Escape from Planet Earth vlog

Me and my cousins talk about the newest animated film from the animation company that brought us "Reboot" and "Beast Wars"...try to guess what we thought of it.

Bullet to the Head

 About a month ago, I talked about the new Arnold Schwarzenegger film, “The Last Stand,” which was a film about a broken down hero, who still has what it takes. What made that film special to me was it's cheesy look and attitude, being a film that's expressing that even after all these years, Arnold still has what it takes to kick some ass. And now, Sylvester Stallone has brought us a film in that same way, under the name “Bullet to the Head.” How was it? Pretty disappointing, but not as much as “A Good Day to Die Hard.”

“Bullet to the Head” tells of an ex-marine now hitman, Jimmy Bobo, who is now framed for the murder of his partner, so that way some con-men won't get ahold of some evidence that will lead themselves to the police, for their illegal operations. Now Bobo has to team up with Detective Taylor Kwon, whose still in trust with some corrupt police cops, to take them down and avenge Jimmy's partner. While it IS a dumb action film, I felt it lacking on much of the stuff brought by “The Last Stand.”

First off, Stallone's character of Jimmy Bobo, I can understand his needs for revenge, but he just came off as too violent. I know that Stallone has played some dark characters in the past, but this one was a bit too much for my taste. However, due to the relationship he has with his daughter, that at least brought some likability into it, but it wasn't enough. Also, the twists with the villains, while good, didn't really hold up, since none of them were that memorable, except for NOT Conan the Barbarian, Jason Mamoa, but that's just only for his eyes which are OBVIOUSLY sinister. Not to mention, most of the cinematography is AWFUL  I could hardly tell what was going on in it, that it felt like a Jerry Bruckheimer production.

But aside from all that, there are some good moments to it. Sung Kang gave a decent performance as Detective Kwon, being a cop who has some pretty funny lines in the movie, especially with his interactions with Stallone. Same goes for Sara Shahi, since almost all of her scenes are with Kang or Stallone, so she did good in the film. And even for a cliché and cheesy plot, they manage to give it a decent enough execution.

The film was directed by Walter Hill, who was the director for “The Warriors,” one of the films that defines cult following. Sadly, this film doesn't reach that level of fun that “The Warriors” had, but thankfully it wasn't his worst either. “Supernova” anyone?

Overall, “Bullet to the Head” is a mediocre film which I'm mixed about. But if you're board and want to kill an hour and half, I'd say wait for it on Netflix, or catch a low-price matinee...but only if “The Last Stand” isn't playing at the theater you're at.

Rating 5/10

A Good Day to Die Hard (Why? Why?! WHY?!!)

 Action flicks are one of the staples of being a film goer. It's got many things to enjoy, from romance to adrenaline rushes, to everything else you can think of. And one that comes to mind to most people is the 1988 John McTiernan film, “Die Hard.”

The film is about a New York cop named John McClane, who visits L.A. to see his family for the holidays. When he's visiting his wife at a party for her business at the Nakatomi Plaza, the building is raided by terrorists, lead by Hans Gruber, but John manages to be the only one not caught, and has to take them all down, and save his wife. He's outnumbered, outgunned, barefoot, and the stakes are high, but he'll step up to that challenge. This film was released around the time that big name action stars like Schwarzenegger and Stallone were portrayed as these invincible juggernauts in “Commando” and “Rambo,” but with John McClane, he's just a regular guy, who happens to be a cop. He's doing all this, because he has no other choice; he does make comebacks to his enemies, but he's still scared about the whole thing; he does get hurt badly throughout the film, physically AND mentally; John McClane...is HUMAN. And he serves as one of the most realistic protagonists not just in films, but in general. This is what deviated Bruce Willis from Stallone and Schwarzenegger, because of his humanity and charm. His ongoing chemistry with the other characters is very reasonable, and he says what any sane person would say under these circumstances. Not only that, but Alan Rickman as Hans Gruber is still to this day, one of the greatest villains ever portrayed. But overall, “Die Hard” is the definition of a perfect action movie.

Two years later, we were given “Die Hard 2: Die Harder,” and it's pretty much what you'd expect. This time, an airport is undertaken by another group of terrorists, this time lead by Franco Nero, and John McClane has to settle things through to save his wife, all while dealing with some sleezy cops that give him a hard time. It does try to raise the stakes and make all of it bigger, but it just results in a big clunky film. Don't get me wrong, it's not ALL bad, since there are some enjoyable moments and it still feels like a “Die Hard” movie. However, there are some instances where it feels far fetched, but it still has some fun either way.

It wasn't for another five years, that we'd get a TRUE “Die Hard” sequel, under the name “Die Hard with a Vengeance.” In this one, Hans Gruber's brother, Simon, is after McClane by playing a game of riddles, in exchange for stopping bombs planted around the city of New York. McClane has to team up with Zeus Carver, a racist electrician whose dragged into this after saving McClane from getting killed in Harlem. Now the two have to find Simon, solve the riddles and stop the detonators, and put a stop to Simon's other plan at hand. John McTiernan returns as director, giving this movie a great amount of enjoyment, in terms of 90's action, and with how they did it is spectacular. Samuel L. Jackson as Zeus adds a lot of great humor to the film and his ongoing chemistry between him and McClane is one of the biggest highlights. He's pretty much like ANOTHER John McClane, not wanting to be apart of this situation, but he has to or else shit well get real. Before, Jackson was only famous for his work on “Pulp Fiction,” but this is where he also got his stardom going. Jeremy Irons gives a fantastic performance as Simon Gruber, and is the perfect choice for Alan Rickman's successor as a “Die Hard” villain. He's smart, calculative, and plays his cards right, so it is hard to outsmart him. Though if I had to choose one complaint about the film, it would have to be the ending. Not that it's bad, but if it was done differently, I would have said it was just as good as the original, if not better. But that doesn't mean this came close.

After about a good twelve years since the third, and almost 20 years since the original, we were given a fresh and new film from “Underworld” director, Len Wiseman, “Live Free or Die Hard” (Die Hard 4.0). In this film, computer meltdowns are going down towards hackers, and one by one, they're getting killed in an corruption explosion. That is except for one, Matthew Farrell, who is rescued by John McClane, and they set out to find Thomas Gabriel, and put an end to his plans of digitally collapsing the economy completely. While this is a big step down from the third film, that doesn't mean it's not good. It does have a lot of enjoyment to it, but it doesn't quite have the same feeling that the other three had. It felt a little too modernized, and I felt some of the characters were either unnecessary or just annoying. Justin Long as Matthew Farrell got on my nerves, but he did serve a purpose. In the beginning, he was a bit whiny and acted like a pompous jerk at times, with that attitude of new is better than old. I really hate people who are like that. Timothy Olyphant as Thomas Gabriel was...okay but he seemed to lack the intimidation of Hans and the calculative charm of Simon. He wasn't bad, just not good enough. Mary Elizabeth Winstead played Lucy, McClane's daughter, and she was probably the most unnecessary character in the film. She just didn't serve that much of a purpose, other to be there for McClane to save. It was said that Winstead was one of five candidates for playing Lucy, and one of which was Taylor Fry, who was the daughter in the original film. I don't get why they didn't choose her...but then again, it was either Winstead, or having to deal with Jessica Simpson or Brittany Spears. Also, I didn't really see a purpose of making the film PG-13, where as the rest have been R rated. I think it was just to get a bigger box office grossing, but it felt unnecessary with how they were editing it. Even with the unrated cut, I've heard that the editing was off. However, with all of that, it doesn't quite make it a bad movie, it just has some problems.

Now after attending the “Die Hard Marathon,” I was able to see these films leading up to the new one, “A Good Day to Die Hard.” And let me say this, I have never been so disappointed in a film than this one. If you thought 2 or 4 were bad, take a look at THIS one!

So what's the plot of the film?...Boy is THAT the million dollar question here. Now let me say this, this is one of the first films in a long time that I had walked out on, and it wasn't just because I was tired, but that NOTHING WAS HAPPENING IN THIS FILM! All I could gather was that John McClane goes to visit his son Jack in Russia, but it turns out that Jack is a spy, who is in cahoots with a Russian terrorist, or something like that, and John gets dragged into the mix. That's all I could gather from it. So when I retried watching it online, I was still in the same mixed of confusion on this plot.

Let's discuss what's wrong with the movie, aside from its terrible plot (or lack of, I should say), and that's the action scenes. Not too long in, we're put into a car chase, that feels like something out of a “Transporter” movie, than it does a “Die Hard” film. It's just constant car chase, with hardly a shot that lasts three seconds, and physics that are so out of reality, that it's just insulting to this franchise. What made “Die Hard” so great and memorable was it's reality, and how you could picture yourself in the same situation, doing the same thing (if you were in good shape). In this film, it not only disregards that fact, it completely DESTROYS it! This isn't a “Die Hard” film, it's a generic action film that not even Steven Seagal would put on his resume. The dialogue in this film is pretty much most of the same thing over and over again, about Jai Courtney and Bruce Willis talking about father-son relations and how they didn't have those moments, etc. And I'm not exaggerating here, this is literally what goes on throughout the film. As for the villains, oh wait, WHAT villains? They're just Russian terrorists. Again, not exaggerating. Jai Courtney was also very boring as Jack, and I felt he could have done so much, if they had gotten a better script and director (we'll get to them shortly.)

Also, I'd like to ask one major question here: *ahem*...WHERE THE HELL IS JOHN MC-FUCKING-CLANE?!? This is the number one thing I was asking myself every single minute of the film, and I didn't see him at all. I saw Bruce Willis playing John McClane, but I didn't see John McClane. You could have called him ANYTHING and you would have had the same exact film! There isn't even the slightest hint of John McClane's charm ANYWHERE in this film, aside from a slight one-liner, but that's it. That's not John McClane, that's Church from "The Expendables." I mean, give “Indiana Jones 4” SOME credit, at least it HAD Indiana Jones.

This film was directed by John Moore, the same guy who directed “Max Payne” and “The Omen (2006),” and I honestly would rather watch both those films than this ever again. It shocks me how the original director for this movie turned it down to work on the sequel for “300,” should have been the first sign of this. The script was written by Skip Woods, who was the writer for “Hitman” and “X-Men Origins: Wolverine.” How his script got green-lit is beyond me.

Overall, “A Good Day to Die Hard” is not only the worst of the “Die Hard” films AND the worst of the year so far, it is by far...the WORST SEQUEL I have ever seen in my life, and I saw "Highlander 2!"

Rating: 1/10

Hansel and Gretel/Warm Bodies/Side Effects

Today we have a triple package for today. A fairy tale with a new spin, a zombie-rom-com, and a mystery about medication and people.

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

Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters

 Movies based on classic fairy tales are mostly hit and miss with most people now-a-days. They're usually turned into the cliched child-friendly story that many people know today, or turned into the dark and twisted horror that the Brothers Grimm had intentionally. Today, the best example of the latter, is Tim Burton's “Sleepy Hallow,” and since then, not too many films have lived up to that kind of legacy, until last year's “Snow White and the Huntsman.” Today, we are also shown the next dark fairy tale movie, “Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters.”

For the two of you who don't know the story of Hansel and Gretel, let me tell you. Two children, Hansel and Gretel, are abandoned in the woods by their father, and find their way to a candy house, where they are captured by a witch, who almost eats them. But they escape by burning her in her own oven. That's how the story goes, but in this film, it takes place several years later, when the two children are now witch hunters.

Now the idea of telling us what happened to Hansel and Gretel after their encounter with a witch and almost getting killed is a very clever idea. Even if the idea of them being steam-punk witch hunters is ludicrous, they still find creative ways of making this a very entertaining and at times funny adaption. These people knew something like this would be stupid, but I can see they really had fun making this idea work.

The cast really does a good job, even for this kind of film. Jeremy Renner's Hansel gives a performance that is him doing what he does best. You can tell that he was having fun with this role. Not only that, but one of the things they added was that Hansel has diabetes. They don't actually SAY it's diabetes, but you can tell that it is, which adds a lot of interesting development to him. Gemma Arterton, who played Strawberry Fields in “Quantum of Solace,” plays Gretel, and gives off a feisty turn to the character, and even though she's given the 'strong independent woman' cliché (not that it's a bad thing), she doesn't make it boring or one-dimensional. Speaking of James Bond chicks, Famke Janssen plays the head-witch, and gives it a deliciously evil presence to that character. How evil you may ask? Well, you'd have to see the movie, since it involves spoilers being revealed. Pihla Viitala plays Mimi, who is pretty much useless as Hansel's love interest and show some fanservice, aside from a few moments. But other than her helping Hansel in certain parts, she could have been cut from the film and it would remain the same. There's also a fanboy of Hansel and Gretel's (I am not kidding when I say that), who has intentions of being a witch hunter himself, and he is, unlike Viitala, becomes very useful throughout the film.

The action scenes and 3D are very impressive, and make it what I wanted “Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter” to be: cheesy, stupid, and fun. Originally, this film was originally scheduled for a March 2^nd release last year, but MGM had pushed it back due to give Jeremy Renner's popularity a little time to develop with films like “Mission Impossible 4,” “The Avengers,” and “The Bourne Legacy.” To be fair, I think that was a very smart move for the studio in my opinion. This was produced by Adam McKay and Will Ferrell, which is a very odd film to expect from them, but in a strange way it kind of works. So cudos to them for green lighting this film.

Overall, “Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters” is a very fun film...but it doesn't make it anymore stupid, does it? If you plan on seeing something like this, I'd suggest you grab a few friends and bring them to this. It's a very fun, dumb movie, that is very enjoyable.

Rating: 8/10

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

Warm Bodies

 You know what I love? Zombies. More specific, films ABOUT zombies like “Night of the Living Dead,” “Zombieland,” “Shaun of the Dead,” and so forth. You know what I also love? Romantic comedies, mostly because I'm a sucker for them, but I can't help it. Hell, my favorite movie of all time is “(500) Days of Summer,” which is in the genre of romantic comedies. Now when both genres are put together, that sounds like an awesome idea, which someone decided to give the public “Warm Bodies”...and boy was I disappointed.

The film is about a zombie in the age of apocalypse named R, played by Nicholas Hoult. He lives at an airport that is inhabited by zombies, where he and his friend go out from time to time and hunt for food. During one trip, they meet, or rather 'eat,' a bunch of survivors, save for one girl named Julie, who R has a fascination for, after eating her boyfriend's brain. And the more he's around her, the more he starts to feel alive, which also affects the other zombies, except the ones called “boneys,” who eat anything with a heartbeat.

Let's go over what doesn't work here: the premise. For those of you who haven't heard about it, you're thinking, “this sounds incredibly stupid.” And it is, because in the end you'll be thinking this, “a zombie apocalypse is cured by the power of love.” Think about that, and tell me that it ISN'T the dumbest thing you ever heard. Now I wouldn't mid it as much, but it does get bothersome when you think about more. I can understand that whole suspension of disbelief thing, but...ugh...that just sounds so wrong. Not only that, but for a comedy, it isn't all that funny. There were moments where I had almost chuckled, but for the most part, I found the film pretty boring. That, and I know I'm going to get hated for this, but it's the references to “Romeo & Juliet,” like the leads being R and Julie, the balcony scene, them coming from two different sides, and I just found that stupid, since I don't care for that story in the slightest.

Now you might be thinking, what DID I find good in this movie? I'd say just about most of everything else. Nicholas Hoult is a pretty good actor, and he does a good job. He has that zombie presence to him, which really sold it for me. Teresa Palmer as Julie, did an okay job, and was at least enough to be likable. Even in some scenes that are a bit annoying, she still manages to be likable. John Malkovich is great as Julie's dad, but sadly he wasn't in the film enough to make it enjoyable. Rob Corddry plays R's friend, M, and he was the guy who managed to get a couple smiles out of me, but much like Malkovich, he wasn't in it enough to make it worth it.

However, the strongest point this movie has are the effects and make-up. I mean, these zombies look real, even if the boneys are CGI. If we were judging effects and make-up in a zombie film, I'd say this would make it in the top 7 at best. But if I was going to a watch a film SIMPLY for effects, I'd probably just watch something else. This film was directed by Jonathan Levine, who had directed the comedy-drama “50/50,” which is a big leap for him to go from that to this in terms of effects.

Overall, “Warm Bodies” isn't that good, but I sadly feel bad for saying that. If you like it, good for you, but I'm still in disappointment, especially since I was the kind of audience for this film. Though I guess my streak of good films had to take a bump somewhere.

Rating: 4/10

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

Side Effects

 Steven Soderbergh is one of Hollywood's big name directors that makes very smart films. Beforehand, he was most well-known for the remake of “Ocean's Eleven,” but as time went on, he has made much better films within time, like “Contagion,” “Haywire,” and even “Magic Mike.” And recently, Soderbergh has brought forth another one of his films, in the form of “Side Effects,” and it is another one of the year's first films that I consider to be...PERFECT.

The film is about a struggling woman named Emily Taylor, whose been a total wreck for years, even with her husband returning from prison. When she attempts suicide, she is recommended medication to help her regain her lifestyle. But in doing so, the side effects result in her killing her husband, and now her doctor has to find out if he's being setup and by who.

For a film based around the dangers of medication side effects and trust behind the people around, this made for a very enduring film. I was fully invested in what I was watching, and as it went on, it all started to make sense through and through.

Rooney Mara gives a fantastic performance as Emily, and just from the look in her eyes throughout two thirds of the film, you can tell she's been through some serious hell. Honestly, if this film was released a few months earlier, she would have been up for an Oscar nomination, I guarantee that. However, she's not quite the main character, which is actually Jude Law as Dr. Jon Banks. Law really delivers another solid performance in this film, and that probably comes from his familiarity with Soderbergh. But even then, he's still an engaging character, having his skills as a doctor to make him more of a detective all the way throughout the film. Catherine Zeta-Jones is also in the film, and she really does bring much to this film, playing a psychiatrist that can easily bring Law to his knees, even without breaking a sweat. The things she has happen to him are just creative, and I think that really adds more to the situation and what she and Law are in context. Channing Tatum is in the film too, but with him being the husband who gets killed, he doesn't have much to. Don't get me wrong, when he was on screen, he was pretty good, but I'm just saying his role could have been played by anyone else. Maybe it was because of “Magic Mike.”

One of the biggest complaints I've been hearing about this film, was that the beginning was very slow and unlikable. I highly disagree with that, because a film that takes its time to develop, and is still inventive makes it all the more intriguing, and by the end when they resolve everything, it really does make sense.

Overall, “Side Effects” is another classic that Steven Soderbergh has delivered. It's smart, it's inventive, and is one of my favorite films of the year. Even if you're not that much of a Soderbergh fan, I'm sure you'll enjoy this film.

Rating: 10/10