G.I. Joe: Retaliation

Let me be clear on this...I'm not a GI Joe fan. Unlike Transformers, where I've had slight interest in one of the cartoons and toys, I didn't have interest in GI Joe at all. I did know a little of the theme song, and I MIGHT have had some experience with the toys, but it wasn't enough for me to remember that much. So due to the success of “Transformers,” Hasbro made a “G.I. Joe” movie to balance it out, from director Stephen Sommers.

“G.I. Joe: Rise of Cobra” had the Joes go up against Cobra, in their attempt to conquer the world again, only this time they have nanotechnology that gives Cobra the upper-hand. However, that doesn't stop them, as they get assistance under the wing of General Hawk. Now this film was given a lot of hate upon its release, but I'm actually among the few that actually enjoyed it. Sure, there are problems with it, but I at least found it a much more enjoyable film than the first two “Transformer” films. It actually has a plot that works, shows what to expect in the film (the RISE of Cobra), as well as give some good performances. Channing Tatum, pre-Soderbergh, was a surprise and become the first film that I enjoyed him in. Dennis Quaid did a great job as Hawk, Joseph Gordon-Levitt was a great villain, and even Marlon Wayans was TOLERABLE! Overall, “Rise of Cobra” was one film that took me by surprise, and I still find it an enjoyable movie, no matter WHAT anybody says.

While its success wasn't as big as “Transformers,” the film still got a sequel, this time from Jon Chu: “G.I. Joe: Retaliation”...which was overdue a year ago. This was yet ANOTHER film that was pushed back from a 2012 release for technical reasons. It was scheduled to come out last June, which was going up against another Channing Tatum movie, “Magic Mike,” which people are regarding it Tatum's best. However, due to Tatum's popularity with “The Vow,” “Haywire,” and “21 Jump Street,” the film was pushed back to add a couple more scenes of Tatum and Dwayne Johnson, as well as make it 3D, despite earlier trailers already released.

Now the definitive question remains: Was this film worth the long wait and 3D? Well...kind of. Let me explain.

In this new film, the Joes are sent on a mission to take back nuclear weapons from Pakistan, when they are fired at and taken down. All that remain, are Roadblock, Flint, Lady Jaye, Snake Eyes, Jinx, and the original G.I. Joe: Joseph Colton; their job now is to take down Cobra from their global take over, with the use of a doppelganger president and their possession of the ultimate weapon, Project Zeus.

Now let me say this, I liked this movie. Not love, but like. It did have some problems, but for the most part, it was a good movie. The film really shows much desperation of the remaining Joes, as their outnumbered, outgunned, and rely on most of their wits and strategy. “G.I. Joe: Retaliation” is a very thrilling movie, that, while not as much as what was good about the first movie, does have a few little bonuses to go with it.

Let me say that casting does a great job here. Dwayne Johnson really shines as the go-to-guy of the survivors. He proves that even in these types of situations, there's always a way through it. D.J. Cotrona and Adrianne Palicki do a great job as Flint and Lady Jaye; I don't know if their characters were done right, but they did good as characters for this film. Even Channing Tatum, despite him not having that much screen time, really does his best like he did with the previous film. Ray Stevenson was a great addition as Firefly, and that fight he had with The Rock was just enjoyable all the way through. Luke Bracey and Robert Baker were...okay as Cobra Commander. They weren't bad, but I kind of wish Joseph Gordon-Levitt was still playing the character, since he was one of the best parts of the film. I was at least happy that they kept Lee Byung-hun and Ray Park as Storm Shadow and Snake Eyes. It was actually surprising later on in the film to see the two work together in the end for the battle. And let's not forget Bruce Willis as General Joe, which he brings so much flare to the film, and I was really glad they added him into the mix, because he's the kind of actor that would be the original Joe. However, that doesn't quite make up for “Die Hard 5.” He'll need a miracle to get me to forgive him for that.

What didn't exactly work, you ask? Well, some of the action scenes suffer from what other action films suffer from today: Fast-cut-syndrome. The editing really does make some action scenes hard to see what the hell is going on, and rarely will some movies do it right. Granted, it wasn't as bad as the editing in “Bullet to the Head,” but it still doesn't make it good, does it? Also, there were moments where the depiction of things, like how the president's an impostor was a bit too sudden on subtle movements. Hell, even Bruce Willis points that out in the film.

Now what about the added scenes of Tatum and the 3D? Well, the scenes added didn't really take away from the film that much, and I'll even admit I had a few good laughs with them. It did show some of the good chemistry that the two had for what it was. And as for the 3D...it was okay. There are moments that really make the 3D shine well, but for the parts that don't, yeah it makes it useless. But, the 3D glasses it had for when I bought my ticket were pretty cool.

Overall, “G.I. Joe: Retaliation” is a fun and enjoyable action film that isn't quite as good as the last film, but still fun. While there are some actors that I wished came back for the sequel, I'm not too disappointed that they didn't. If you got some time to spare, definitely check the film out.

Rating: 7/10

Olympus Has Fallen

 This year, we're going to have two films about the take over of the White House. One that will be coming out at the end of June, from the director of “Independence Day,” and another that just came out recently, starring Gerard Butler. And that film is “Olympus Has Fallen.”

The film tells of Mike Banning, who is a former U.S. Army Ranger now Secret Service Agent, after failing to save the president's wife. A year and a half later, the White House is taken over by North Korean terrorists, and Banning has to go in, save the hostages, and bring down the terrorist leader, Kang.

Now does this plot sound a little familiar to some of you? Well it should, because the film is actually a rip-off of “Die Hard.” Now if it's a rip-off it, should that make the film bad? Well, that's what I first thought about...but after thinking about it for a couple of days, I had a change of thought. When you get down to it, there are rip-offs of films on other things, but not all of them are bad. Unoriginal, but not bad. Look at “The Hunger Games,” for example: it's a rip-off of “Battle Royal,” but I for one actually found it enjoyable. Same with “Independence Day,” too: rip-off of “War of the Worlds,” but people had fun with it, and enjoyed it. “Olympus Has Fallen” may be a ripoff of “Die Hard,” but it also has a few elements of suspense that director Antoine Fuqua is most familiar with. In highlight, this film is actually very fun.

Gerard Butler delivers a great performance as Mike Banning, being the modern day John McClane; he makes one-liners, he talks back to the terrorist, he badass but human. He even has a touch of Keifer Sutherland from “24” in there. Those types of protagonists in action films make the film have a great sense of reality to them, unlike most other action films where the hero's an unstoppable juggernaut. Granted I still love those, but you get my point. Aaron Eckhart, who played Two-Face in “The Dark Knight,” did a great job playing the President, showing he can be strong and fight back at times. He still deals with the trauma of losing his wife, more so than Banning felt about being unable to save her. The relationship he has with his son is done in a realistic manner, as shown that people need to move on, but it won't be easy. Rick Yune's performance as Kang was a great villain, and one you'd definitely see out of the 80's. While I was a bit uneasy about the North Koreans invading the White House, this is done in a much more believable way, than it did in the remake of “Red Dawn.” Morgan Freeman as the Speaker of Department does a great job, because...he's Morgan Freeman, what more do you need?

The action scenes were surprisingly well done, aside from a few strobe effects, but even then it does show the turmoil that is at stake here. The White House taken over by terrorists. Something like that, is really stressful, especially when the survival of the country is at stake at a very close rate. The suspense draws you into the film, making it a very tense to the point where you're biting your nails off. It's not the best at doing it, but it still does a good job of it.

Overall, “Olympus Has Fallen” is a film I was too quick to judge. This is a film that I was too harsh about, and it deserves none of what was originally going to say. They say this film is the first Summer Blockbuster, and I agree with that. A fun 80's-esque movie is definitely worth seeing.

Rating: 8/10

Oz the Great and Poweful

 Sam Raimi has gained the reputation as one of the most acclaimed directors of the past thirty years. From the infamous “Evil Dead Trilogy,” to his “Spiderman Trilogy,” he's a top notch director who knows what he's doing. To this day, my favorite of his films will always be “Darkman,” for more reasons than one. Today, we'll be talking about his newest film, “Oz the Great and Powerful,” but let me just tell you my thoughts on the Oz series in general.

I'm one of those people who isn't too crazy about “The Wizard of Oz.” I never really got into the books that much, nor do I have the same amount of nostalgia for the film as others do, since...well, I never watched it when I was a kid. I might have, but I didn't remember it that much. I can understand why people would think of it as a very inspirational film, and I can understand why people have such fond memories of it. Same goes for its sequel, “Return to Oz,” which was a much more darker turn on the source material. It had it's moments, but still it was just okay.

Now this film has been through so much production, that it was originally going to be a Tim Burton movie, with Johnny Depp as Oz, but later on it was handed to Sam Raimi and James Franco. Honestly, I'm glad they made that change, because I think Burton's had his share of fantasy remakes.

“Oz the Great and Powerful” tells of a circus magician named Oswald, or Oz as he is called by others, who wants a passion to be something great to the people. After escaping from some of the other carnies in a hot air balloon, he is sucked into a twister, where he ends up in the Land of Oz. He meets up with Theodora, and she takes him to the Emerald City, where he's told by Evanora that he must defeat the wicked witch, if he is to claim the Emerald City as his new home with treasure, but there may be something else at hand here. Now when I first saw the film, I really enjoyed it, but when I started to think about it more, the lesser I thought of it.

First off, some of the pacing was a bit sloppy. When Oz first meets Theodora, the relationship between the two was too sudden, and I felt that it should have taken more time with it. Not only that, but when he has his assistant in the beginning of the film, by giving her a music box his grandmother gave him, he does the exact same thing with Theodora when they have their first night. That and when she finds out that Oz is turning against her now, she becomes the wicked witch, and she blames him for doing this, by breaking her heart. Moments like those just felt so rushed and don't add enough time to it, ESPECIALLY if it's over two hours.

Also, there are certain characters where they're different interpretations of people that Oz encountered in the real world, done in the Land of Oz. Like how Zach Braff as Oz's assistant is represented by the monkey in the bellhop outfit, and a crippled girl represented by a China girl. And I don't mean she's Chinese, the girl's made of fine china, in a place called Chinatown...get it? That would be fine if it turned out to be a dream, but it isn't apparently, so what was the point?

The character of Oz was also not that interesting until the third act. Throughout the rest beginning and middle of the film, he's just a conman, through and through. That wouldn't be so bad, but he just turned out to be so unlikable. However, when the third act comes around, he does show some redemption, but only to the level of passable. No disrespect to James Franco, it's just that the character wasn't written too well.

Not only that, but let me just say this: When Theodora becomes the true Wicked Witch of the West, the make-up is just AWFUL. I'm not kidding, when you see her as the witch, all she has is a bigger chin and nose, she's green and that's it. She still looks like Mila Kunis, just in make-up. And was it really that necessary to show some of her cleavage as the witch? Really Sam?

And lastly, why did Bruce Campbell have another less than a minute cameo in this film? I read up somewhere that he was going to play a character called Gore the Dark Wizard, and I was hoping he'd be a villain of some sorts. Why didn't we go with that, I would have loved to see him play another villain again. I mean, it's BRUCE CAMPBELL of all people!

But aside from all that, what WAS good about the movie? Well, let me say the film is visually amazing. I mean, WOW did this film look pretty. This keeps in tradition of the other Oz films, where it has so much color and life to it, and I really think that works in the film's favor. When it had moments like when we first meet the little China Girl or the introduction credits, it's stunning, even with the use of 3D. I also love moments, where Theodora cries, and it leaves burn scars on her face. At first, I thought it was part of her fire powers, but it actually references the weakness of water, which I thought was pretty cool. There are other moments that are little nods to the original Oz film, and some have criticized it as a bit distracting, but I didn't even notice.

And even with some of the weak character development and pacing, the acting is still good. James Franco, even if his character didn't seem all that interesting, he still does a good job. Mila Kunis and Rachel Weisz as the Wicked Witches do give it their all, and the relationship between the two is investing. Zach Braff does a good job in the film too, and was actually pretty funny in it. He has one-liners, he's a bit of a smartass, but does have a good heart. Joey King, who had played young Tailia al Ghul in “The Dark Knight Rises,” played the little China girl. She was just adorable, and it was hard to take my attention off her, she was that good.

Overall, “Oz the Great and Powerful,” wasn't all that great, but it wasn't bad. I did have something to like about it, and there were things that made it worth seeing in theaters, especially with the 3D price at hand, as long as it's at a matinee price. I guess it just depends on how you feel.

Rating: 6/10

Jack the Giant Slayer

  Is it me or are we getting more and more fairy tale movies than expected? I mean, we've had “Red Riding Hood,” “Sleeping Beauty,” “Beastly,” “Snow White and the Huntsman,” “Mirror Mirror,” “Hansel and Gretel Witch Hunters,” and now we have “Jack the Giant Slayer.” Is this starting to become a trend in film making for this decade? But anyways, let's talk about “Jack the Giant Slayer.”

For the most part, it follows the fairy tale of “Jack and the Beanstalk,” while going in another direction. Jack is a simple farm-boy, who sells his horse instead of a cow, for magic beans. And doing so, he is hated by his guardian, which is his uncle instead of his mother. Jack also encounters the princess, who wants to have an adventure, like she always wanted as a kid. But when the beanstalk starts growing, Jack's house and the princess are taken up to the skies, and Jack has to go with the King's men, one of which is the villain and the princess' fiance. But as they reach the top, they encounter giants and now Jack has get the princess before the giants attack the mainlands.

Now, this film has been put in post-production for years now, and it was originally scheduled to come out in June of last year. This is another one of many films that have been in production backfire, and pushed back to this year, even after getting an official release date. Though the reason they give for this one, was due to not going into competition with “The Dark Knight Rises,” which was probably smart for them. And before you ask, no I don't think this is better than “DKR...” in fact, it was a pretty mediocre film.

The story is just basically being a “go to point a to point b then point a” and it got pretty dull. Don't get me wrong, there are films that do it well, but I'm saying it didn't work here. There wasn't that much depth in the plot, and the characters...aren't that interesting, and that's not good, because these are all good actors. Nicholas Hoult as Jack wasn't really that much. He didn't really seem that invested in what he was doing, until it reaches the end when the giants attack the mainland. This isn't that much, because I enjoy Nicholas Hoult as an actor, but for him to do this and then “Warm Bodies,” it's like no one knows how to give him what he needs. Stanley Tucci as the fiance and the bad guy, while okay, could have done SO much more with the character he was playing. In fact, I think he was way better in “The Hunger Games” than he was here. Eleanor Tomlinson was SO BORING as the princess. For a princess that wanted to be un-princess like, she still acts like the same damsel in distress throughout the film, which doesn't really make it that much. Oh, and also, hardly any chemistry between her and Jack, wouldn't you say? Ian McShane plays the King, and he doesn't do that much at all. Sure he does somethings, but he isn't all that memorable. If you'd cut him out of the film, you'd probably have the same movie. Not only that, but most of the giants are pretty much the same person. They're gross, ugly, stupid, and only the leader is the one who has the most character. Oh and by the way, the leader is played by Bill Nighy and the guy who played the Crypt Keeper.

So what was good about the film? Well, I'll admit, Ewan McGregor was alright. He has some memorable moments, especially at the end, when he takes on Stanley Tucci, but it's not enough. That, and a few of the action scenes are pretty good. Some don't last long, in fact the second one happens to be the climax, but that's it. Some of the 3D was alright, but there wasn't enough for it to be in your face or atmospheric.

Overall, “Jack the Giant Slayer” is pretty disappointing and not that eventful. Is it better than Nicholas Hoult's last film, “Warm Bodies?” Yes...and no. If you want to see a film with better effects and characters, I'd say “Warm Bodies,” but in terms of something that sticks to it's genre strongly, then “Jack the Giant Slayer” works...slightly.

Rating: 4/10