's father getting a larger role in the film, and for him to be played by Liam Neeson. Because, when you look at Walker's face, you could have sworn that they wanted to get Liam Neeson in the film as his dad, but I guess he turned it down, in exchange for "Taken 2." Dominic Cooper plays Henry, the man who trains Abe. He gives a pretty good performance, but the twist that this character has is given away when you first see him at his house. Thanks a lot, movie. You spoiled your own twist at the beginning. Mary Elizabeth Winstead plays Abe's wife, and she was...alright. Not much else to say that would spoil the movie. Except that when Abe tells her that he hunts vampires, she's completely fine with it. Then later on, when she sneaks up on him, she asks him if he's hiding anything from her, which is his axe. Uh, quick question: He just said he was a vampire hunter, so...don't you think he would have a weapon on him just in case anyone tried to sneak up on him? Rufuss Sewell plays the head vampire, and I enjoyed how he handled this role pretty well. If he was intimidating, then he can be, but it only comes to that during the climax.

The action scenes, I'll admit were pretty good for the most part. When they were shown, it's pretty cool, and with it being in 3D, it's EXCELLENT! Like at one scene where a knife is thrown and cuts a spark, or when someone's getting whipped and it comes flying at your face. There's also a scene where another character named Speed rescues Lincoln and his friend, which actually reminded me of "Devil May Cry 3" in a way. Not only that, but even some of the slo-mo action scenes actually worked, and it felt right when it was used. Take note, Paul Anderson.

Overall, "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" has some redeeming qualties, in terms of action scenes and 3D, but it took itself too seriously, and it also feels rushed on certain parts. It doesn't quite live up to as expected, but then again, all I expected was Abe Lincoln fighting vampires, and I got that. But if you want to see this movie, just for it's title alone, then I'd suggest catching a matinee showing.

Rating: 5/10

That's My Boy

Adam Sandler is one of those comedians whose pretty nostalgic, and seems to get more hate than deserved. Sure, films like "Jack and Jill" and "Funny People" might be a cause for it, but some of his other work done by Happy Madison Studios is still pretty good. Since I saw his 1999 film, "Big Daddy," I've grown to like Sander's style of comedy, and "Punch Drunk Love" can show how much of a great dramatic actor he can be. With his other films, I've always found one way or the other to like them. It's pretty easy to say, he's the comedian of my childhood. On another note, Andy Samberg seems to have his reputation pretty well balanced. His teamwork with the comedy trio of "The Lonely Island" on SNL, like Sandler, has good comedy to it, especially with them doing the digital shorts like "Laser Cats," and the highly underrated comedy, "Hot Rod," still holds up. For a while, I've always hoped that one day that the three of them would one day work on a great project with other favorite comedians of mine.

Fortunately, my wish was partially granted, with Sandler and Samberg playing the role of a father and son duo, in "That's My Boy." Now when I heard about this film, when it was called "I Hate You Dad" then to "Donny's Boy," I immediately got hyped. This would be the first time I get to see two of my favorite comedians work together for the first time. It was a dream come true, to where I thought either one of them found a post online about it. And when I saw the trailer for this film, I got even more hyped, that I could enjoy my dream comedy. Though, I didn't want to get myself TOO hyped, becuase if it didn't live up to ALL of my expectations, then I would be negative towards it. So I only kept myself thinking it would at least be a decent comedy. I got that...AND more! This film not only lives up to it's expectations, but SURPASSES them! I loved this movie, I really...REALLY loved this movie!

The film centers around Donny Berger, a young middle schooler (who actually ACTS like a middle schooler) who seems to have an affection for his teacher, Mary McGarricle. After having a hidden relationship with her, Donny becomes big after he's found out, but gets Mary pregnant and then sent to jail. Three decades later, Donny grows up into Adam Sandler, and is not that big a star as he used to, and he's in dept to the IRS with over forty-grand. When he finds out his son Han Solo Berger, played by Andy Samberg, who left at eighteen and changed his name to Todd Peterson, is gettin married and will be the richest hedge-trimmer in the country, Donny tries to make-up for all he's done and win his son's trust and respect back.

Now that's as far as I'm going with it, because if I did that, I'd spoil the movie. This film was worth practically worth every minute watching! I laughed so hard at this film, that it more than makes up for any bad film Sandler's been apart of! However, I'll admit there were a couple things I didn't find settling, but it's extremely minor. With it being 'R-rated,' it had room for a bit grotesque moments like the sight of a guy's boner, a man's ass in the shot, strippers, and a lot more. Stuff like that does tend to be a bit off, and disgusts me, since that usually tends to be the type of comedy I'm not into like others...but I let it go for this movie. I know stuff like this would be there, so I was prepared. I mean, the trailers basically tell us that a teenager screwed his teacher, why WOULDN'T there be so much sexual humor?

The casting was simply great. You already know that Sandler and Samberg are in this film, and let me say that they do a fantastic job together. When the two are on screen together, it's just comedy gold for me. Leighton Meester plays Samberg's fiance, Jamie, and she was surprisingly good. By that, I mean that she was just completely AWEFUL in last year's movie, "The Roommate," so I was very skeptic about her in this movie. However, I decided to give her a chance, thinking she could be good in this film. And thankfully, she was great in this film! She was very enjoyable in this film, and I praise her for actually showing effort in this movie. I also love how her family was portrayed in the movie! The father, the mother, and even the brother got a laugh out of me! I also enjoyed Samberg's boss and his mother. Every moment got at least a chuckle out of me, ESPECIALLY Vanilla Ice. Yes, the white rapper from the 90's is in this film, and he plays Sandler's friend and Samberg's uncle. I friggin loved the Ice-man and he had me laughing so hard, I just kept begging for him to be in more! Not only that, but Will Forte had a great performance; James Caan as the priest was fantastic; even Nick Swardson was pretty good too. People seem to think Nick Swardson is nothing but a talentless, unfunny, annoying, un-original hack, but I think he can give a funny performance at times. Sure, he's had some hit and miss points, but he tries. Honestly, the way people think of Swardson is how I feel about Jonah Hill, only it's truer.

Overall, "That's My Boy" is just a fantastic comedy! It's funny, it's got great pacing, the casting is fantastic, and is one of the greatest comedies I've seen in years! I hope one day Sandler and Samberg make another film toge-oh wait...that's "Hotel Transylvania"...uh...STILL! I hope their movie AFTER will have them, and at least the rest of "The Lonely Island"!

Rating: 9/10

Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted

For over a decade now, Dreamworks has had many computer-animated films brought to us. Some have turned out smashes, and others made us WANT to smash them out. While the gimmick of CG animation has spread throughout, especially to compete with Pixar, they at least try to give a good movie. However, one series they've had just seems to be both hit and miss on many levels. That franchise is "Madagascar."

The first "Madagascar" film was about Marty, played by Chris Rock, who longs to be out of the zoo and into the wild with his friends, Alex the Lion, Gloria the Hippo, and Melman the Giraffe, who don't think the same way. But after getting boarded onto a ship with the penguins, they soon end up in Madagascar. Honestly, the concept was interesting, and while there were some enjoyable things about it, I can't necessarily say it was good. It just wasn't a film I could get into. Even with an all-star cast like Chris Rock, Ben Stiller, David Schimmer, Jada Smith, Cedric the Entertainer, Sacha Baron Cohen, and Tom McGrath, I just couldn't get into it.

The sequel, "Madagascar Escape 2 Africa" (...HA), was pretty much the exact same, only more forgettable and this time, they're all trying to get back to New York. They managed to escape the island of Madagascar, but now they're stuck in the plains of Africa. It was almost like the first movie, only it was more forgettable and I was just really bored with it. Nothing else to say there.

Now with the new film, "Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted," I'll admit was more memorable than the first, but it was still a forgettable film.

In the new movie, the penguins build a helicopter to Monte Carlo to get money and get a plane home. After a while, the animals swim to Europe to find them, but soon get into a wild goose chase with Europe's best animal control hunter, Captain Chantel DuBois. Soon, the animals hitch a ride with the circus, and try their best to get along, if they ever want to get home. There was just a lot of this film that I was just bored with, so if it feels like I'm skimming through anything, don't blame me.

Now let me get all the bad stuff out. First off is the humor, and for a kids film...it's not that it was bad, but it just felt confusing. I kept asking myself throughout the movie, 'Was...was that SUPPOSED to be funny?' and I end up with no answer. However, one joke made me just ANNOYED with this film, and that's when they ripped off "Spy Kids 4". I'm not kidding, they ripped off that movie, when the Russian tiger named Vitaly says "That's BULLSHIVIKS!" It's just like in "Spy Kids 4," when Alexa Vega says "Oh shi-taki mushrooms!" At that moment, I just facepalmed with anger at that. Another thing that bugged me, was the 'liar revealed' cliche, which is one of the most OBVIOUS cliches in the book, padding out the film. Even if they actually turn that lie into a truth, it just feels forced. There's also a "romance subplot" between King Julien, played by Sacha Baron Cohen, and the circus' bear. And if you thought Baron Cohen's character wasn't annoying and awkward enough, then just see the scenes with him and the bear. I have never been so confused, and downright creeped out by this in a long time.

Now what can I say that's good about the film. Well, the acting's not bad. It has most actors reprising their roles from the previous films, so their the same, being either okay or below. However, some of the casting for this new film surprised me a bit. Bryan Cranston, from "Malcolm in the Middle" and "Breaking Bad," plays Vitaly, the tiger, and to his credit he does a decent job. However, the stunts that made him a success with the circus are a little far-fetched, even for a cartoon. Martin Short is also in the film, playing a sea lion, and he was okay on some parts. However, the biggest casting shock for me was Oscar-nominee: Jessica Chastain and Oscar-winner: Frances McDormand.  Jessica Chastain, who was in "The Help," getting an Oscar nomination for it, plays the plot device-I mean jaguar, named Gia, who's the love interest for Ben Stiller as Alex the lion. She's...was okay, despite being a love-interest. Frances McDormand as Capt. DuBois, who sounded like she was having fun with this role. But it still surprises me that this film was capable of getting two Oscar talents into this film, yet only made one, and I repeat, ONE of them have more character than any of the other castings.

I'll also give the movie credit for it's animation. The animation is SPECTACULAR compared to the other two films, and with it being in 3D, it was great too...although with the 3D at times, they went a little too gimmicky by adding in some wide-angle lenses shots. But aside from that, when it got into certain circus acts and chase scenes, it looks phenominal. However, even with the nice acting, great animation, and 3D, it just wasn't enough to save the movie. Like I said, it's not as forgettable as the other two, but it still falls flat on certain parts. And being forgettable is probably one of the lowest crimes a film can do.

Overall, "Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted" isn't something I'd recommend. At least not in the theater that is. But if you're looking to pass the time, then I'd wait for it to come on Nickelodeon in a few months.

Rating: 4/10

Snow White and Thor (the Huntsman)

If you've read my review for "Mirror Mirror," then you'll know that I'm not too fond of the story of Snow White, or at least what most adaptions make it out to be. Sure, most Grimms Fairy Tales are turned from their dark and gritty origins into what they are today...NOT dark and gritty. Even if they have some elements from the original dark story, it doesn't quite live up to it's source material. The only film in the past fifteen years, the best example of a film that's been faithful to it's source material was Tim Burton's "Sleepy Hallow." Since then, no other film has come close to the faithful brilliance that Burton brought to his movie. Last year's "Red Riding Hood," directed by Catherine Hardwicke, attempted to do re-capture that magic, but the finished project was nothing more than a "Twilight" clone that Leonardo DiCaprio will probably not put on his production resume. Not too long after that film's release, there's been word of ANOTHER "Twilight" clone was on the way, and that it was going to be Snow White.

I've heard much about the casting, and I was not too happy with it. Kristen Stewart in the role of Snow White was probably a major mis-cast, since her performance in those "Twilight" movies was just unbearably boring. And when I saw the trailers, when she appeared, I thought she was going to give the same performance. However, I did see some hope shining up on this movie, at least for me. After his performance in "Thor," Chris Hemmsworth made me think that he might do an okay job as the Huntsman. Not to mention, it had some A-list actors in it like Bob Hoskins, Nick Frost, Ian McShane, Toby Jones, Charlize Theron, Ray Winstone, and many others. But even then, I was just not looking forward to this movie, because it just wasn't enough. However, after witnessing "Mirror Mirror," I thought to myself, "Maybe this won't be as bad as that film."

So when I went into the casino theater, I bought my ticket and drink, took a seat in a packed theater, and...I'm happy to say that this film was not only good, it's one of my favorites this year, hands down. "Snow White and the Huntsman" has practically EVERYTHING good in a movie.

The film is the story of Snow White, but has unique turns to it. Snow White's birth mother accidentally pricks her finger on a rose, wishing for her child to be in the description Snow White is. During childhood, she befriends a boy named William, but soon her mother dies of an illness the next winter, and the King is sent to fight an army that's more fragile than glass. When the King finds a woman named Ravenna, she's taken back to the kingdom as Snow White's step-mother. She then kills the king, has her men take over, and has Snow White locked away in the tower. Years later, the evil Queen Ravenna now needs Snow White's heart in order to become immortal with eternal beauty. But Snow White escapes, and now travels with the Huntsman, who was originally sent to kill Snow in exchange for his deceased wife, to Duke Hammond's castle, and gather an army to defeat Ravenna.

Now as much as I said how good the movie was, that's not to say the film's got some gripes. First off, some of the edits in this movie are a little clunky, and it does tend to distract for one or two action scenes, and that's not in the film's favor. Not to mention, I felt like some scenes were cut out, especially with one line at the end feeling unfinished. Maybe it will be added back in for its Blu-Ray release. Also, let's not forget, Kristen Stewart is not hotter than Charlize Theron. I call bullshit on that! Another thing, was the CGI, while not bad was a bit overused. In some scenes it looks great, but when they CG'd animals in there, it just made the film look a bit lazy in terms of not getting actual animals. But the biggest thing that bugged me, was in one scene where Snow meets this mythical creature, which is said to be a supposed-god of nature. I wouldn't have mind that, but...the thing looks EXACTLY like the forest god from "Princess Mononoke," and I just grew irritated by that. Out of all the animals you could have used in your fantasy film, you chose to steal one from one of the greatest films of all time and from the greatest animator and storyteller, Hayao Miyazaki, then that's just pathetic.

However, despite the bad stuff I hated in the movie, it got trumped by everything else that was good in the movie. Charlize Theron as Ravenna, the evil queen, just stole this movie. She gave a brilliant performance that was intimidating, but at the same time, over-the-top. And when she does, it's hard to take seriously, and you can't help but laugh. But most of the time, her performance sent chills down my spine, just looking into her eyes that basically tell you she's been through hell and back. Plus, when she gives Snow the apple in the movie, it's done in a different take. THAT worked out perfectly, I loved that scene, and it actually made me feel sorry for what would happen to Snow.

Chris Hemmsworth nailed the role of the Huntsman, and gave a surprisingly better performance in this than he did in "Thor" or "The Avengers," like this was just a walk in the park. Hemmsworth is on fire this year, after being in three great films this year, and I'm guessing it will keep going from here on out. What sells it the most for me, is when he confesses about his backstory and his wife. I felt really bad for the guy, and that scene was what made me find this Hemmsworth's best performance in a movie.

The make-up they used in this film was downright great with Ravenna, the dwarves, and many others. The dwarves were also pretty good in this film, with the make-up and effects they had done here. Though it does bother me that they used CGI instead of real little-people for the role. At least "Mirror Mirror" was capable of doing that, but I digress. Now going back to the CGI, most of it was amazing. I was just blown away by most of the effects and fight scenes, and when it's used right, it blew my mind. I honestly thought James Cameron was apart of this. I was a bit curious why they called "Snow White and the Huntsman" instead of "Seven Dwarves," but now I understand. The main focus is more on the Huntsman and Snow White.

Speaking of Snow White, who's played by Kristen Stewart, you're probably expecting me to say that she was just as bland as she was in "Twilight." But no, she did a brilliant job in this role. She may use the Bella Swan performance on some parts, where it looks like she's been through troulbe, but in this case IT ACTUALLY WORKS! In "Twilight," she basically had all this bad stuff happen because of HER! In "Snow White," she acts this way, because she's been locked away in a tower for over ten years. It actually feels like a performance. She prays, she feels desperate, she has that monotone voice, which feels hard to deal with. Everything in that performance was done right. However, with her to be considered the fairest of them all is a bit hard to believe, but I digress.

The action scenes in this film were simply amazing, and the camera work is what adds to it. Whomever the director or cinematographer was that did this, they did a brilliant job with it. The film was produced by Joe Roth, who also produced Tim Burton's version of "Alice in Wonderland," which marks this as Roth's second fantasy action film. In my mind, this makes "Alice" look like "Mirror Mirror" in terms of action. If they actually went all out to show blood in this, this would have made this an 'R rating' without a doubt.

Overall, "Snow White and the Huntsman" is by far the best dark fairy tale movie I've seen since "Sleepy Hallow." It's action packed, it's well-paced, it's got good story, it's got excellent characters, and it's just a great movie. I highly recommend it, if you want to see a film that may look like "Twilight" but better.

Rating: 9/10