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