Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues

                Let me say right now that I love the movie “Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy.” It’s one of those films that I can watch over and over again, and still laugh just as much as I did the first time, if not more. In the news world during the 70’s, San Diego’s Ron Burgundy is top of the class, along with his team: Brian Fantana, Champ Kind, and Brick Tamland. However, when a new anchor, Veronica Corningstone, comes into the station, Ron starts to have the hots for her, but then it becomes more about competing with her the more she becomes big in the business. This film managed to be the true kickstart careers for many of these actors. While they did manage to have big success before hand, it was this film that put it to the silver screen at its finest. Will Ferrell made the big jump from SNL to movie star status, much more than any of his previous films have in the past, and this film managed to be his signature charmer. Other actors in the film also got their big recognition because of this film, and even Christina Applegate as Veronica showed improvement as an actress, showing she can actually play an intelligent woman after working on “Married with Children.”

                When the thought of a sequel started to rumor around, it wasn’t until 2011 when Ferrell as Ron appeared on Conan O’Brian that it was officially announced. Since then we’ve seen teasers, the actors appearing on actual news in character, and the release date being at the end of this year. And let me say…it was DEFINITELY worth the wait!

                In “Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues,” Ron and his team set out for New York City, in an attempt for Ron to beat Veronica in the ratings, only this time it’s different stations against each other. However, Ron starts off from the bottom, and it’s only through making rebellious changes that lead him to success but also much more. Throughout this film, it does what the first film did by adding in many, many moments that are incredibly funny, and there’s never a dull moment that I can remember. This is another film that really had nothing about it that was bad, as everything was done exactly right.

                Will Ferrell really brings his a-game once again, adding more to Ron’s egotistic personality, delivering lines that are just as quotable as they were before. His chemistry with Applegate is just as excellent as before, and it makes it all the more funny with their new son, Walter. While this kid has some awkward acting moments, it fits the tone of the film just right, so I give him props. A subplot in the film that’s really funny is with Brick, played by Steve Carrell, and him finding love with GNN worker Chauncey, played by Kristen Wiig. Just the way that these two worked off each other is absolute gold, and every time they were on-screen together, I could hardly keep myself from laughing at every word. I have to say, Kristen Wiig has been really impressing my lately, being in films that I’ve liked her greatly in. Maybe leaving SNL was a good decision for her after all. James Marsden was another one who did fantastic in the film, playing the big shot from Chicago, Jack Lime. It’s kind of expected of him, since he looks like he could be a news caster, and his charismatic attitude makes it all the more funny when it gets to the ending.

                When it gets to the third-quarter of the film, it takes a really weird turn into another turning point. I didn’t really know how to get it, but after seeing the film a second time, it actually felt natural to the film. And let me just say, they do the fight scene from the first film…only difference, is it’s ten times funnier. They throw everything at you, in directions you couldn’t possibly guess; and the cameos they give us are absolutely insane. I don't want to spoil whose in it (like it's going to stop you looking them up on wikipedia), but trust me when I say they deliver solidly.

                Overall, “Anchorman 2” is one of the best comedies I’ve seen in a while, as well as one of my favorite films of the year. Tune in next time, and you’ll see where it ranks my best of the year list.

Rating: 10/10

Frozen

One way or another, all of us grew up with Disney. Whether it was one of their live-action classics, classic animations, their Renaissance Era, or even Pixar, we’ve all grown up with it. However, within the 2000’s we haven’t gotten anything classic from them in animation aside from what Pixar’s been giving us. We all wanted to relive childhood and experience the magic of Disney Princess stories in the theater again, and it wasn’t until 2009 and 2010 when we were given “The Princess and the Frog” and “Tangled,” which were the first two Disney Princess films in years. They were both big hits, and they managed to really bring back nostalgia trips for the adults, as well as show kids these days what TRUE Disney was. While they did manage to be successful both critically and financially, there were elements from both films that didn’t seem to balance it out. For “Princess and the Frog” it was the songs by Randy Newman and plot, where as “Tangled” was with it being CGI instead of hand-drawn and have on-screen actors do the voices instead of professionals or no-names.

This year, Disney attempts again try and relive the glory days of the original Renaissance Era, with their adaption of Hans Christian Andersen’s “The Snow Queen,” under the title “Frozen,” and their first adaption an Andersen story since “The Little Mermaid.” Now when teasers started to pop up from this film, I had to admit I wasn’t too into it with the snowman and reindeer bit. Then the cast list popped up, and that got me mixed about the film, as like I said I don’t like it when on-screen actors are doing the voices, unless it’s done right. However, I still decided to give this film the benefit of the doubt and went to go see it.

And let me tell you, this film manages to feel like one you’d see from the Disney Renaissance Era. It felt so much like watching “The Little Mermaid” and “Beauty and the Beast,” more so than “The Princess and the Frog” and “Tangled” on many levels.

The film tells of two sisters, Anna and Elsa, who have both been separated from each other and locked in the castle for many years, especially after their parents’ death. Reason for this was due to Elsa almost killing Anna by accident with her snow powers, which had Anna get rid of her memories to protect her. On the day Elsa is courted to be Queen, Anna tries to get some answers when she is denied her marriage, which causes Elsa to freak out and run away, exposing her powers and causing an eternal winter. Now Anna has to go after her, while getting assistance from a fellow ice seller, his deer, and a snowman. There are changes from the original Anderson story, but what works is how they handled making it work for Disney fans all around.

First off, let me say that the animation is absolutely GLORIOUS! Out of all the CGI animation Disney has given us from their animation studio, this and “Wreck-It Ralph” stand as their best! This really does feel like the traditional animation in proper 3D, like they finally got it 100% right. With the combination of snow and ice as most of the scenery, it really lets the colors that the characters have stand out in a really brilliant way. Not to mention, the ice rising doesn’t feel like just a 3D gimmick, it feels like it ACTUALLY belongs in this atmosphere. How they did it this good is just astonishing.

The music in this film, what can I say? It sounds so beautiful and so hypnotizing, I immediately got the soundtrack. If music was like the dessert you get at your favorite restaurant, THIS would be it. The songs were done by Robert and Kristen Anderson Lopez, most familiar for writing songs for “Avenue Q” and “The Book of Mormon,” which would explain why the songs in the film sound so Broadway like. It really manages to fit in with the film perfectly, and it’s very rare with most Disney flicks.

Broadway-esque songs really help, since the cast features mostly Broadway actors. If you haven’t guessed, that’s Idina Menzel from “Wicked” and “Rent” playing Elsa. She does a MAGNIFICENT job in this film, as she really knows how to deliver a performance, and boy did she NAIL this! It was also really great to see a Disney Princess as a QUEEN in the movie, which is INCREDIBLY rare for people. What also worked really well in this film was the mockery moments they had to other Princess stories, which were addressed by both Elsa and Kristoff, the ice seller, towards Anna. Yeah, you know those satire moments they had in “Enchanted,” which went overboard? Unlike this film, the moments are actually SUBTLE and NOT shoved in your face. Not only that, but the relationship between Anna and Kristoff is actually genuine and developed very well, making it one of the most realistic romances since “Beauty and the Beast.” They also gave an interesting relationship with Elsa and Anna, showing a great bond between sisters through and through. If you have daughters, or sisters, who constantly fight, take them to see this movie. The fact that they got a strong bond between sisters done this well is worth the price of admission alone. My favorite character, however, was the snowman they advertised, Olaf. He just has such an upbeat attitude, and they turned a character that COULD have been annoying and made him incredibly funny. Oh, and in case you’re wondering; YES, that is Josh Gad from “The Book of Mormon” voicing the character, proving my point further that Broadway actors prove to give much better voice-over performances than most movies that shove a celebrity in there just to get a name in there. And yes, I am aware Kristen Bell is voicing Anna in the film, but she did manage to prove me wrong, as she really managed to do such an amazing job with her performance. I honestly couldn’t picture Bell in the film, all I saw was the character of Anna.

The film was directed and written by Chris Buck, who directed Disney’s adaption of “Tarzan,” and Jennifer Lee, who wrote the screenplay for “Wreck-It Ralph.” These two really managed to bring this film so much life to this film, and I applaud them for the fantastic job they did.

Overall, “Frozen” is one of my favorite films of the year, and this film AND “Wreck-It Ralph” starts up a new Renaissance for Disney this generation. It may have started with “The Princess and the Frog,” but here I know it has picked up at its fullest. It’s got great animation, great performances, BREATHTAKING MUSIC, and just an all around good feeling given when you come out of it.

Rating: 10/10

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

                Last year, movie goers alike were given the new film from Gary Ross, “The Hunger Games.” It told the story of Katniss Everdeen, a girl who volunteers to participate in the annual Hunger Games, which is a survival tournament, in which two members from each of the twelve districts are forced to fight each other to the death, and whoever survives last, that district wins. It was a huge hit at the box office, and many critics and fans of the novel were overjoyed by it. However, most people who didn’t like it gave out the same reason for it: it was just a tamed down version of “Battle Royal,” a film with the same setting only it was a much more grizzly film. I can understand both praise and hate the same way, and I do have to agree, “Battle Royal” is the superior film by a long shot. Despite that, I actually enjoyed “The Hunger Games” mostly for its satiric take on reality TV and the performances from Jennifer Lawrence and Josh Hutcherson, down to Woody Harrelson and Donald Sutherland.

                Now when word of the sequel being in the works, I was actually not too pleased from what I heard. For starters, Gary Ross had stepped down from director, leaving the chair to be occupied by Francis Lawrence, who is mostly known for directing “Constantine,” “I Am Legend,” and a whole bunch of Brittany Spears music videos. Not only that, but both Ross AND the author of the books, Suzanne Collins, stepped down as the writers of the screenplay. At first, I felt at ease when they announced that Michael Arndt (or Michael DeBruyn) was brought up for the job, but then expectations went down when they also brought up Simon Beaufoy as well. For those who don’t know, Beaufoy is the man who had won the Oscar for his screenplay on “Slumdog Millionaire,” a film that was uncomfortable, lacking in character development, full of coincidences that add up to nothing, a story with more flaws than a malfunctioning Virtual Boy, dialogue that is hard to listen to, and is nothing but a cruel, sick, trainwreck; to this day, I consider that film not only the most overrated film ever made, but the worst film to have ever been associated with an Oscar, let alone win eight of them, including Best Picture; yes, worse than “Crash.”

                My point is I thought this film was dead from the start. However, as I started to read up more about it, I was at least open-minded enough to give this film a chance, despite the low expectations. So after it’s been out for a week, some of my friends and I tagged along to see it. How’d it turn out? Well, let’s find out.

                During the victory tour, Katniss and Peeta have taken time off from surviving the Hunger Games, and try to relive their previous lives. However, Katniss feels that things have changed, as she is trying to find a balance with her relationship with Peeta and Gale. When it comes to the time of the next Hunger Games, she and many of the previous victors from past games must fight for survival once again, only with her family, Gale, and district hanging in the balance. As a continuation, this film really does move on with the story, as it adds more tension and build up for what it has going. That isn’t to say it’s with its share of flaws.

                First off, there are those parts that bring up certain plot points, but they don’t seem to go through with them. For example, they bring up in the beginning that Katniss is suffering traumatic stress, as she hallucinates about killing people outside of the competition. I thought that would be really inventive, but they don’t really explore more on that. Now some may argue that it kind of comes into play during the games, but I didn’t see it. I also wasn’t as invested in the relationship between Katniss and Gale, since they barely touch up on that. I don’t know if it’s delved more into in the book, but here it isn’t done as much. Not only has that, but Plutarch Heavensbee, played by Philip Seymour Hoffman, had his plan a little too lucky with how it turns out. That would go into spoilers, so I won’t really delve into that, but I thought that was too lucky.

                Aside from that, everything else was pretty damn good. The cast returning really ups their performances from the last film, as more is at stake throughout the film. Jennifer Lawrence has really evolved as an actress since “Winter’s Bone,” as she’s able to really captivate the image of a celebrity that doesn’t want to do things to please the superiors, but doesn’t want to get herself killed. That scene where she’s reading the requested dialogue off those cards has her showing at least 14 emotions in one setting. Josh Hutcherson is given much more to work with as well, as someone who knows how to please a crowd in a way that works. Hutcherson and Lawrence have really become two of my favorite young actors, managing to live up to many greats who are also in the film. Donald Sutherland has much more involvement, delivering a very chilling performance just from his first appearance alone. The way he speaks and the dialogue he delivers is simply brilliant. Even Phil Hoffman manages to be pretty good, even with the complaints I had. Elizabeth Banks as well was very well done, as she’s much stricter than she was in the last film, which adds to more for the satire on celebrity life. And let’s not forget Woody Harrelson as Haymitch, one of the victors that got off scott-free. He still brings a great performance and presence to the character, which is the typical Woody Harrelson performance. With that said, I still want my “Zombieland 2” damn it! Many of the other characters like Lynn Cohen as Mags, Sam Claflin as Finnick, Jeffery Wright as Beetee, and pretty much everyone else did great.

                Now as the first film felt like an Americanized version of “Battle Royale,” does THIS film feel like an Americanized version of “Battle Royale 2?” Well no, because unlike that film, “Catching Fire” is actually good. Sure, when comparing the two first films, “Battle Royale” is superior because it has much more character and conflict to it, but this time around it’s “Hunger Games” that came out on top with a superior sequel. I think the reason it managed to be superior was probably due to the expectations that were made from both. “Battle Royale” was a film that managed to be both fresh, original, and don’t right tense, so a sequel would get you pumped for more, only to lead to a huge amount of disappointment. And like I said, I wasn’t looking forward to “Catching Fire,” so when I saw it, I was genuinely surprised by how much I DID like it. Meaning……Francis Lawrence and Simon Beaufoy actually made a good movie, and a DAMN good one at that.

                What was a unique thing was this should have been just a rehash of the first film, and from what I heard it was what the book was as well, but this film really did manage to actually take that habit and make it work. For one, the Hunger Games doesn’t start until halfway through the movie, there are more twists and turns brought to the table, and it manages to show how harsh this world is. Only thing was I wish it could have been a little darker, seeing how the books are much more graphic than what these movies make them out to be. I mean, I actually heard there was some kind of hinted sex scene in there, and I’m asking this: “The MPAA had no problem with giving “Twilight” the pass, but not this?” And don’t give me that bullshit saying, “Oh, but Twilight’s an adult story, where Hunger Games is for kids.” That excuse is completely backwards, because a story where children are murdered in a sporting event is a much darker take, than a story about an emotionless dumb broad who falls for a bland whiney emo vampire, and then toy with the emotions of another guy who later on decides to fuck the broad’s infant.

                Face it; “Twilight” was nothing more than an insult to women, monsters, horror, literature, romance, and people in general, as this felt like it was written for children BY children, being just as intelligence insulting as “The Oogieloves.” “Hunger Games” actually has character, dilemma, development, story, and above all, EFFORT.

                Overall, “The Hunger Games: Catching Fire” is a big improvement from the first film, and with what Lawrence and Beaufoy did with this film…I’m hoping they keep it that way for the last two films.

Rating: 9/10

Thor: The Dark World

                Let’s face facts; Marvel has pretty much dominated the big silver screen since the first “Blade” film back in 1998. Since then, the only big competitor it’s had from DC was the “Dark Knight Trilogy,” “Watchmen,” “V For Vendetta,” “Superman Returns,” “Kick-Ass 1&2,” and “Man of Steel.” Marvel has taken over as the movie-goers true comic book entertainment for families alike. This time, it’s Thor’s turn to jump back into solo-mode for “Thor: The Dark World.”

                In this film, Jane Foster is on the search for Thor in London, where she comes across a portal that leads her to the Aether, one of the Infinity Stones, like the Tesseract. When she comes in contact with the stone, it fuses into her body which makes her a target for the Dark Elves, a race of beings who were long thought to be dead by Thor’s grandfather. Now in order to defeat the survived Dark Elves, Thor must make a truce with Loki and make sacrifices that will possibly lead to victory and the survival of the nine realms. There’s much more to the plot, but that’s the basics of what you need to know so far going in. Now while watching this film, I had about a few questions on my mind:

1.       Did this prove to be a much more suitable sequel than either “Iron Man 2 & 3”?

2.       Was this better than the first “Thor”?

3.       With all the hype it had on being the biggest project Marvel had since “The Avengers,” does it rank up there with it?

And the answers to that were as follows: HELL yes, definitely, and surprisingly yeah, but let me explain all those.

First off, unlike the “Iron Man” sequels, there is no forced in your face Avengers tie-in moments that are pointless, nor is it some rehash of another film, and the villain built up IS the villain and not just some cop-out they pulled at the last minute. Those were all problems I had with both “Iron Man” sequels, and the more I think about them, the worse they get. I still like them, but you see my point.

                This film also manages to update on what made the first “Thor” good, and also gives the people who don’t think much of it what they wanted. One of the problems that I had with the first film was that I was so engulfed in seeing such different worlds that I wanted more; while the first film gave out a nice concept, and did a fine job building up to the first “Avengers,” it made me want the next “Thor” film first. This new film expands on the 9 realms that connect to Asgard, giving us a wonderful world to expand on more with every passing second. The production design in this film was spectacular, and it really does make it feel like a comic book come to life.

                Now as for this ranking up with “The Avengers,” I really do think this topped it by a long-shot. I know they’re two different films, but since they’re part of the same series, I have to come clean here. The action scenes, the dilemmas brought up, and practically everything else makes this a strong film for comic book fans. This proves that Marvel can not only learn from past mistakes, but also bring forth much more than what was bargained.

                The cast from the first movie who've returned for this film do a great job as always. Natalie Portman as Jane Foster was a very likable character, and it’s nice to see her character have much more involvement with the story at hand here. Anthony Hopkins as Odin really did a number on this part, and much like Portman, he has more involvement other than just being asleep through most of the movie. When shit goes down, he just goes Mentor Zorro on all their asses. The only ones who don’t have that much bigger role to play are some of Thor’s allies; don’t get me wrong, they do have a good amount of screen time and they do have much with the film, but I felt like there wasn’t enough of it. I grew to like them from the first film that I hoped to keep seeing more of them in this film, but that’s just a minor nitpick for me.

                The main attraction here in terms of the casting are pretty much Thor, Loki, and Malekith. Chris Hemsworth and Tom Hiddleston really made these characters their own, and taking these roles made their careers strongly. Their personality, their speech patterns, pretty much everything makes them these characters. Then we also have Malekith the Dark Elf king played by Christopher Eccleston, who you may remember as the 9^th Doctor. He is by far one of the best villains in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and thankfully is the ACTUAL villain built up from the trailers, unlike what “Iron Man 3” pulled. Eccleston was everything that made a great villain, from presence to look to the amount of challenge he has against the hero.

                Does the film have problems? Yes, and they can be summed up in two words: Kat Dennings. I’m sorry, but her character is OBNOXIOUS in every sense of the word. Every time she popped back in, I groaned in disgust; granted, she’s not as bad as she was in the first film, and I’ll admit she did get a few laughs out of me in the third act, but that’s only because of her intern, Ian. Most of the stuff on Earth that did feel a bit tacked on just for comedic effect, which is very hit or miss on occasion. Other than that, not much else I can say wrong about this film.

                Overall, “Thor: The Dark World” is one of my favorite films of the year, and I’m now REALLY hyped for the third film. This film is an accomplishment to most comic book films, and by far my favorite installment of “Avengers: Phase Two"...so far, anyway. If you haven’t seen it yet, I highly recommend it…AND buying the t-shirt if it’s at your movie theater.

Rating: 9/10

Ender's Game

                In 1985, Orson Scott Card released the science fiction novel, “Ender’s Game.” It told the story of the world being united as one, in order to fight off the alien menace known as the Buggers. It’s then a young boy named Andrew “Ender” Wiggin is chosen to enroll in Battle School by Colonel Graff, in hopes of being the next commander of the next war, saving all mankind from destruction. This book had held up messages about dealing with bullies, the abuse of children, consequences of war, and the aftermath of corrupting minds. It’s a very strong-minded story that really does give much depth to what society could be and what might be in this sort of situation.

                When word of a feature film was in works back in the late 90’s and early 2000’s, a lot of trouble came into getting this film in progress, mostly in finding the right cast of child actors. It wasn’t until about 2010 that the film was going into full force with casting and production. The one thing that sparked my interest greatly was Asa Butterfield as Ender Wiggin, fresh off of Martin Scorsese’s “Hugo.” The only concern most people had was Gavin Hood as director and screenwriter, better known for “X-Men Origins: Wolverine,” which was given much hatred. Despite this, Scott Card was also a producer for the film, so I had expected to see the changes made to be on his approval.

                As a fan of the book, I found many of the changes made to be acceptable, where as a few of them got very distracting. But what I DID find good in this film was INCREDIBLY good, and really surprised me as one of the best adaptations I’ve seen in a while.

                First off, the casting in this film is practically SPOT-ON. Despite being much older than the book had them, it still managed to be incredibly accurate. Asa Butterfield really embodied what Ender was in the book and much more. The way he talked, the look in his eyes, and even his presence was spot on the character in the book. Asa has really become one of my favorite young actors working today, and I see a bright future in his career as an actor. Harrison Ford as Colonel Graff was also a perfect choice, and actually manages to tame it down from some of his previous performances. Originally, the casting for Graff was said to be changed to a woman, and that they were considering Rosie O’Donnell and Janeane Garofalo; and I hate to be that guy, but I’m glad they went with Ford, because he really did a fantastic job in this role. He’s still had that strong presence to him, making him the big man at the top. Ford did this job perfectly, and there was no sign of him phoning this performance in. I honestly think he hasn’t been this good since “The Fugitive,” and that’s saying a lot.

                Hailee Steinfeld as Petra was also an excellent choice, and her character also has more involvement to the story here than in the book. She’s basically the helpful partner to the hero, and she did it especially well, and Steinfeld has really added much more to her credibility since “True Grit.” However, the biggest surprise to me was Bonzo Madrid, played by Moises Arias; and yes, I do mean the same little douche that was in “Hannah Montana” (or D-Grade “Jem” as I like to call it). Arias took me completely off guard in this role, and you can tell he was giving it his all in this performance. He was cold-blooded, unrespectable, and BECAME Bonzo in this movie. If the rest of this film was crap, I would still recommend seeing it just for Arias’ performance alone. The rest of the casting in this film was great and the actors who portray them also do a fantastic job; Viola Davis as Major Anderson, Aramis Knight as Bean was pretty good, Ben Kingsley as Mazer Rackham was also perfect, and most of the other child actors were also great to watch.

However, the only casting problem I have is with Abigail Breslin as Valentine, Ender’s sister. Don’t get me wrong, she wasn’t bad, far from it. It’s just that she wasn’t in the film enough, and that really pisses me off. It’s the same problem I have with A-list actors voicing taking most roles away from professional voice actors; you could have gotten someone else in the role, and it wouldn’t have made a difference. To have someone this talented be underused greatly, it makes you wonder why did they bother even getting them. In fact, there were quite a few things that I did find distracting that either didn’t feel right and/or felt incomplete.

For one, I found certain moments to be rushed, mostly in the beginning. The way they establish this world and Ender’s life felt under-developed, and the situation would probably make sense in terms of who these characters are, but they don't give us enough time to soak it in. The best example of that, is when Ender’s brother, Peter, starts to bully him after school. In the book, it’s one of the most psychological and emotional moments that really set the tone of the book. Here, it was performed in less than two minutes, and felt like they were trying to squeeze it in because it was in the book and they needed something to do with Peter. I also felt this film was holding back on the tone that book had. In the book, whenever there was a physical fight Ender was involved in, it was some of the most violent imagery you could imagine. I mean, this kid not only hurt people a lot, he actually beats them to death. Now the one thing that really bothered me about this movie, while just a minor nitpick, is the way they handled the ending of this film.

Note: This next paragraph contains spoilers of the ending in the book, as well as the movie. If you haven’t read the book or seen the movie, skip the indented stuff.

                In the ending of the book, Ender has destroyed the Bugger homeworld, and has completely broken down about what he did. Now that they are at peace, the Earth is now entering into another World War, and they all want Ender as their commander for dictatorship. Because of this, Ender is to stay with the I.F, as Valentine goes up to the station to be with him, where he finds out that Peter is now in control of the war, due to him and Valentine controlling the people through the media. It’s then Ender and Valentine find the caverns that were in the game, and find the surviving queen egg of the Buggers, and Ender decides to travel the universe to find a proper place for the Buggers to repopulate and live on.

                That didn’t happen in this movie. The entire subplot with Peter was cut out of the film completely, they never addressed the next World War, and Ender finds the egg and takes off just a couple days after the final battle, without Valentine to join him. I was really annoyed by this, because this really would have shown a lot more dilemma and interest in the further story.

 At best, this would have probably added about another half hour to the film, to an already less than two hour movie. However, it is a nitpick, and maybe if they do decide to bring it up in flashback for a sequel, or they release an extended director’s cut, I’d understand that better. Speaking of which, Gavin Hood really proved that he's capable of adapting something that is true to both fans and movie goers alike. He gave this film such strong atmosphere, and didn’t even need to use 3D or IMAX to show that. THAT’S a damn good director if you ask me.

Overall, “Ender’s Game” is by far one of my favorite films of the year, and I am SO looking forward to the sequel if they decide to make one. It was fun, it adapted almost everything exact, and it had such excellent performances from each one of its cast.

Rating: 9/10

Machete Kills

                During the late 60’s and early 70’s, there were plenty of films that were in the Grindhouse style. Grindhouse films were the type of theaters, mostly drive-ins, which would show midnight viewings of exploitation films, which are some of the low class Z-Grade films that would focus heavily on violence and sex; they would even include some fake trailers for some obscure movies, but I believe they were only for double features. After that time period, no one had ever made a film that was similar to its very charm and style. That is until 2007, when good friends Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino brought us the movie “Grindhouse,” the first double feature of two films released together that WASN’T just for drive-in movies. The two films were “Planet Terror,” a zombie apocalypse film that featured a lot of action and a chick with a gun for a leg; and “Death Proof,” a slasher film about a stunt-driver that kills people. These two were accompanied with tones of fake trailers from fellow collaborators such as Edgar Wright with “Don’t,” Rob Zombie with “Werewolf Women of the SS,” Eli Roth with “Thanksgiving,” Jason Eisner with “Hobo with a Shotgun,” and even Rodriguez contributed as well with “Machete.” Rumors of these trailers turning into actual movies were spreading like wildfire, but so far the only two to get them were “Hobo with a Shotgun,” and the other was “Machete.”

                “Machete” stars Danny Trejo as the title character, who is a Mexican federal, who seeks revenge on the corrupt drug lord, Rogelio Torrez, after killing his wife and daughter. During this time, he’s also in a constant battle with the troubles of being an immigrant, as he’s been hunted by redneck Americans, lead by Senator John McLaughlin, played by Robert De Niro. It’s stupid, campy, has tones of gore…but it was enjoyable. Compared to the other Grindhouse films that came out three years prior, this one doesn’t have the same charm as “Planet Terror” or “Death Proof.” For one, the film it was shot on looked too clean, where as the other two films were shot on actual film, very dusty with grains and looked like it was missing a few reels for it. There was also a heavy usage of practical effects as well as having the distinct tone that it felt like it was the 70’s. “Machete” on the other hand, looked like it was shot digitally and used way too much CGI. It felt more like a parody on Grindhouse films than it did BE a Grindhouse film. I mean, this film has special effects master TOM SAVINI in the film, and all he did was act in it?! Robert, you have one of the kings of practical effects in the palm of your hand, and you brush him aside for CGI?! Are you high?! Though I will admit it had its highlights, such as Danny Trejo and Robert De Niro as opposites of each other, as well as some pretty good performances from Michelle Rodriguez, Lindsay Lohan, and (surprisingly) Jessica Alba. It was fun to watch, but it wasn’t anything special.

                It was then we are given the sequel, “Machete Kills.” This was the first of the two sequels to be part of the “Machete Trilogy,” even though there weren’t that many people who were screaming for more Machete. So, how WAS this newest installment? Pretty much like how “Kick-Ass 2” turned out to be, only a bit worse. Now don’t get me wrong, I did like this movie, but just barely.

                After an illegal exchange has been stopped, Mexican federalists intervene, leaving Machete to get arrested and his partner to die. It’s only then that he’s called by the President to go and stop Marcos Mendez, the one holding the detonator, only to be caught up in the plan by the true mastermind, Luther Voz, played by Mel Gibson. It’s stupid, but unlike “Kick-Ass 2,” it’s intentionally stupid in every aspect. That’s not to say that it’s without its flaws, and boy does this have a lot.

                Most of the complaints I had with the first movie are present in this film as well, with the format it was filmed on, the feel of it in modern day, and too much CGI. And trust me, they used WAY too much in this film than they did in the first film. They even have Savini return, only to get killed by shitty CGI. I get it that it’s supposed to be really bad, but if you’re going to make a Grindhouse flick, USE PRACTICAL EFFECTS! Hell, “Drive Angry 3D” felt more like a Grindhouse flick, and that had a bigger budget!

                However, that was only the tip of the iceberg, as there were many moments that just made it really stupid, even for a film like this. For starters, the pacing of the film starts to drastically change as it goes on, really making it unbalanced, as well as adding in characters that go absolutely no where. For example we have “The Chameleon,” played by a variety of actors, who is a bounty hunter with hardly any back story or motivation. It doesn’t even have that much to the story, only to drag it out further and waste time. This wouldn’t be so bad, if the character wasn’t built up as this big important plot-point, which they even hinted at in the fake trailer for “Machete Kills Again.” But no, this character is just there, because the script says so; unless it builds up something big for her part in the sequel, then this character is just POINTLESS.

There was also an enormous amount of pointless moments in this film that felt tacked on. For example, the lead up to get to Mendez was only there just to give Sofia Vergera a reason to go after Machete in a ridiculous manner. Not only that, but the weapons that Vergera uses to go after Machete really shove in your face that “oh hey, Sofia Vergera’s a whore, so let’s give her kinky weapons,” and one of which is just a recycled weapon from “From Dusk Till Dawn.” Not only that, but Vergera also has Alexa Vega as one of her disciples, which does raise questions of continuity. Think about it; Machete is the same character Danny Trejo plays in the Spy Kids universe, and Alexa Vega plays his niece in that franchise, but here she’s a different character; and Antonio Banderas plays one of the Chameleon’s different faces, as well as the dad in the Spy Kids films. So is this or is it not the same universe? EXPLAIN ROBERT!

Also, the fake trailer for the third film was put before AND after the movie, meaning when it got to Mel Gibson finally entering into the film, I caught every single point that would pass on into the next film, so what was the point? If you want to show a fake Grindhouse trailer for your movie, MAKE A FAKE TRAILER FOR A FILM YOU’RE NOT MAKING!! That’s why the fake trailers between the “Grindhouse” double-feature were so awesome, because they were films that weren’t even considered for producing. I mean, I could make a fake trailer with a mere paycheck and a couple of friends if I could. Or better yet, DON’T PUT THE FAKE TRAILER IN FRONT OF THE MOVIE, IF YOU’RE GOING TO PUT IT AT THE END ANYWAY!!!

Now you’re probably thinking that I really hated this film, but I did say before I liked it, but only by an inch. Trejo still gives off a badass performance, and the action scenes he takes part in are enjoyable to watch, even if it is CGI. Carlos Estavez as the President is also funny, even if his screen time is short; which by the way, Carlos Estavez is Charlie Sheen’s real name, for those who don’t know. Mel Gibson as Voz does a pretty good job in this role, like he’s just soaking in every moment of it with each passing second, and his Star Wars obsession stands as a pretty funny gag. Michelle Rodriguez is still awesome in the film, returning as Machete’s old friend and local Latina badass. I do wish there was more of her in the film, as she only enters in at the third act, but she’s still looking like she’s having fun with this role, growing as one of my favorite actresses.

Overall, while “Machete Kills” can be enjoyable if looked at in the right direction, it is a pretty big mess, even for a Grindhouse flick. It is still fun, just not AS fun as it could have been. I think it would be better if we got more Grindhouse films that felt more like Grindhouse films. I’m still waiting for when “Thanksgiving” will be fully done, and a few other ideas that could work if done right.

Rating: 5/10

Don Jon

                Over the course of film making, we've seen many famous actors turn into famous film makers. People like Ben Affleck, George Clooney, Gene Kelly, Orson Welles, Mel Gibson, Kevin Costner, Clint Eastwood, and even ones like Jon Favreau and Ben Stiller have made an iconic film in the director’s chair. Now Joseph Gordon-Levitt has also starting to enter into that category, with his newest film, “Don Jon.”

                “Don Jon” tells the story of Jon Martello Jr, a guy who only cares about eight things in life: fitness, a clean place, a sweet car, church, family, bros, women, and most important to him, porn. However, his porn addiction becomes a problem with one girl, as she thinks him watching porn is tasteless. Problem for Jon, he starts to fall for this girl, and now is in a constant struggle on if he should stay with this girl, give up his porn, or find an alternative. It’s a small plot, but then again it IS an hour and a half movie, so it’s kind of expected. After all, it IS Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s directorial debut, as well as his writer debut as well. And with it being a first timer film, it isn't without some flaws.

For starters, there are certain moments that do make the film feel a little repeated at times, that it does tend to drag a bit out. A prime example of that are the church confession scenes, which wouldn't be so bad, but it’s done so much that it got a little tedious. There were also some of the make-out scenes, which tended to go on a little too long, even for a film that doesn't even hit the 90 minute mark. There are also some shots that had shaky cam. Now it isn't like the action film shaky cam, where you can’t see any action happening; instead it is a calming scene that has the camera moving all about to where it started to make my eyes hurt (though that could have something to do with me sitting in the front. Though the one thing that didn't work with me right was Scarlett Johansen as Jon’s first love interest. I don’t know if the character was intended to be like that, but she was just not that likable. The way she talked and some of her lines just made me think this character as annoying. A prime example of it, is when she wants Joe to stop his habits of cleaning his place and leave it to maids…Bitch, you’re dating a guy who cleans his place almost every day, WHY ARE YOU DISAPPROVING OF THIS?!

Now aside from what I disliked, what WAS good about the film? Well…pretty much the rest of the film was good. Joe’s good as always as an actor, but he really does show some great work for a first time director and writer. That and the casting choices were excellent choices. Glenne Headly, Brie Larson, and Tony Danza are hilarious as Jon’s family. With Headly as the mother who wants grandchildren; Larson as the sister who usually stays disconnected with most conversations, yet also has that one moment at the end; and Danza as the father who curses a lot, is obsessed with football, and hardly has much respect for his son. I could not get enough of these dysfunctional, yet very relatable, characters. I’m actually hoping that this film gets a sitcom spin-off on ShowTime; that’s how much I enjoyed these characters. Julianne Moore also has a part in the film, playing Jon’s classmate and 2^nd love interest. She really does show understanding for Jon, and vice versa, the more that Jon starts to grow more attached to her.

Overall, while “Don Jon” isn't perfect, it’s still a pretty good director start for Joseph Gordon-Levitt. I hope to see more work to come from the man as time goes on. Who knows? Maybe he'll direct that "Guys and Dolls" remake he's starring in with Channing Tatum, and become the next Gene Kelly.

Rating: 8/10

Kick Ass 2 (WARNING: Strong Language used)

In 2010, director Matthew Vaughn had brought the viewing audiences the comic book movie, "Kick-Ass." Based on the graphic novel by Mark Millar, the film told of a dorky high school geek, Dave Lizewski, who decides to become a superhero, Kick-Ass. He has no superpowers, but that doesn't stop him from getting into fights with crooks, who work under the kingpin of it all, Frank D'Amico. And he's not the only one, as a little girl and her father take on criminals as well, as Hit Girl and Big Daddy. Now the duo and Kick-Ass must join forces to take down the organization and bring peace to the city. For a film, based on a superhero parody, to be made in the middle of the superhero film craze, this film had so many things that made it stand out from the average superhero movie. It also made the careers of both Aaron Taylor Johnson and Chloe Grace Moretz into more of the public, allowing them to appear more frequently. That, and Nicholas Cage was straight up awesome in the movie.

Today, we'll be discussing it's sequel. How was it? Well, let's find out...

In "Kick-Ass 2," more people have been inspired to dawn their own superhero persona and fight crime. Mindy (Hit Girl), now living with her father's friend, helps Dave train to get back into the superhero business after a while, as she is now trying to live a normal high school life. It's then Dave joins a group of superheroes, under the name "Justice Forever," as they start to go up against Frank D'Amico's son, Chris (formally Red Mist in the first movie, now The Motherfucker), who wants revenge on Kick-Ass for killing his father, by forming an army of super villains, known as the Toxic Megacunts. Like most sequels, this film tries to make itself bigger and have more things that the first film had, but doesn't have the exact charm that was given. The film feels the need to give shock value, as opposed to polishing things out.

For starters, the new heroes introduced that form Justice Forever aren't really developed as much as they could have been. We hear some of the back stories that are told, but when we hear the best friend's backstory to be a lie, it leaves us to think if the others were lies too. Not only that, but the love story between Dave and his crush in the first film is completely thrown out the window because of a misunderstanding, that could have easily been fixed; and to add insult to injury, the girlfriend admits that she was cheating on Dave the whole time. Now, the misunderstanding cliche has been done to death in film, but here there's no point to even have it. The whole point of this being here was only so the other member of Justice Forever, Night-Bitch, could have a romantic interest with Kick-Ass, which begs the question, what the hell was the point of having the girlfriend in the film to begin with? If you had just cut her part out of the film, nothing would have been taken away from this film. Plus, Night-Bitch and Kick-Ass's relationship is really underdeveloped, and there's hardly any chemistry between the two. If they didn't spend so much time with gross-out humor and Mindy dealing with the skank squad, we could have had more development among the characters.

Oh, that's another thing; the scenes with Mindy trying to have a school life and dealing with those """"popular"""" girls, I hated. I can understand it would make it funnier if the girls got what they deserved, but just how it's built up and executed doesn't really make it work. They do the same cliched "oh we pranked you good, you're new which means you suck" crap, and it was REALLY dull to watch. I mean, the so called "prank" they pull is just drive her out into the woods to a party that isn't there, come out of hiding with beer, leave...and that's it. They don't have her in the dark kissing an animal or anything like that...that's not a prank, that's just lying. And that payoff of Mindy getting her revenge on them was simply underwhelming and disgusting (both bad and gross).

The action scenes, while not bad, had way too much shaky cam that half of the time I could see what was going on. When are filmmakers going to learn that shaky cam doesn't make the scene more effective, it only makes it aggravating? It's about as useful as jump-scares in horror movies.

Now what WAS good about his movie? Well, the ones returning from the first film still do great, and the new people in are fairly good too. John Leguizamo as Chris's caretaker, and he manages to get in some of the more funnier lines in the movie. The members of the Toxic Megacunts were also great villains, especially Mother Russia, who straight up goes Jason Vorehees on almost anyone she comes in contact with. Her fight scene with Hit-Girl was also a big highlight of the film, and really added much excitement to the climax. Not to mention, the members of Justice Forever were also enjoyable to watch, despite the lack of development. However, the biggest highlight was Jim Carrey as Colonel Stars and Stripes. He really pulled through with this performance, having a mix between his bat-shit insane attitude to his calm moral nature, which I can tell is an homage to his first comic-book performance, "The Mask." And it really bugs me that he didn't want to promote this film, because his argument makes no damn sense. For a guy going against a film with a lot of violence, let alone a sequel that was just as, you'd think he'd look over what the hell he was signing up for. And if his excuse is for the Sandy Hook shooting, then let me ask this Mr. Carrey: where were you when OTHER shootings have happened in the past? I'm not saying people don't have a right to view things, I just want some consistency here.

Overall, while "Kick-Ass 2" does have problems, it still manages to be an entertaining film. It's got good humor, the acting is still enjoyable, certain action scenes worked out decently (aside from the shaky cam), and I do hope they do a third film to end things out. However, I am hoping they try to make it less choppy.

Rating: 6/10

Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters

In the past decade, there have been many film studios trying to capitalize on the Harry Potter popularity, by adapting a book to a film series in the same vain. The end result, all have them have sucked or at best okay. One of those films happened to have the director of the first two Harry Potter films, Chris Columbus; and that film was "Percy Jackson and the Olympians: The Lightening Theif."

The film told of a young boy named Percy Jackson, the demi-god son of Poseidon, who is accused of stealing Zeus's master lightning bolt. He then sets out to Camp Half-Blood, where he meets up with other demi-gods of the world he's entered, but now enters a fork in the road between putting balance back into the world and bringing back his mother who was killed. For a film that establishes Greek Mythology into its own way, which I think is an interesting idea, it really didn't strike that much to me. It wasn't the worst of this trend of Potter-clones, but it still wasn't a good movie. The best aspect that I got from this film were the actors, especially Logan Lerman who has really evolved more as the years have gone by.

It's then it got it's sequel, "Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters." How was it? Pretty boring actually.

This time around, the long dead half-blood-now-tree that keeps the strong barrier around Camp Half-Blood, Thalia, is starting to die and soon will leave everyone defenseless. It's then Percy learns of the Golden Fleece, which can heal anything it's put over and even more. Despite not being picked for the quest to find it, Percy and his friends, Grover and Annabeth, along with Percy's cyclops half-brother, Tyson, set out to find the Fleece. The troubles that lie ahead for them is that Luke, the demi-god son of Hermes, is still alive and is after the Fleece too, so he can bring back Kronos. While this idea does seem like it should be an easy hour and thirty minute film, the manage to stretch it out to almost two hours, and it really gets unpleasant.

The actors that do return, like Stanley Tucci, Jake Abel, Alexandra Daddario, Brandon T. Jackson, and Logan Lerman pretty much give the same performance from the first film, but then there are new characters who felt unneeded or just unlikable. Douglas Smith plays Percy's half-brother, Tyson, and while I do think he's trying his best here, he didn't feel all that needed, except for the encounter with Polyphemus. Aside from that, there really wasn't much needed from him, even after he saves Percy's life. Though the character that became hard to watch was Levin Rambin as Clarisse La Rue. The minute she was on screen and gave that snarky insult, I knew I was going to hate this character. If I went into more one why I didn't like her, we'd be here all day.

The action scenes, while not great were watchable. Though it does get annoying when characters with swords only use the hilt, up until they're fighting a big special effect. Which brings me to the special effects, which looked awful, especially when you see Kronos, who looks like that ghost rock monster from "Super Mario Galaxy." That, and for a film that was almost two hours long, that final battle felt rushed, which really pissed me off, since I wanted to see what they could have REALLY done with that.

Overall, "Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters" was just a waste of time. I haven't read the books, and after these films, I probably won't have much interest in them. While it has its moments, it doesn't save the film enough.

Rating: 4/10

Elysium

Ever since he gained the strongest point of recognition with "Good Will Hunting," Matt Damon has made it as one of Hollywood's top actors. Since then films like "Dogma," "Ocean's Eleven," "True Grit," "The Departed," and "The Bourne Trilogy" have all shown us how strong an actor he can be. And that leads us to his newest film, "Elysium."

In the year 2154, Max Da Costa is among many people that are stuck on Earth, while the richest people in the world live paradise on Elysium, a country sized space station that allows humans to live life in the strongest luxary. When Max is exposed to radiation, he is then equipped with an exoskeleton, and now it's up to him to override Elysium and save his friends and the many people of Earth. The film does have many interesting ideas going, and it also manages to keep that flow going fairly well with exciting things coming in certain directions.

Matt Damon as Max manages to do well in the role, and you can see the conflict really come into play after his accident. The only problem I had was his character wasn't quite developed enough for me to have that much sympathy for him, which does tend to bring the film down a bit. Jodie Foster plays the head of Elysium, and honestly...she felt pretty unnecessary. She wasn't bad, I'm just saying if you took her out of the film, it wouldn't have changed much at all. William Fichtner plays Da Costa's boss, John Carlyle, and he does fairly decent, but not much is done with this character as I was expecting. I would have loved to see more happen with him. Sharlto Copley plays the villain, Kruger, and he's very entertaining to watch in this movie. He's crooked, he's determined, and has great personality. He manages to come back from death after being hit by a grenade, showing how this character can be a force reckoned with. However, his character seems pretty one dimensional, as all his character's nothing more than a hitman.

The action scenes and special effects are pretty decent, but the shaky came does get annoying, AS ALWAYS. The film was directed by Neil Blomkamp, the man behind "District 9;" people actually thought that this movie was supposed to be a sequel to that, but there are so many heavy differences that I don't know why people would think that. That's like saying the "Hellboy" movies are a continuation to "Pan's Labyrinth," just because of the director and look of the film.

Overall, "Elysium" was...okay at best. If you thought that "D9" was overrated and you're curious about this film...I'd say skip it, it's pretty much the same level.

Rating: 6/10

Despicable Me 2

                In 2010, Universal’s newest animation studio, Illumination, had brought itself to the public with their first film, “Despicable Me.” The film tells of Gru, a villain who wants to be #1, but is always one step behind his rival, Vector. In an attempt to get Vector’s invention and succeed in stealing the moon, Gru adopts three little girls to assist him. And throughout the film, we see Gru start to become attached to them the more he spends time with them. While it wasn’t really anything ground-breaking, especially since it was a month after “Toy Story 3,” it was a good movie. For a first time with animation, Illumination did a fairly decent job and made something that’s fun for both kids and adults, with some likable characters and some very decent voice acting. And with a film like this, it was bound to have gotten a sequel.

                In the new film, Gru has given up the villain’s business and moved on to be a better father to his children: Margo, Edith, and Agnes. When a villain steals a formula to turn anyone into a berserk hairy beast, Gru is recruited by the Anti-Villain League to capture him and bring him to justice. During his mission, he starts to develop a relationship with his partner, Lucy, especially since his girls want him to find love and give them a new mommy. The film does an especially good job, adding new ideas and jokes, all while still being genuine. It continues the story, and doesn’t try to repeat the same story and keeps it going strong.

                Steve Carell reprises his role of Gru again, and he manages to keep the character fresh, making sure that the character is made his own. Miranda Cosgrove, Dana Gaier, and Elsie Fisher return as Margo, Edith, and Agnes, and they have a much bigger part relating to the movie this time around. Here, Margo is starting to show her interest in boys, which is something Gru is trying to cope with, especially when she’s falling for the villain’s son. And let me say, the pay off it leads to is hilarious. Agnes and Edith are also trying to find Gru a perfect match, so they can have the feeling of having a mother, especially when Agnes has to recite a performance for Mother’s Day. It really adds to the touching factor that was done well with the first film, which is made better here as well. Kristen Wiig also returns to the film, but this time she’s playing Gru’s partner and love-interest, Lucy Wilde. Surprisingly, she was actually my favorite character in the film, since I’m not too big a fan of her work, but here she managed to prove me wrong and be very likable. She’s energetic, crazy, and her personality was just all over the place that I could hardly keep myself from laughing every time she was on screen.

                One thing this film made work so much better were the minions. In the first film, the minions really didn’t do much aside from just being comic relief. Here, they actually serve more purpose to the plot, and are actually a key element involved with the villain’s plan. Speaking of which, the villain El Macho was just a joy to watch. Originally, he was played by Al Pacino, and was put all over the promotional ads for it, but for some reason he dropped out and was replaced by Benjamin Bratt. Bratt does a pretty good job you can’t tell that much difference.

                The one problem that I had has to do with the final act, but that dives right into spoilers. I’ll I can say is if you’re going to establish a character with certain traits, only for her to forget about them at the end, give a better reason for them to not work.  If you’ve seen the film, you know what I’m talking about. Also, I wish the final battle with Gru and El Macho had lasted a bit longer. Other than that, there isn’t that much I had a problem with it.

Overall, “Despicable Me 2” was an enjoyable film with a big audience, and there are plenty of jokes for both kids and adults to enjoy. If this does spawn another film, aside from the minions’ film, I’m open to see what comes next.

Rating: 8/10

The Wolverine

                The year 1998 started up the golden age of Marvel’s Comic book films, as the Wesley Snipes film, “Blade,” brought in much of the possibilities come to life. Since then, we’ve seen many studios make adaptations of famous Marvel comic book films. Following in “Blade’s” success was the 2000 flick, “X-Men,” the first superhero team-up film that instantly sparked into a franchise. And today, we’re given the newest to the franchise, “The Wolverine.”

                Years after the events of “X-Men 3: The Last Stand,” Logan has gone into hiding, trying to deal with the pain of killing Jean Grey. He is then taken to Japan to meet Ichiro Yashida, a man who Logan had saved during World War II, who wants to repay him for what he’s done for him and wants Logan to give him his powers so Logan can have a normal life and die like a normal person. After declining, Logan is soon found protecting Yashida’s granddaughter, who is next in line to take her place as head of the family, but also has the problem of not healing right after an encounter with the Viper. Out of all the “X-Men” films that have been released in the past, this one stands as not only the best, but the most enjoyable out of any of them. It really sets itself as more of an American Samurai flick, but also being true to heart on what it is. To a lot of people, this is the TRUE Wolverine movie we have all been waiting for.

                Hugh Jackman does it again, showing off his amazing portrayal of the character, but does it so much better this time around. He still stands high as my favorite actor, and this film doesn’t disappoint on that. Tao Okamato as Mariko, Yashida’s granddaughter, gave off a good performance as well, but her character did seem a bit off to me. She has some scenes where it looks like she can hold her own, but that’s often disregarded when she’s being taken hostage. Aside from that, she did exceptionally well in the film. Rika Fukushima as Yukio, the one who brings Logan to Japan, was all kinds of badass samurai. Her interactions with Logan really do stand out among the rest of the film, and her actions scenes really do make her look like she sprung out of an anime. Famke Jansen also appears in the film, and surprisingly more than I expected. I thought that her scene in the trailers would have been it, but they managed to use more of her and in an effective way, as she portrays Logan’s side of wanting to die, so he could be with her. Haruhiko Yamanouchi as Yashida proved to be a great character as well, but there are things about him that do lead into spoilers, but he really has such a deep presence to him that just feels so enhancing and connecting.

                The action scenes and effects are incredible to watch, and you can just feel the intensity of it in each heavy hit. If there is any action scene that really hits it strong, it’s the train scene. At first, it could have been cheesy, but this film (along with a good amount of other films) manages to make it a fantastic action scene, that you feel the speed and wind in your hair as you’re watching it. The only action scene that was my least favorite, which is my only problem with the movie, was the last one. Not that it was bad, but that it felt rushed and a little confusing. I don’t want to spoil it, but when you see it you’ll get what I mean.

                Overall, “The Wolverine” stands as my favorite X-Men movie, and I’m going to be looking forward to the upcoming “Days of Future Past” next year.

Rating: 8/10

R.I.P.D.

                In 1999, the Sci-fi channel brought in a show called “Good vs. Evil,” about a cop who dies and is brought into an afterlife police department, taking on criminals of the undead who are refusing to accept death. Before that, in 1997, “Men in Black” had set its mark on the world of buddy-action films. These two have had cult followings throughout the late 90’s to early 2000’s, being something within the science-fiction genre that hasn’t been seen on TV or movies. Why do I bring this up? Well, because they’re both being heavily ripped-off in “R.I.P.D.”

                “R.I.P.D.” tells of the story Nick Walker, a man who is double-crossed by his Kevin Bacon partner, and is then recruited into working for an afterlife organization that takes in dead spirits who refuse to accept the afterlife. He does this, while teamed up with Roy Pulsipher.

“R.I.P.D.” is pretty much the plot of “Good vs. Evil” all while trying to be “Men in Black.” Now don’t get me wrong, I’ve addressed before that rip-offs aren’t all bad, if they’re at least enjoyable. “Olympus Has Fallen” and “The Hunger Games” are examples of it being done right. With “R.I.P.D.” it never tries in anyway shape or form to be interesting in the slightest. The acting is crap, the action scenes are boring, the script is lackluster, and the special effects were so terrible I had to check if my eyes were bleeding from just looking at it.

First off, Ryan Reynolds doesn’t even look like he’s even trying in this movie. I have never seen him give such a wooden performance as this since “Green Lantern.” This is the fourth time he’s done a comic book movie and has failed in doing so. If he wants to prove me wrong, he’d better make up for it with “Deadpool,” and actually BE Deadpool. Kevin Bacon is the villain in this movie, and he does it so clichéd and obvious, that the reveal of him being a dead-o couldn’t be any more obvious if he just wore a shirt that said, “I’m fucking evil! Fear me!” because guess what? It’s Kevin Bacon! OF COURSE HE’S EVIL! Stephanie Szostak was incredibly forgettable and felt really forced in. All she did in this movie was being the girlfriend and damsel, all while not being interesting in ANY way. If you had just cut her out of the film, you’d have the exact same film. However, the most aggravating character in this movie was Jeff Bridges. People who have said they hated this movie have cut Jeff Bridges slack, but I disagree. I absolutely HATED this character, and Bridges doesn’t do anything in this movie to make him interesting. All he does in this movie is act like a big-shot rebel from the old west, all while being an annoying prick to Ryan Reynolds. He keeps going on and on about how he was killed and eaten by coyotes, but not once are we ever sympathizing with him. Not only that, but I could hardly understand what the hell this guy was saying in the film. He was harder to understand than Darth Connery Bane in “The Dark Knight Rises.”

The special effects and action scenes don’t help the film much either. It felt like this film should have been released in the early 90’s, when CGI was in its popularity craze; but this was 2013, and these effects look worse than the “Catwoman” movie. And with the creatures being called “Dead-os,” makes me think they wanted to make it like the “Evil Dead” deadites…As for the action scenes, they were boring and uneventful, almost as badly as “A Good Day to Die Hard.” Even with its climactic battle, there was nothing that got me exciting, except thinking I could be watching a better movie with an “end of the world struggle batte.”

The film was directed by Robert Schwentke, the same man responsible for directing “Red,” back in 2010, and honestly to see that the sequel to that be better received just shows how big a mistake it was to do this film. Granted, “Red” wasn’t all THAT big of a movie, but it was still better than this crap.

Overall, “R.I.P.D.” is one of the worst films I’ve seen this year, and in general. It’s pretty much if you took the main character from “Green Lantern,” put him into the premise of “Good vs. Evil,” with a  character that looked like he just walked off the set of “Jonah Hex,” in the style of “Men in Black,” only made into a terrible mess. For a good time, NOT THIS MOVIE!

Rating: 1/10

Pacific Rim

                Giant robot movies have really taken to scale on what they can become today in film. “Transformers,” while a terrible film series, did prove the fact that making films about giant robots IS possible. It just depends on how you can do them in a way that actually works, and isn’t complete and total bull with people on the internet in a complete raging war about it. What people want isn’t just to have robots fights, after going through two hours of annoying and undeveloped characters; what they want is a story with actual context, three dimensional characters, and robot fights that aren’t so damn close, so you can tell what’s going on. Well good news, the director of “Hellboy,” Guillermo Del Toro, has answered your prayers with “Pacific Rim.”

                The film is set in a future, not too far from our own, where kaiju from an alternate world rift in the ocean have come to destroy the world. While they manage to take a couple down with tanks and planes, they double down and created the Jaegers, which are giant fighting robots. Cut to years later, where we meet our main character, Raleigh Becket, whose re-recruited back into the fight, after five years. With him back in the battle, it leaves the military with a better chance of defense, and more time from them to find a way to destroy the rift and finally stop this neverending cycle of chaos. Much like most of Guillermo Del Toro movies, this epic masterpiece is just a love-letter to film making in general. And most importantly, unlike “Transformers,” it has very likable characters, a very enjoyable story, and action scenes that actually have scale and weight to it.

                Charlie Hunnam from “Sons of Anarchy” plays Raleigh, and he really does a great job through the film. He may be the clichéd hero who is determined to do what it takes, but gives the character a great charm to him, much like in every Guillermo Del Toro movie. Rinko Kikuchi takes on the role of Mako Mori, and she’s all kinds of badass in this movie. She did a great job in this role, and throughout you can see in her expression that she’s be through tons of hell. Idris Elba plays Marshal Stacker Pentecost, which is the role of the stern military leader who wants things done by the book. However, unlike most versions of this cliché, Stacker actually has a purpose for most of his decisions, especially with his backstory with Mori. I don’t want to give away what it is, but when you see it, things will come clear.

                Charlie Day and Burn Gorman play Newt and Hermann, two scientists who have been studying the Kaiju for years now. They may be the comic reliefs in this film, but it comes from their own quirky attitudes and determination, especially with Charlie Day. Sure, it may seem like he’s just playing Charlie from “It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia,” but here he’s given much more depth and personality, other than just being a crazy nut with smarts. And with it being Guillermo Del Toro, you can always count on Ron Perlman being in the film. He does a great job, playing a black-market dealer, and his scenes interacting with Day is just hilarious. He alone is worth the price of admission, and it’s worth every penny.

                Now let’s talk about the main purpose for the movie, the action scenes. Holy crap, these are some of the most spectacular special effects and fight scenes ever captured on film. This is what everything good about giant robots and giant monster battles should be like. This is Guillermo Del Toro’s love-letter to the otaku in all of us who grew up watching giant-mecha anime like “Voltron,” “Robotech,” and any Gundam series you can think of. Top it all off with a kick-ass soundtrack, and you’ve got one amazing film that will be worth remembering for a long time.

                Overall, “Pacific Rim” is one of my favorite movies of the year, and I’m hoping this film makes its money so it can let Mr. Del Toro make a sequel to both this and “Hellboy!” One more thing, feel free to see the film in 3D, because it is WELL worth it!

Rating: 10/10

The Lone Ranger

                Johnny Depp still stands as one of the most iconic working actors today. Ever since his debut in 1984 with Wes Craven’s “A Nightmare on Elm Street,” he’s appeared in many films that have become classic in an instant. “Fear and Loathing,” “Finding Neverland,” “Platoon,” “Donnie Brasco,” “Cry-Baby,” and “Ed Wood,” just to name the few. He’s done plenty of films to show just how good of an actor he can be and go further and beyond with it. But that doesn’t mean he’s had a share of bad films as well, like “The Man Who Cried,” “The Tourist,” “Dark Shadows,” “Ninth Gate,” and so forth.

                This time, Depp has teamed up with “Pirates of the Caribbean” director, Gore Verbinski, once again, for Disney’s big budget re-imagining to “The Lone Ranger,” marking it as the first Lone Ranger movie in over thirty years.  Now, I never actually was too big on the Lone Ranger, or even knew anyone who WAS a fan of the character, so I’m only going to be judging this film on its own. Before I even saw the film, I’ve heard SO much hatred upon this film, to where Rotten Tomatoes had it at a 25% rating. But that didn’t stop me from seeing this at the premiere showing. And yes, there are many things that I do agree with people that didn’t make the film work and falls flat…However, I didn’t really find it AS bad as people were making it out to be. Also, I’d like to point out that there are spoilers ahead, so I’d suggest you’d skip over to the rating, or continue on with reading what I have to say.

                The movie tells of John Reid, a lawyer who arrives into town to visit his brother and family, all while on the transport of Butch Cavendish, a cannibalistic outlaw. When Butch escapes, John joins his brother and his friends, now deputized as a ranger, but are then gunned down by Butch. John survives, and is told is a spirit walker by Tonto, a native that John arrested after Butch escaped, who both now want to hunt down Butch and take revenge for killing people that they held dear to them.

                First off, let’s get the obvious one out of the way, and that’s Johnny Depp. Now my problem with Depp in the role wasn’t the fact that he wasn’t Indian, and he was just saying he had ancestry and a Native mother to prove he IS part Native; I’m sick of hearing those arguments over and over again, and just the minute it comes into play just gives me a headache; no, my problem was the fact that Depp wasn’t really playing a different character, and was just playing Jack Sparrow while talking Indian. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy the Jack Sparrow character, but I find it completely unnecessary outside of the “Pirates” series. It could have worked out fine if Depp kept it subtle throughout the film, but it’s there for most of the film, and it gets old really fast. Depp, we know you got an Oscar nomination for it, we don’t need to see it in EVERYTHING you’re in now.

Another thing that really didn’t work was some of the comedy moments, which really took the mood from the scene it was in, like a chase scene that has a horse drinking from a bottle of rum or a very serious back-story followed by some dumbass line. Disney, you don’t need to make this “Pirates of the Caribbean,” we already have enough of that from Depp.

                Also the story is basically a rehash of “Who Framed Roger Rabbit?” and no; I’m not kidding when I say that. A hero whose apart of the law, whose brother is killed by a cartoony villain, goes after him with the help of another cartoony character, who had a thing with a sexy-redhead thrown in somewhere; that pretty much “Roger Rabbit,” with Lone Ranger characters put into the mix of things. Speaking of sexy-redhead, Helena Bonham Carter appears in this movie, and is only in the film for two scenes; and no, that one moment in the beginning where she’s seeing the railroad being built does not count. She’s supposed to be a character that helps out Reid and Tonto, especially in the third act, but with how they’ve underused her and how they’ve had other characters, all it does is make you wonder what the point of having her was, especially when her character rips off “Planet Terror.”

                Now the one thing that I felt was completely pointless were the scenes that took place in the 1930’s, which start off the film. The events of the Lone Ranger happening were told through Tonto, to a kid looking at exhibits in a fair. Those scenes didn’t really add much to the film, other than it just to be there for the sake of comedy. And it doesn’t help much that the kid’s the boy from “Spy Kids 4.”

                Also, with the Lone Ranger being a “spirit walker” in which he can’t be killed, they don’t really do much with that sort of thing. There’s even a scene where Reid doesn’t stops believing Tonto about it, and instead of having him shot to make him believe he is, they just have Tonto save Reid from that; but then again, Reid was only shot in the shoulder when he and his brother were ambushed, so I guess that breaks that argument.

                Now with all that I’ve said, what made me think this film wasn’t as bad as people made it out to be? Well for starters, William Fichtner as Butch Cavendish was very enjoyable to watch. Fichtner really knows how to bring out a good villain, being the highlights of even some of the weakest of films. Hell, the things that he does in this film, and just the amount of what they’ve shown in this film, this came pretty close to being Disney’s first R-rated movie.

While I wasn’t too big on Depp as Tonto, I got to give them props for giving them a proper back-story to why he has a vendetta against Butch, as well as explaining how the whole “spirit walker” thing came into play for him. There’s also Armie Hammer as John Reid, the Lone Ranger himself. People complained that this guy was unlikable, because he makes dumb decisions like not killing Butch and instead arresting him. Well, he’s already been established as a man of the law, so he does all those on instinct, especially when he’s admitted he’s not a cruel man. It helps within the final act when he puts all of that aside to finally do something right, and I didn’t have any problem with what they did with that.

People thought that the film should have just been called “Tonto and the Lone Ranger,” since it focused more on Tonto than it did the actual Lone Ranger himself. Yes, I do agree that is a legitimate gripe, but I felt that they explained enough about John Reid as a character throughout the first act, and you can tell in his expression that he’s been through some tough times.

                What I also enjoyed about this film were the action scenes, most notable the final action scene in the end. If anything, these are probably the best action scenes that I’ve seen in any Western flick. The stunt work, the angles, the shootouts, the tension, all of it tied with the Lone Ranger theme playing, thanks to composer Hans Zimmer bringing that to life. Even with all the problems with this film, this still stands as one of the most exciting climaxes I have ever seen. However, it barely makes up for some of the other stuff that came about, through and through. If this film had made a few adjustments, this would have been an interesting pilot for a new Lone Ranger TV series on AMC.

                Overall, while “The Lone Ranger” isn’t quite as bad as everyone made it out to be, it still doesn’t make itself a good movie. It has some redeeming qualities, but in the end it just falls flat as being a very mediocre film. But would the positives still make it worth seeing in theaters? Of course. Like I said, the Lone Ranger himself is a likable character, and there are some damn good action scenes, especially with the climax, and there are enjoyments with the villain. If this film took out all those mistakes and wasn’t bombing as badly, though it wouldn’t have been a problem if it didn’t cost $300 million, then I would have loved to see a sequel, or maybe even a full-on trilogy. But instead, we have this.

Rating: 5/10