The Hunger Games

Jennifer Lawrence is one of those actresses, that has recently gotten more work into the mainstream. We all know her portrayl as Mystique from "X-Men: First Class," and some of us VAGUELY remember "Winter's Bone," but aside from that, she's shown to be a pretty interesting actress. Today, we look at the recent film she's done, "The Hunger Games".

"The Hunger Games," based on the popular book series, tells the story of Katniss Everdeen, a young woman who volunteers in place of her sister in the Hunger Games, which is a reality tv sporting event, that was created as a replacement for wars to happen. Katniss is part of one of twelve districts, where a man and woman are selected from each district to participate in the event. For Katniss, she's part of District 12. As she's there, her friend Peeta is called up to be in the games too, as they are sent to this Utopia, to train for the day to fight. As it goes on, Katniss knows the works that the people give to the game, and uses her survival instincts to get stay alive. Survival films are what really intrigue me the most in films, mostly in terms of pacing, style, and build-up. It really took its time with this film, and being how it's about two and a half hours long, it definietly felt well done. The story structures of the film are well presented, and being how the games are established like reality tv, and does in a way that reality tv SHOULD be! The film was also compared to "Battle Royal", one of the greatest films of the past twenty years. For me, these films are different, in their own way. It does feel like the same film, but there are certain elements to it, that really do stand out from it.

Jennifer Lawrence does a great job as Katniss, and really did make me care about the character she was playing. Her bravery of taking over her sister's part in the Hunger Games, while rushed, was put together well. When she feels certain things happen to her, we feel the same thing with her. In one scene during the third act, when a commrade of hers dies, we feel the pain she's going through, as she sings a tune from the beginning of the film, and it can be heart breaking. Now, it was said that the casting for Katniss went up to about thirty other young actresses, including Hailee Steinfeld, Abigail Breslin, Chloe Moretz, Shailene Woodley, and Emma Roberts. Honestly, I would have prefered Abigail Breslin, but Jennifer Lawrence was still pretty damn good. Josh Hutcherson, who played Sean Anderson, in "Journey to the Center of the Earth," plays Peeta, Katniss' companion. He really did a great job in this film, showing his act of desperation to help her survive as much as he did. Now, one thing that critics hated about this movie, was that they felt the romance between Katniss and Peeta was force. But what they didn't know was that it was supposed to be forced. They're on reality tv, and one of the aspects that they need to survive, was to put on a show, and get certain items to assist them. It's a blatant attack on reality tv, and when I started to realize that, I started to love this movie even more. Woody Harrelson plays Haymitch, a surviving victor from District 12 and mentor to Katniss and Peeta. He did a great job in this movie, but to me, he'll always be Tallahassee from "Zombieland".


There wasn't much that I hated about the movie, other than it being an American version of Battle Royal. Though, it's not that bad of a remake. The film was commercialed to be 'The best book series since Twilight,' and I couldn't help but feel both lied and cheated at the same time. It's basically insulting this movie, saying it's like "Twilight," when it's anything but, since it has things that "Twilight" doesn't have. STORY AND CHARACTERS. The film was directed and co-written by Gary Ross, who also directed and co-written "Pleasantville" and "Seabiscuit". He was also a writer for films like "Dave", "Lassie", "The Tale of Despereaux", and "Big". It really is interesting for him to do such a great survival film such as this.

Overall, "The Hunger Games" does manage to be an enjoyable movie, and could serve as another book series that is worth adapting.

Rating: 8/10

John Carter

The fabled writer, Edgar Rice Burroghs, has been well known for making such fantastic works of literature. However, he sadly lost his life from a heart attack at the age of 74 in 1950. His most famous works were the Tarzan books and the Barsoom series.

Today, Disney has had the rights to the series, and, like Tarzan, has made it into a movie. But this time, it's live-action.

But first, let me give you a synopsis on the plot of the book. The book, "A Princess of Mars" was the story of John Carter, a captain of the Civil War, who finds himself by some mysterious reason on the planet Mars, or Barsoom as it's called by it's people. He is then taken prisoner by the Tharks, or green Martians, and has to prove himself worthy of being an ally to them. Afterwards, he starts to become more aquainted with the tribe leader Tars Tarkas, his daughter Sola, and a princess of Mars, Dejah Thoris, as he helps them fight for the safety and freedom of the planet. What the book gave, was a feeling of science fiction, acceptance of race, and a strong romance between John and Dejah. It was a compelling book, and as I'm working towards the second, I'm hoping it still holds up.

The movie, however, is a complete disappointment, since it was completely pathetic.

This film was SUCH a waste of my time. It had parts that tried to make it like the book, but I found only about 15% of this film to be faithful to the book. "John Carter" was a REAL disappointment. The action scenes in this film may look impressive, but it does get very boring as time goes on. John Carter's only useful ability on Mars in the film, is jumping really high. In the beginning of the film, which takes about 20 minutes until he's at Mars, shows that he's barely able to keep his balance, since the gravity is less than on Earth. It shows him struggling with the gravity, but then later on in the film, he shows that he can move about fine. In the book, they never established that he had that much struggle with Mars' gravitational pull, so why does he when he first appears on Mars, then later on get used to it?

By the way, what I said about the first 20 minutes of the film, was it really necessary to show how he got on Mars? It wasn't described on how he got on Mars in the first book, so why now? And plus, it shows John Carter as a pretty stubborn person, since in the beginning he's arrested, and tries to escape the authorities TWICE and fails! You think this guy would have learned the first time. Not to mention, the last 10 minutes of the film are also not in the book and are completely pointless. The book also had addressed how Mars was going to have it's atmosphere be unstable, and that it would be to hot and difficult to breath. That wasn't in the movie! Plus, it took time in the book for John to learn the language, than from a Martian drink that was shown in the movie. He actually was taught how the language worked, and how Sola taught it to him.

It also had a wasted cast to it. Taylor Kitsch was really boring as John Carter. I had expected a lot from him as this character, but he just didn't get my attention that well. Ciaren Hinds as the Jeddak of Helium, and father of Dejah, was just useless. He really didn't bring much to the film. Dominic West as Sab Thane was mediocre at best. Not only that, but in the film, he is given some sort of weapon that gives him powers that is given to him by the goddess' messengers, even when it wasn't even in the book. But Lynn Collins as Dejah Thoris, the princess of Helium, was just ATROCIOUS. She was the WORST actress in this movie, and it really did pain me to see her on screen. All she did in this film was exactly what Megan Fox did in the first two "Transformer" movies and "Jonah Hex". Just pose, and look pretty for the camera, with no character whatsoever. But, unlike Megan Fox in those movies, Collins is playing an important character to the story! The only character that I actually found faithful to the book and tolerable, were Willem Dafoe as Tars Tarkas, and Thomas Haden Church as Tal Hajus. Their characters were actually faithful to the book, since it was astablished that they both disliked each other about John Carter's life and death. Another thing that was good, was Samantha Morton as Sola, Tars' daughter. Her relationship with Tars was actually believable in the film, and was more interesting to me, than the relationship that Dejah and John had.

The film was directed by Andrew Stanton, who had directed "A Bug's Life", "Finding Nemo", and "Wall-E". This was his first attempt at making a live-action 3D film, and it failed miserably. The action scenes, like I said, are boring, compared to "Mission Impossible 4," which came out almost 3 months ago. The reason Brad Bird did a good with "MI4GP," was because he was already good with action scenes, even if it was animation. With "John Carter" I felt like I was watching a Star Wars prequel meets the Prince of Persia movie. At least those two films are worth my time, more than this film was.

Going back to the 3D, let me just say that it looked like garbage. I kept taking my glasses off about almost the entire movie, and it didn't make that much of a difference to me. Though, at least it wasn't as bad as the 3D in "Phantom Menace", but it's still bad. It made the 3D in "Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance" look like "Drive Angry".

The sad part about this film the most, was that I wanted to like this movie. I loved the book, and I was hoping the movie would be good enough for the film for me to enjoy. You could say I would have enjoyed this film if I didn't read the book, but let's just take out the things that I addressed about the story and characters, and look at it on it's own. It's still crap. The acting's terrible (except from Dafoe, Church, and Morton), the action scenes are boring, it's got a flawed story, and pointless 3D. I honestly thought I was watching a Michael Bay film, that's just a two hour beer commercial without a punchline. It's astablished that they've talked about doing a sequel, which will be based on "The Gods of Mars", but at this point, I really don't want a sequel.

Overall, "John Carter" was just a HUGE disappointment, and I'm hoping it's forgotten by the end of the year. It's so far the worst movie I've seen so far this year, and it'll probably be in my top 10 worst by year's end.

Rating: 1/5

2/10

The Lorax

Well, March has rolled around once again. And what has come, was the 108th birthday of the late-great Ted Giesel, or has he's been known forever as Dr. Seuss. Yes, everyone's known his books, and everyone has had their share of reading at least one. But whether you like them or hate them, you know the books that have been a strong part of Seuss's work. Some were lucky enough to even get their own tv special back in the 60's and 70's. However, when it came to feature films, they've never gotten kindness out of critics. Granted, "Horton Hears a Who" was done well, since it was...well, ANIMATED. But with "The Grinch" and "Cat in the Hat", it just goes to show, that live action stuff to a Seuss books doesn't work! Though...I will admit, that "The Grinch" was a bit of a guilty pleasure to me, since I found some funny jokes in it.

Now, we tackle another film based on another of Dr. Seuss' work, "The Lorax". Now keep in mind, I'm going to be making points comparing this film to the book and tv special.

"The Lorax" tells the story of a boy named Ted, who lives in the town of Thneedville, a town that is almost completely artificail, and is run by O'Hare Air Inc, where air is sold to the town. He has a thing for a girl named Audrey, who's long-life dream is to see living tree. So Ted, being the naive love-crazed kid he is, goes out of town to find out what happened to the trees, after learning from his grandma, about someone called, the Once-ler. When he finds him, Ted is told the story about what happend to the trees, and how it was because of him that everything's gone downhill. Now, it's up to Ted to find a way to fix things, all while trying to deal with O'Hare on his tail. Now, you might think I'm spoiling events in the story, but that's what the trailers have shown. Plus, just about a good majority of the people know the story of "The Lorax", so it's not really that much.

Let me talk about the bad stuff first. First off, it's going to be the Once-ler, played by Ed Helms. This is a complaint that everyone has had with the film, and I'm no exception. In the book and special, the Once-ler was shown as a different species and his face was never shown. In the film, he's a human being, who's hidden away from the world, because of the wrongs he's done. But then again, I guess it would work for it, being like many others, guilty of being corrupted by his own greed for it to happen. Another problem I had with the film, was the songs in it. I was really bored by these songs, and they were REALLY forgettable. However, there WAS one song that I enjoyed, and that was "How Bad Could I Be", where the Once-ler's singing about how cutting down trees could be so bad, and gets way over his head and cuts down more than needed. That, I thought, was at least very faithful to the book and special. The third problem I had with this movie, was the chemistry between Ted and Audrey, played by Zac Efron and Taylor Swift. For it being only a 1 1/2 hour movie, I really felt that they could have added a little more time for Ted and Audrey's character development between each other could have been a little more. My biggest complaint with this movie would have to be O'Hare's company selling air. Think about this: plants are used to convert carbon dioxide into oxygen, so people can breath, and O'Hare is selling it, since there are no plants left. Now let me ask...WHERE and HOW is he getting all this oxygen from? And also, how are the people able to breath, if they have their air bottled up? That makes no sense!

Aside from that, let's talk about the good stuff in this movie, because there is a lot in it. First up, is the Lorax himself. By golly, Danny DeVito is just hilarious as the Lorax. This was the main reason I saw this movie. Over the years, DeVito has proven to make even the cheesiest of jokes funny, like what he said at the end of the trailer. That was excellent timing and it really does sell it for the character. Plus, the things that he attempts to do to get rid of the Once-ler, only to have something get in the way, is simply fantastic! Rob Riggle as O'Hare, isn't much, but he does show passion for what it's worth. Though, I could have seen them do more with a character like this. Zac Efron does a good job as playing Ted, to a point where I didn't even recognize his voice for a second. Unlike most people, I DO think Efron can act, when he's not doing a "High School Musical" movie. I thought he was great in "Hairspray" as Link, and I thought he was brilliant in "Me and Orson Welles". Same goes for Taylor Swift as Audrey, but...surprisingly, she's not in it that much. She's in it for a good portion of it, like the beginning and third act, but other than that, not much. Ed Helms is good too as the Once-ler, even if he's not done as accurate, but he's enjoyable. We do sympathize with him, when he realizes that he's had nothing to begin with, and even when he's at the top of his game, he's still doesn't. He's been pushed around by his family so much, because he wanted to prove that his idea for the Thneed WOULD work.

Now the main thing I want to talk about is the animation. Since I saw this in 3D, and IMAX 3D no less, or XD-3D as it was called in the theater I went to, I can definitely say, the animation and 3D is BREATHTAKING. This is some of the best computer animation I've seen in a long time. The film was co-directed by Chris Renaud, who you may know as the co-director of "Despicable Me" back in 2010. That film was the start of the new Universal animation studio, Illumination Entertainment. What Renaud did with this film, in terms of animation, was great! My favorite parts about the movie, were the POV shots. Since it was in 3D, it really made those scenes more effective. It was really amazing, and it might even be...dare I say it, BETTER than "Despicable Me"? But anyway I see it, this animation is some of the best I've ever seen. Granted, it's not Pixar quality, since they have better told stories and fluent animation and if it's 3D, it isn't in your face all the time, but I digress.

Overall, "The Lorax" is not only the best animated film I've seen so far this year, but also the best adaption of a Dr. Seuss book I've ever seen. It's got great voice work, a decent story, and BRILLIANT animation and 3D. I highly recommend this movie, to anyone who wants to see a great animated movie...at least until "The Pirates In an Adventure with Scientists" comes out.

Rating: 4/5 stars

8/10

The Secret World of Arrietty & Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance

The Secret World of Arrietty

With being a fan of anime, I've come to being a huge fan of films by Studio Ghibli. Over the years they've been making films, I've always been fond of their works because they have such beautiful animation and story telling, that all you can do is just BEG for more of it. Ghibli has always been an ideal studio of animation that I hope one day to voice act for one of their movies. Recently, they've released their newest film, dubbed by Disney, "The Secret World of Arrietty".

"The Secret World of Arrietty", based on the book "The Borrowers", tells the story of a young boy named Sho, or Shawn, who is going to be recieving heart surgery soon. Since his parents are divorced, he is taken to the house where his mother grew up in. While staying at said house with his caretaker, Haru, he sees the a small Borrower named Arrietty, and wants to get to know her better, since he's been told many stories about the little people by his mother and grandpa. However, as curiosity gets the better of Sho, it leaves Haru more suspicious about the tales of the Borrowers, and tries to get hard evidence of their existence, even going as far as to capture Arrietty's mother. For what the film gives, it's nothing TOO exciting, like the other Ghibli films, but I can definitely say that it works. One of the things I DO expect from Ghibli is a fairly decent story. Thankfully, I got something gracefully enjoyable, and it really does build sadness on some parts.

The characters in this movie are well developed. Arrietty has a naive personality to her, but she has a good heart. She's strong, determined, and tries not to get into TOO much trouble, but it does tend to backfire. Plus, their discover isn't done by her curiosity, so it really does make it different from what other films have done in the past. Comparing her personality to a Disney character like Simba from "The Lion King", can show you exactly what I mean. Arrietty's parents are also likable. You got the mother, whose very cautious about being found out, and surviving, but also has a passion for decorative atmosphere. Plus, with Amy Poehler voicing her, it really surprised me that she was this good of a voice actor. The father, being the responsible one, who suggests and does what's needed to be right for him and the family, is done well too. Haru, the caretaker, is basically the curious one who believes in the tales she's been told of the Borrowers, and does what she can to catch them. It is shown, that sometimes people can go crazy over certain tales, espeicially when they had evidence. As for the character of Sho good in terms of character, and you do sometimes feel some tension for him, due to being sick, and the tender moments of the film really show that.

Now apparently critics have been saying that his voice was too much like a sick 20 year old, instead of a young teenager. Frankly, I have to disagree with that. I've met people around that age who talk with a voice like that. It's kind of like what they said about the dubbing of "Ponyo" and "Spirited Away", critiquing it for having celebrity voices in it. But, no one complained about it with Princess Mononoke? I mean, sure people could argue with "Oh, it's Disney, they're money hungry monsters," or "The voice acting was bland and boring, and I could tell whose voice it was," or any of that crap. Just because it has celebrity voices, doesn't make it anywhere close to bad. All that matters is if it works for the character that the actor/actress voices for. In "Spirited Away," I didn't mind Jason Marsden and Daveigh Chase as Chiharu and Haku. I found them good to begin with, and I still do today. In "Ponyo," I didn't mind Liam Neeson as Fujimoto, but then again, I'm a fan of Liam Neeson to begin with, so who can blame me. I also didn't mind Tina Fey as the mother, Betty White as a friend of Sosuke, or anything else that was like that. Hell, I practically LOVED Ponyo and Sosuke voiced by the younger siblings of Disney's crappiest singers. In fact, I think that they're actually more talented than them! My point being, it doesn't matter if it's a celebrity voice, as long as it works well with the character, and you know the consistancy.

Now the one thing that I'm obviously going to praise, is the animation. God damn is it amazing. It felt so REFRESHING to see some fantastic Japanese animation on the big screen again. I really do enjoy the pacing that the film has with it's animation and timing, letting it embrace itself and let the beauty of it all sync into it. This movie really does show a lot of passion when it comes to Ghibli animation.

Overall, "The Secret World of Arrietty" is by far my favorite movie of the year. It might not be there for long, but I'm guarunteeing that it'll be up there, with "The Woman in Black" in my top 5 favorites this year. I highly recommend it to everyone who enjoys great animation.

Rating: 5/5

10/10

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance

I've stated many times in the past, that I don't read comic books, and I've given reasons why. They're boring, they don't look appealing at times, and as good as their storylines might seem, I just don't get that invested in them. I grew up on manga, and I'm sticking to that. But just because I don't read comic books, doesn't quite mean I watch the adaptions that they turn into. I enjoy the movies that they become, and I watch the occassional cartoons that they become. I think the one I've become the most invested in, and still to this day, is Batman. He's DC's icon, and it shows WHY people would turn over from Marvel for them. Because he's the goddamn Batman! However, Marvel HAS had it's share of some great films in the past, and I've come to enjoy them, even if others don't. One of them, being "Ghost Rider".

The origninal "Ghost Rider" movie, starring Nicholas Cage and Eve Mendes, tells the story of Johnny Blaze. Johnny's a daredevil, and one of the greatest motorcyclists in the world. However, when his dad's about to die, he makes a deal with the devil, and signs a contract in blood, to keep his dad alive, and have a supernatural being, known as 'the rider' inside him. With this power, he is offered to get his soul back, if he defeats the son of Mephisto, Blackheart. For what the film was, it was pretty entertaining, and with Nicholas Cage as a motorcyclist whose skull sets on fire, and kills people with a chain and tons of other stuff, it was kind of badass at times...but it was SO mediocre. By which, I mean, it was not only an average comic book movie, but just an average movie all together, instead of being what I was expecting. The director of the film was Mark Steven Johnson, who in previous time, had directed "Daredevil", my all time favorite Marvel movie. I had expected a lot from "Ghost Rider", but it was just a let down. But that didn't mean I hated the film, I just felt that it could've been better.

Now we're going to talk about it's sequel, "Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance". So how does it turn out? Badass, and just friggin brilliant! This more than makes up for the last film!

In "Spirit of Vengeance," Johnny is now struggling to control his curse. However, a priest named Moreau comes to make a deal with him, to break free of the curse. He has to find a boy named Danny, and protect him from the devil, Roarke, who gave him the curse to begin with. Now Johnny must let "the rider" loose, have Danny's mother, Nadya, help him out, as well as deal with Roarke's new henchman, Blackout. Now in the film, we do know more about what "the rider" is, and it's pretty interesting. It really did show itself to find ways to surpass the first film, and it does have some very enjoyable fight scenes and some funny dialogue.

HOWEVER, I found it had somethings in it, that could've been used more. I mean, this film has the Highlander himself, Christopher Lambert, as a head monk. He had said in an interview, that he had to go through sword training and shave his head for the role, yet he doesn't even have 5 minutes of screen time. Yes, I counted. He had under 5 minutes. Movie, if you're going to have a great actor, ESPECIALLY the Highlander himself, in your film, USE HIM!

Okay, I'm going into too much of the bad, so I'll focus on the good. First off, there's Nic Cage. By god, he's still awesome! He really did show off a lot of strong potential in this film, and it's really nice to see him work with more Marvel films, because he's not that bad an actor, and his portrayl as Ghost Rider is neat! Granted, it's not as good as his work from "Drive Angry", but this film came pretty damn close. Ciaren Hinds, who was recently in "The Woman in Black" plays Roarke, and he did pretty well in this film. Though, I was still expecting a bigger climactic battle, between him and Ghost Rider. That, and the fight between Ghost Rider and Blackout. That would've worked so much better. But I will admit, the scene with Blackout driving a pickup-truck and trying to eat was pretty funny.

Overall, "Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance" has about everything that was good for a movie! Even if it has some problems you find, it makes up for it TENFOLD!

Rating:  8/10

This Means War

Pretty boy actors are very difficult. Reason being, is that if you want to have a movie STARRING pretty boy actors, the film has to be good and the pretty boy has to ACT. Same thing can be said for hot chicks in movies. Which is why we talk about the newest action-romance-comedy, "This Means War".

Here's how it goes. FDR Foster and Tuck Henson are two of the FBI's top best agents and are best friends. After a certain mission goes wrong, they are grounded from special missions until further notice. While during that time, Tuck decides to finally start dating again, three years after being divorced, all while FDR decides to get with another woman, like the swinging bachelor he is. But all of that goes downhill for them, when they realize they're dating the same chick, Lauren Scott, who's in need of a man to fill in the hole that her crush has left. Now it's spy vs spy over this woman, all while the crook from the two agents' last mission is hunting for them. It might look like some cheesy bromance-romance battle, but it actually does have some good effort put into it. It's got great jokes, the characters have excellent chemistry, and the acting is very good. Not to mention, the action scenes are well shot, and it really does keep you hyped up at points. I don't think I've ever seen a game of Paintball so intense since "Community".

Chris Pine plays FDR. He's strong, willful, and swoons in various directions. Ever since "Star Trek", Pine's really been classified as one of my favorite actors of this generation. He has potentional of being a great action star, and I hope to see him in an "Expendables" movie, if the second one does well. Tuck's played by Tom Hardy, and he's proven to be a damn good action star after being in films like "The Warrior" and "Inception", and his upcoming work, "The Dark Knight Rises". Now, originally, the duo was going to be casted to Sam Worthington, but he left the project, along with Bradley Cooper and Seth Rogen. Honestly, I was glad with Pine and Hardy, but I also would've been fine with Worthington and/or Cooper. However, I would not be glad if any of them ended up with Seth Rogen. Reese Witherspoon plays Lauren Scott, the girl caught in a love triangle. She's very picky at times, but does try to make decisions, even after being forced into dating two guys by her pushy jackass of a mother. Most people complain about Witherspoon's performance, but for me...I don't think she's that bad of an actress. Granted, she's had some loose films, but that doesn't make her COMPLETELY bad. Til Schwieger, who you may remember as SGT. Hugo from "Inglorious Bastards" plays Heinrich, the villain. He's menacing, and really shows a lot of intimidations throughout the film. I've always enjoyed his work in previous films, aside from New Years Eve, and I only hope for the best in his next works.

The film was directed by McG, and yes, that is his name. It was really cool to see him do action films, when he's not making a lousy "Charlie's Angels" movie. And I don't care what you think, I thought Terminator Salvation was awesome!

Overall, "This Means War" is a pretty underratted comedy, that's more than what you expect. If you're into all action, romance, comedy, bromance, or fans of any of these actors, then I highly recommend it. So far, it's one of my favorite movies of the year, and let's hope I see some comedies that are as good as this.

Rating: 4.5/5 stars

9/10

Chronicle

The found-footage genre has cemented itself very strongly in the past 3 years now. Ever since the 1997 film, "The Last Broadcast" and the 1999 film, "The Blair Witch Project", people have seemed to have mixed feelings about the way the two films were made. Some thought it evolutionized the horror genre, and others called them the biggest waste of their time.

Afterwards, the found-footage genre was then lost in the depths of Hollywood, for almost a decade. It wasn't until JJ Abrams and Matt Reeves had released "Cloverfield", and got people interested in the genre once again. Anticipation and suspense had filled most people on the film, and the genre had risen from the ashes of Hollywood.

Soon, the "Paranormal Activity" films started to be the newest horror series competing with the "Saw" franchise. Due to the success of "Paranormal Activity," other films tried to cash in on it, by doing exactly what they did. "Paranormal Entity" was made as a joke towards the film, done by Asylum studios, who's most famous for making the "Mega Shark" films. "The Last Exorcism" is another example of a horror flick cashing in on the genre, basically being an exorcist movie. But, I didn't see the film, so that's all I can say about it. "Apollo 18" was another film cashing in on the genre, however it had been taking a thrashing by many critics, basically being the film that killed the found-footage genre, up until "Paranormal Activity 3" brought it back on it's feet. There have also been rumors about another "Scary Movie" to be released later on in the year, and said to spoof the newly resurrected genre. The point being, no matter how you look at it, found-footage films seem to be a strong part in pop-culture.

So after witnessing the dreadful 3D of "Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace", I went to see the newest found-fotage film, "Chronicle". And let me tell you, I have very mixed feelings about the movie.

The story revolves around a bunch of teens named Andrew, his cousin Steve, and class senator Steve, who discover an underground tunnel somewhere in the forest. They go in to check, and find some mysterious alien-like boulder. They then wake up the next day, to realize that they have new telekinetic powers and start to learn more about it. All the while, Andrew tries to deal with these powers, as well as deal with his mother dying, being abused by his alcoholic father, and anger issues. The film is interestingly useful in what it does, with the found-footage, and I can easily say that while I'm consfused about it, I am glad I saw it. It has elements of the superhero genre, the struggles of whether or not your friends are really your friends, and family problems. It does give reasons on how some angles can be seen, mostly during the ending, but sometimes it just makes you wish that this movie was just made as a regular movie, and not found-footage. It does get confusing at times, but you soon catch on, that some people probably live that way, in terms of social life. Not that they actually have powers, but with regular life. Basically, I have the same feelings for it, with the "Paranormal Activity" films, "Blair Witch", and "Cloverfield."

Overall, "Chronicle" is probably something that I'm sure people MIGHT enjoy, if they're into the genre. Is it worth it?...Well, that's for the viewers to decide.

Rating: 3/5 Stars

6/10

The Woman in Black

Ever since "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone", or "Philosipher's Stone" as it's called in the UK, Daniel Radcliffe has cemented himself as one of the best British actors working today. He's kept a good carreer going, and has evolved into a very talented actor. And, like Hugh Jackman, the guy can friggin sing! We've all come to love Radcliffe, and now that the Harry Potter series has ended, we take a look at his newest work, "The Woman in Black".

"The Woman in Black" tells the story of Arthur Kipps, a man whose wife died giving birth to his son. Four years later, he is sent from London to a town at the edge of England, to clean up the foundations of a house, which is said to be haunted. While in town, he meets up with a man named Sam Daily, who has dealt with the supernatural, ever since his son died. Reasoning being, the house was cursed many years ago, and now whoever sees 'the woman in black' a child is sent to die. Now Arthur and Sam must find some way to please the spirit, and end the nightmarish curse. Now, I've heard that this was an adaption of a book from the early 80's, and I can see that. It was also a remake of an old TV mini-series from about 15 years ago, that actually starred the guy who played James Potter in Deathly Hallows part 2. Coinsidence? I think not. Plus, this was Hammer Films Production's first film in over 30 years. They were the ones who made the British remakes of Dracula, Frankenstein, and The Mummy, all of which involved Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing, two of the greatest horror icons of all time. This was by far their best film.

Radcliffe really did an amazing job with this role. He really knew how to get this performance as solid and majestic as he did. We can see the troubles he goes through, and that he wants to find out the secrets that happened in the house. Radcliffe has shown to many, he's a good actor, but never in my life have I seen him in such a better role. His performance that he gives in this is...dare I say, BETTER than his performance as Harry Potter. Ciaren Hinds, who recently played Abeforth Dumbledore in "Deathly Hallows part 2", plays Sam Daily. He's really believable in the role, and it really does show that british actors shouldn't be underrated. By the way, did you know that the kid who playes Arthur's son, Joseph, is actually Daniel Radcliffe's godson? Pretty neat, huh?

Now let me talk about the scares and suspense in this film, since it's a horror flick. Well, I got to say, I enjoyed it a lot. They weren't all jumpscares, and even some that were, I didn't flinch at. The suspense is what really draws you in, and it really stands as one of the best horror movies I've ever seen. My only problem with it, was probably the experience, since I found some people in the audience laughing, giggling, talking, etc., and it almost killed it for me. Thankfully, I was patient enough to enjoy this.

Overall, "The Woman in Black" is one of my favorite movies of the year, and will probably be far up in the top 5 by the end of it. I highly recommend it for any horror fan, Radcliffe fan, or movie goer in general. For it being a PG-13 horror flick, it did it right. It didn't need gore, it doesn't have any annoying characters, it doesn't need nudity, and it doesn't need constant cussing. It's simply a PERFECT ghost story. And that's what this movie is. Perfect.

Rating: 5/5 Stars

10/10

The Grey

Many times, I've pointed out that I've become a big fan of Liam Neeson's work. He's really shown to many that he can play many different characters and pull off an excellent performance. He's played an arch rival of Batman, attempting to conquer Gotham City; a man, with the troubling experiences of the Holacost; a man, who tries to find out who he really is, and why another man has his identity; the almighty god of sky and thunder, of Greek mythology; and a father, helping his son try to confess to the one he's loved. He's a really solid actor, and shows that he can get into a role that's believable enough.

In 2010, Neeson had portrayed John "Hannibal" Smith, once played by the late-George Peppard, in "The A-Team, directed by Joe Carnahan and produced by the Scott brothers. Alongside Neeson, were Bradley Cooper as Templeton "Face" Peck, once played by Dirk Benedict, Quinton Jackson as B.A. Barcus, once played by Mr. T, and Sharlto Copley as "Howling Mad" Murdock, once played by Dwight Schaultz. What the film was, was a film that was a prime example of how to adapt a TV show from the 80's and bring it to the big screen, in the right way.

Now Carnahan, the Scott brothers, AND Neeson return with a new film, "The Grey". How does it hold up? Well, I can say this, it's good.

Liam Neeson plays John Ottway, a man who works at an oil drill in Alaska. After he and six of his co-workers survive a plane crash, they must now work together to survive the cold, and keep away from a pack of wolves hunting them down. For what the film gives, it shows a lot of passion as a survival film, and is one of the best I've seen, since Robert Zemeckis' "Cast Away", starring Tom Hanks. It also shows a lot of potential given, as a strong thriller, and letting the cold atmosphere of the film seep under your skin, and make you feel like you're in deep snow.

The characters in the film are pretty good...for the most part. There were a couple of useless characters that didn't do much, and I didn't see much point to them. But the rest, I found to be entertaining enough. Neeson is good, as always, and Frank Grillo and Dallas Roberts' characters were worth it as well. Now, if I had to say one major problem with the film, it's the intensity. Granted, I'm all for intense films, but it's how MUCH intensity there is to it. It took itself serious, but too serious. If the tone of the film had been lowered a bit, then it could have been a much stronger film. And also, there really isn't a third act. I felt like each act of it was an hour long, and it was only two hours. Granted, I did enjoy the ending, but I felt like there wasn't much to it. But aside from those two problems, I really enjoyed it.

Overall, "The Grey" is possibly the best survival film I've seen in years, and I'm hoping it gets more praise later on. I highly recommend it to fans of the genre, fans of Liam Neeson, or just to find something to kill time.

Rating: 4.5/5 Stars

9/10

Underworld 4

When it comes to vampires, there are always a few movies that stick out as fantastic.

John Carpenter's Vampires

Monster Squad

Van Helsing

Daybreakers

Let the Right One In

Let Me In

Dylan Dog: Dead of Night

Fright Night

the Blade trilogy

and many Dracula films

But that's not to say there are some bad vampire films.

Priest

Dracula II: Ascension

Dracula III: Legacy

Twilight

Twilight New Moon

Twilight Eclipse

Twilight Breaking Dawn

But today, were' going to be talking about a vampire series, simpley known as Underworld. Now let me first talk about the other films before I talk about the new one.

Underworld tells the story of a death dealer named Selene, played by Kate Beckinsale, who is sworn to hunt down the evolved werewolves who are able to transform bewteen human and wolf form called Lycans, who had killed her family. She discovers that the Lycans are pursuing a man named Michael Corvin, for experimentation. Selene captures Michael herself to find out what the Lycans are up to, and not only discovers a mutinous plot to destroy the Vampire Elders, but also a shocking revelation about her father-like Elder, Viktor. The vampires, werewolves, and Lycans, are not supernatural creatures, but rather the product of a virus. For what the first film does, it had a lot of action, great character development and showed a lot of strong compassion for the vampire genre.

The second film, Underword: Evolution, was not as good as the first one, and was just really pathetic. It did bring much more story to the table, but it just felt less than mediocre. It did show how Michael goes from human, to being a hybrid of both vampire and Lycan, become more powerful than one could imagine. But what really surprised me, was that even though I thought this was crap, I found myself enjoying it. It was basically the guilty pleasure of the series to say the least.

Now the third film, Underworld 3: Rise of the Lycans, was a prequel to the other two, and was better than the 2nd one, but not by a whole lot. It did explain the origins of the Lycans and war they have with the vampires. It gave out much better story, it gave out good action, and it was pretty entertaining.

Now let's talk about the newest film, Underworld: Awakening. So, how does it turn out? Pretty damn good, I might say.

Underworld 4 picks up where the second film left off. Selene and Michael try to escape a virus spread of the Lycans, but are then forzen. Selene is then released by a figure dubbed "Subject 2", and decides to find it. After meeting with a vampire named David, they find Subject 2, and soon realize that it's Selene and Michael's daughter, named Eve. Now Selene has to find Michael, and keep her daughter safe from the Lycans, with the help of a detective named Sebastian. For what it gives, it is complicated to understand the film, but it does make sense, if you've seen the other films. The action scenes in the film are impressive, the acting is spot-on good, and the 3D, aside from it being distracting, was interesting at times.

Kate Beckinsale reprises her role as Selene, and is badass and sexy at the same time. This is the type of vampire that REALLY sells it off. Stephen Rea plays Dr. Lane, and was good for the most part. His methods of being evil are reasonable enough, and gives a good performance. India Eisley playes Eve, and does a decent job. She relates to her father in a lot of ways, being a hybrid and kicking ass when she's required to. Plus, the way she kills Dr. Lane is just awesome! As for the rest, they did okay. David and Sebastian were a bit underused, and I really wished that they could've used Michael during the climax. But I can let that go.

Overall, if you're looking for a good action flick that has a lot of vampire and werewolf violence, this'll keep you entertained. If you're looking for a decent vampire flick at the least, I'd highly recommend this. And with build up at the end and if this does well enough, I'm highly awaiting Underworld 5.

Rating: 3.5/5 Vampire Pistols

7/10