Advance Review - Adventureland

Last night, I went to an advance screening of the latest film from Greg Mottola (director of Superbad): Adventureland. I must say I enjoyed it a lot more than I expected. I think going into a film with little or no expectations is the best way to go into anything. I’m starting to agree with Jeff Cannata that trailers somewhat ruin the movie-going experience. Some of the TV Spots nearly ruined some of the jokes in the film for me. In Adventureland a young college grad who needs to earn some moola for the summer for his next year at grad school finds work at a local amusement park where he has a bunch of, dare I say it, adventures. The film is being advertised as a comedy of sorts, even being compared to Superbad (in the case of the director) but I would not list this film so much as a “comedic movie” but more of a “coming-of-age/feel good movie.” The best part of the film was probably the performances from Jesse Eisenberg (James) and the adult cast and the weaker points came from the final moments of the film and the lackluster performance from Kristen Stewart.

First and foremost, Adventureland is very well directed with a well-written script. It’s not comedic genius or Oscar-winning but it’s a very solid script. Some of the character arcs were a bit underdeveloped, but the jokes were spot on at times, there are some definite LOL moments. It just didn’t have much to set it above anything else in its genre. Still, it was a pleasure to watch and I really enjoyed the development that did happen with some of the characters, however subtle it was. Everyone in the cast, aside from Kristen, was fantastic and spot on and I loved their performances. Bill Hader as the owner of Adventureland was fantastic. One day I wish to have a boss like him. Newcomer Jesse Eisenberg carried the film on his shoulders for me.

When I first watched Jesse Eisenberg in the opening of the film I definitely thought of Michael Cera. They both play around with the awkward humor bit (or perhaps that’s just the director, who also has credits in Arrested Development, starring Michael Cera). While they both have similar humor and comedic timing, I feel Eisenberg brings something new to his awkward humor. He wasn’t exactly anti-social or self-conscious; in fact, his character was quite cool and well rounded. Perhaps, though, that’s a bad thing because it leaves little room for the character to arc. Still though, Eisenberg did very well in the role and was extremely likeable and definitely watchable.

The only thing I’ve seen Kristen Stewart before Adventureland was in the trailer of Catch That Kid, her cameo in Jumper and most recently, of course, Twilight. Her performance in Adventureland was so very similar to her performance in Twilight, almost all the way down to the beat. She stumbles over her lines when her character is feeling uncomfortable, which worked for Bella Swan in Twilight, but not for Em Lewin in Adventureland. It was really the nuances of her performance that nagged at me because, yes I’ll get flamed for saying this but … I liked Twilight and saw it twice in theaters (burn me at the stake why don’t you). Because I saw that movie twice I was able to really pick apart the way Kristen handled her role and one of the things I enjoyed the most was her nuances like pulling up her hair out of her face and stuttering over uncomfortable lines or having a monotonous tone because, to me, that was the character of Bella I imagined from the book but in Adventureland all of those same things she did irked me so much. I really hope this doesn’t meant that she’s a bad actress and whenever she plays a character she’s just playing herself because I think I really want to like her, there is something about her. But in this film I really just didn’t feel much for her character even though I thought Em was written very well.


I really liked the relationship between the two leads (James & Em), but I felt the chemistry between Eisenberg and Stewart was lacking at some key moments and that was mostly the fault of Kristen herself. But Kristen did have some moments that made me smiling and say “awww” inside my heart, especially at [SPOILER] when they first kiss and then break apart and she shyly looks away [END SPOILER]. But all and all I don’t think I could feel the two-way relationship. All the emotion I felt was from Eisenberg’s character and the only way I felt anything for Stewart’s character is because she was given such good lines to work with but whenever she pulled the Bella-Twilight performances I was immediately aware that I was watching a performance. Also, since I’m on the subject of the relationship between the two leads, I found myself comparing the two to Josh Peck and Olivia Thirlby in The Wackness, which is a movie I enjoyed a whole lot more than this one (not to knock it or anything but The Wackness and just pure dopeness).

Another weak point of the film is how it wrapped up, especially that very last shot and last scene, which was a bit anticlimactic, for me. The ending was certainly decent and safe but it didn’t have the same balls as The Wackness did. Also the revelation that the main character has is revealed in a pretty lame way, I thought. The rest of the film was really great though, it just had a bit of a rocky ending for me.
So all and all I would recommend this film, as a rental. I don’t know how I feel about comedies and watching them in the theater. I can never see a reason why. The cinematography was decent but nothing so mind-blowing that you just have to see it on the big screen. If I hadn’t gone to an advance screening for free I would not have paid $8-$12 dollars to watch it. MY VERDIT: A GREAT RENTAL or a lazy afternoon with friends if you have an extra few bucks for a matinee.

Oh and I was pretty irked that Lisa P’s best friend Kelly was the only black person in the film and she played the part of the “sidekick” to the hot white chick. That just irked me a little bit.

PEACE!

Watchmen Review ...

... her review is almost exactly what mine is ...
Her review starts at 3:50

The only differences were that I DID like the new ending, even more than the one in the graphic novel. Also she didn't mention the fights scenes but have to say I did not like them. They were not awesome if you think of them in the context of Watchmen. The only superhero is Dr. Manhattan. The rest are normal people who train themselves to be awesome. Those fight scenes were highly choreographed and fake. That was possibly one of the worst elements of the film. Fight scenes like those belong in Spider-Man or X-Men ... comic movies like that with superhuman characters. The most realistic fighting came from Rorchach but everyone else was way too heightened.

Peace!

I'll probably do a more extensive review of Watchmen later if I feel like it.

VideoBlog #36

Peace

Thanks to Antoine for the tip!

From Twilight-Source

UPDATE:

Here I come you Twilighters (my costume for tomorrow)

Peace

Beverly Hills Chihuahua Getting Good Reviews!?

This is the tomatometer for top critics!

I'm still not going to see it.

Peace

Tropic Thunder Review

This film certainly had some laugh out loud moments but once the film hits its second act it gets rather ridiculous. I enjoyed the opening scene a lot the the concept of the entire film: a parody of war films! So of course you get the shell shock moment, the interrogation scene and the one-man army heroic instance. There was a great cast involved with the film and they give some pretty stellar performance (especially Downey Jr.) but I think the script just obliterates some of their hard, funny work. Some of the faults could probably go to the director as well who in this case was Ben Stiller himself. Jack Black was probably the most unfunny in the film, which was a shame. He's overshadowed by Stiller's and Downey Jr.'s characters who are much more interesting than the unfunny, coked-out, comedian that Black played. I also feel that most of the best moments were in the trailer and when I saw them in the context of the actual film I was rather disappointed because I was (A) expecting the joke and (B) didn't think it was funny in the context of the scene.

The Good of Tropic Thunder
It certainly was funny. The opening scene which actually are fake trailers was some of the best for me. Again, out of all of them, Downey Jr.'s trailer was the best. But I think it played into the film well because Downey Jr.'s character was supposed to be the top, academy-award winning actor while Stiller was supposed to be the action, B-movie actor and Black was supposed to be the C-rated comedian who once an A-lister (i.e. Eddie Murphy). I had some legitimate laughs through the film. I certainly loved the beginning of the guerrilla-style film when they think the director isn't really blown up and the people shooting at them isn't really South Asian soldiers.

As I stated before Downey Jr.'s performance was great. He played off the stereotypical black guy pretty well, which was great social commentary if you look into it further and plays rather nicely against the other, authentic black rapper turned actor (i.e. 50 cent/Ice Cube).

The Bad of Tropic Thunder
It was poorly written and poorly directed, I must say. This is one fault I had with its ridiculousness. The child chief/leader was not needed and even though the child was speaking a different language I can tell he was a terrible actor. Downey Jr.'s character's end was quite terrible as well. His turn from being actor to just being himself didn't annoy me because it was predictable but because it wasn't handled very well. It was so sudden and uncomedic. It would have been great if another character was getting through his mind throughout the film and at one point he breaks character. Everything about Tom Cruise's character as the producer was terrible. I couldn't wait to get out of that long and pointless scene. The end credits with his dancing was just as ridiculous and terrible.


Conclusion of Tropic Thunder
Wait for the DVD. It could have been great but it's really just ridiculous, over-the-top and poorly written.

TOTAL: (6.3/10)

Heroes Season 3 - Villians - "The Second Coming" and "The Butterfly Effect"

Let me start off by saying I must completely evaluate what I know and will know about Heroes in this upcoming season. After watching the first and second episodes tonight ("The Second Coming" and "The Butterfly Effect" respectively) I must regain my feet in the world of Heroes, for I was not expecting some of the stuff that happened and it's all rather complex now.

"The Second Coming" Review

I knew most of what would happen in this episode because of the spoilers that were out there (I'm not entirely against spoilers). I was very pleased by the beginning of the episode and how dark the future always seems to be. By now a dark future seems inevitable. What I really enjoyed about the episodes the most, besides the plot, was the characters themselves.

I'm not entirely sure what to think of Future Peter. He has the most powerful ability of them all but he's not quite sure how to use them even after four years of experience. And by use them I don't know mean he doesn't know how to execute his abilities he just doesn't know how to handle them. For instance: time traveling. Hiro learned this lesson long ago with his failure with Charlie in Season 1 but Peter has yet to learn this lesson but his mistake is much more grand is mostly the huge theme of the second episode (I'll go into later).

I'll admit, I downright hated Claire's character for a while. She even mentions it herself in the show that her power is lame but I like what's happening to her now. After (spoiler) Sylar takes her ability she gains a new one, or, her current one heightens. Claire can heal from any mortal wound but she always felt the pain before she healed herself. Now she doesn't which prompts us to understand why future Claire would want to shoot Peter square between the eyes. I wonder how far the "non-feeling" goes though. Can she not feel others touch? Is she completely numb? It will be interesting to see where this all goes.

The whole sequence between Claire and Sylar was fantastic. Zachary Quinto as Sylar rocks to socks off the show once again. He does a fantastic job. Keep it up buddy!

Hiro's story was humorous but I've been sick with his character as well, especially after reading "Saving Charlie." After his time with Charlie, Hiro should have been a man and should have been maturing more to where future Hiro is. No, he's still a wimp. Season two, his father dies right in front of his eyes. Ceratainly this will man him up, right!? No, he's still a wimp. Now, I think he finally hit his breaking point after jumping into the future and seeing his best friend killing him. Now he's taken on a much more dire and serious approach to his present life. Maybe future, bad-ass Hiro will surface now.

I'm a little sad with Matt Parkman's story. Very early on he gets thrown into an African desert and doesn't have much to do but walk around and call for help. Hmmm ... bad choice I'd say.

Mohinder and Maya's stories I could care less for right now. I'm tired of these experiments. Now we can give people powers! (I guess that explains future Ando killing future Hiro with red lightening). And what happen to Maya's overdone accent? She sounds almost American now.

Things that were missing though was New Orleans and what happen to Niki Sanders. This is in high question because we see Tracy Strauss (a new character) who looks exactly like her and we wonder what's going on.

Too much, too fast and a bit redundant. I mean we've been through this storyline two times already. We see a horrible future and we have to stop it! Something new please!

6.7/10

"The Second Coming" Review

This episode was much better I think but it was not great. I like some of the themes that played through with the butterfly effect. Future Peter tried to come back to change things but he has made them much worse. Because he told Claire to stay home her ability was taken by Sylar. Now Sylar goes off to Level 5 of The Company where a series of events eventually lead to the escape of four true villains. These guys seriously make Sylar seem like a walk in the park. This is where the subtitle for this season comes in.

Again, I felt some thing were redundant and not realistic. Hiro knows his friend will kill him in the future so why shun him? We understand that Claire can't feel anything, please don't beat us over the head with the information we alerady know. Oh well, what can you do? Um ... Mohinder swooning Maya!? I would have found it much more interesting if he raped her instead to show that the shot he took was a sort of steroid of sorts that affected his good behavior. What's up with Nathan finding religion and then taking on a job as a Senator? Again, oh well! Got to move on and accept.

The whole episode, though, I think, went into too many places and did too many things. It could have been streched out to a few more episodes. The first episode sets everyone one up and then you get in deeper but this one is just a set up too. But still no Micah! Still no Niki ... or at least ... the Niki we know.

These episodes have been plot-driven more-so than character driven. Just because the characters are moving they plot they are acting more like vessels of the plot rather than the plot being a vessal of the characters. Things just seem to convenient to be happening.

What is up with Matt Parkman in Africa!? It's funny in an interview he mentioned one of the faults of the previous season was leaving a certain someone in feudal Japan. Now he's left all alone with an African in an African desert. Grumble ...

My favorite part of this episode that kept it alive for me were those damned villains! These people on level 5 are way worse than Sylar. These guys kill and torture for pure fun. Sylar can be reasoned with, he has a mission, a motive. These guys are terrorist, pure terrorists, out to see the world burn (quite literally for one of them). The pyro completely burns a helpless lady to a crisp. All the while she is screaming as she's being torched and they just laugh their heads off. Another guy just socks the hell out of this other guy, I'm guessing the woman's spouse and the black guy is egging Peter/Jessie along to come with. Oh, and I suppose Peter is trap in someone else's body/mind? Not sure what future Peter did to him.

I don't know ... there is a lot that happened in the episode. I just hope they find a focus and I hope that focus is less on the future and more on the present and these villains they all need to deal with.

6.9/10

Peace

Disaster Movie Preview Review

I agree utterly with what this man says.

Peace

New Moon Short Review

New Moon is much better to me than Twilight but still not great by any means and I discovered what bugs me the most about the series. It feels more plot driven than character driven to me. I feel like the book moves forward by the things that happen in the film, not by the characters who live in the book. Like I mentioned with Twilight, things just felt too convenient, too well placed, too unreal. I don't mean "unreal" in the means of vampires and werewolves but by the reactions of the people around them. The book needs to be grounded. The only thing done right in the book is the love element and that's really what the story is about so big points for that but Bella is so slow when it comes to figuring certain things out, I think. I don't think Meyer gives her enough credit. She seems like a smart girl but sometimes she can't put two-and-two together when it's right in front of her nose. Also, the book's editor should be fired because their were typos up the butt hole in this book. Now the reason I'm so annoyed with typos is that it takes me out of the book. Like with any story, if their is a mistake, you are taken out of it. If you are watching a film and you can tell the blood is fake you are taken out of the story. If you are watching a speech and someone stutters over a word you are taken out of the engagement you might have had with it. If you see a typo or missing words you are taken out of the story you are trying to get into. That happen countless times with me in New Moon even more so than in Twilight. I'm surprised this could happen with such a popular book.

I know a lot of folks put up a Jacob vs. Edward thing and now I understand. The battle easily goes to Edward. He is the one who truly loves Bella. In fact, I would go as far to say that Jacob doesn't love Bella at all really or at least, he is immature. Edward mentions near the end of the book that werewolves are immature which I'm really glad he said because while Bella and Jacob were getting close I really analyzed their relationship to her's and Edward's. It's not really fair, really. Edward has a century worth of maturity while Jacob has about fifteen years. In either case, the things Bella and Jacob did together and the way their relationship progressed was really high school. Jacob was extremely jealous and told on her at the end when he was really jealous of Edward. His reason for getting her in trouble was not to protect, although that's what he says, he really was trying to keep her away from Edward, showing he really doesn't love her. For if he could truly love her he would gladly let her go. He would enjoy that Edward came back and that she was so much more happy. Edward would. He's been able to resist his urge to kill her altogether. He spent the whole book staying away from her to keep her safe when he really didn't want to. Jacob just can't away and see her happy. I'm ranting. I'm going to stop.

New Moon is definitely better than Twilight but still not the great book series that people seem to be raving about.

Peace

Clone Wars Review

It was okay, just okay. If you are not a Star Wars fan don't go. If you are a Star Wars fan and you're bored and have extra time on your hands go ahead and see the film. It didn't add to the universe of Star Wars much at all and it definitely did not add to its lure. To me, it was a an hour and a half long TV show. If you did not already know this was The Clones Wars's debut before it played regularly on cartoon network. The film really played out like three episdoes and less like a feature which is what hurt it most. Plus, many things in the film were very convenient. It's definitely targeted at a much younger audience. The humor was very simple but the thing I was surprised with most is how slow the opening was. Just a mindless battle. Cool action stuff but not enough to hold me over, watching droids and clones being destroyed for twenty minutes. Still, it had some very entertaining points and I got a few laughs, a few big laughs too. In essence though, it felt like a demo to the television series.

The Good of The Clone Wars
Entertainment. It was entertaining and visually stunning. The style was great. It was like the 2D Clone Wars series turned 3D. There were a few points in the film that made me seriously laugh out loud. Some may think the droids are annoyingly stupid but I loved them! The comedy with the Jawas was fantastic as well.

The Bad of The Clone Wars
Early on I know most of fans concern laid with Clone Wars being a real authentic movie or just three episodes. Well, even though they said it was made to be a film it really was just three episodes. I'm sure in the offices an conversation went like this.

Lights go up after George Lucas and company watch the first three episodes of The Clone Wars series.

George Lucas: That was great! How about we turn it into movie. Get rid of all the commercial breaks and splice 'em all together.

Company: Great idea sir! Yes, fantastic! Fans will love it, Mr. Lucas!

George Lucas: Aha! Money, money, money! $$$ Suckers ...

I guess that makes the pain better than. If I tell myself that these were just three episodes and not made to be a film.

Also ... TOO MANY DUTCH ANGLES IN THE WRONG PLACES! And when they were in the right places I didn't care for them because they were so redundant.

Conclusion of The Clone Wars
It was an okay film but if set as three separate episdoes would have been much better. Good thing we got to see it on the big screen though before it is dumbed down the for the small tube (which I can't even watch because I don't have cable).

TOTAL: (6/10)

Twilight Short Review

I learned about Twilight through the MuggleCast. They created a new site just for Twilight (I'll give them a plug here). On the podcast they mentioned that Harry Potter fans are supposed to really like this series as well. Well, they've been saying this for a while, months now, and I never once thought to take a look at the book. Then, the movie trailer came out and I didn't think much on it. Then, there was a Harry Potter vs. Twilight thing on Reelzchannel on YouTube. Still, I had no urgency to read the book. I mentioned, while copying my script at the Inner-City Filmmakers headquarters, that I had never read the book and the film didn't look too interesting to me, to which one of the students told me she would let me borrow the book. Now, the way most people have described the book to me is that it's a sexier version of Harry Potter. While the "sexier" bit may very well be true it is nothing like Harry Potter in entertainment or quality. It's a simple love story which fell short of my expectations. Still though, I enjoyed the book, reading it in about three days time with a busy schedule.

First, the book does not deserve the praise it has received. For instance, Amazon has claimed it to be the best book of the decade and New York Time's made it it's Editor's Choice. It certainly is not the best book of the decade and it should not have and Editor's Choice from New York Times but I'm glad that my difference of opinion did not tarnish my opinion of the book. I don't even like Napolean Dynamite because it's so overhyped, but I'm still okay with Twilight but the more I see people giving it praise where praise is not deserved, especially towards what looks like a terrible film, it makes me cringe.

The book essentially is a love story between a female human, Isabella, and a male vampire, Edward. The attraction Edward has to Isabella is the same attraction he has for the taste of her blood, which causes some conflict in their relationship, of course. But I did not think it was played out as well as it could have. There was no huge conflict between the two with Edward nearly killing Isabella or anything like that. Instead, towards the end of the book the author flips the story and sends it in another direction, making another vampire chasing after Isabella while Edward protects her. This, among some other things in the story, felt too convenient. Plus, some of the scenes between Isabella and Edward were very cheesy, a lot of sappy "I love yous" and "I never want to be without yous" and "Don't want to lose yous", typical lovey dovey stuff.

I did not believe in Isabella and her character. She accepted Edward as a vampire too easily. His vampire family never seemed to struggle with her enough except for one member which through me off because early on in the book Edward said he had one supporter in his family: Alice.

I did not like how the book set itself up for a sequel. In Harry Potter, each book could be taken for it's own self-contained story but Twilight thrives on being a series, which I did not like. Because of this, not a lot of characters came full circle for me and there were a lot of unsatisfied stories.

And don't get me started on the typos I found in the book.

I know I'm focusing more on the cons than the pros but really the book isn't that great to focus on the positive and I'm annoyed to know that people hold it in such high esteem when it's so mediocre and written with no flare.

All around, a 3 out of 5 and the cover has nothing to do with the book.

Oh, and the film looks completely terrible.

EDIT: The cover is supposed to represent the forbidden fruit in the story of Adam & Eve.

Also in reply to an anonymous comment I recieved I guess it would seem I did not like the book eventhough I clearly stated at the beginning of my little review that I did enjoy it but I did not think it was as great as people give it credit for. Again, here is clarification: I liked the book (certainly did not love it) but it was downright mediocre and was not as amazing as people give it praise for.

Peace

Batman: Gotham Knight Review

Essentially this is the Animatrix to The Dark Knight and it's just as awesome, aside from the bridge-factor. Like Animatrix bridged the Matrix Reloaded and Matrix Revolution, Gotham Knight does not do that so well from Batman Begins to The Dark Knight. Still, there are six decent or very good animations packed into this hour and fifteen minute straight-to-DVD. Because it was split in six different shorts I'll review each short on it's own and then give an overall review at the end.

Note, I have had absolutely no exceptions of Gotham Knight and had no idea of its goal to have it as a gap between Batman Begins and The Dark Knight so I'm going to review it as a stand-alone rather than a bridge like IGN.com did. Also, aside from the animated series, I am a virgin to all things Batman and I've just recently gotten into it (example: just read "The Killing Joke"). IGN mentioned that most of the themes in these shorts have previously been covered but to me they were completely new so I was thrilled. So, enough of my intro-babbling. Onto my review.

The Good of Gotham Knight: Have I Got A Story For You
I love seeing a story from the perspective of the citizen's of Gotham, especially the teens of Gotham, which this first story covers. Four skateboarding kids tell of their encounter with Batman that day in very extraordinary fashion. Each interpretation gave way to a different Batman. One batman was a "living shadow" while another was an actual flying bat while another was a giant robot, which was pretty cool. At the end the real batman shows up and I won't give away the ending but it was a nice short.

The Bad of Gotham Knight: Have I Got A Story For You
It was a sweet and simple short. Nothing bad about it.

TOTAL: (8.5/10)

The Good of Gotham Knight: Crossfire
Now we see my Batman from the perspective of the cops over at the Major Crimes Unit of Gotham. This is the first short to feature another character from The Dark Knight: Officer Ramirez. This was an okay short. It's nice to see that a good cop is actually against Batman and his ideals which causes conflict with Gordon and Ramirez.

The action sequence was pretty cool once Batman got in the mix.

The Bad of Gotham Knight: Crossfire
I didn't like the voice of Gordon in this and the prison scene I didn't entirely get.

TOTAL: (7/10)

The Good of Gotham Knight: Field Test

The Bad of Gotham Knight: Field Test
Field test is probably the weakest short of the whole package.

TOTAL: (6.5/10)

The Good of Gotham Knight: In Darkness Dwells

The Bad of Gotham Knight: In Darkness Dwells

TOTAL: (8.5/10)

The Good of Gotham Knight: Working Through Pain

The Bad of Gotham Knight: Working Through Pain

TOTAL: (9/10)

The Good of Gotham Knight: Deadshot

The Bad of Gotham Knight: Deadshot

TOTAL: (9/10)

Peace

The Dark Knight Review

Honestly, I think this review will be pretty superficial, I really have to see it a second time to give my full review. But until then (tomorrow, I think) this will be a first impression review. To be quite frank, the film was a near masterpiece. Why it isn't a complete masterpiece and why I didn't give it a full ten will be explained further in my review. Essentially though, the acting was superb, that could be given a perfect and the story was grand but some of the effects and the choreographer were a bit lagging. Heath Ledger and Aaron Eckhart rocked Joker and Harvey Dent/Two-Face. Their performances outshine even Christian Bale's second-take on Batman but that wasn't necessarily a bad thing. The villains just heightened the character that is Batman.


The Good of The Dark Knight
As I stated before, the acting is probably the best part of The Dark Knight experience. First I'll go over Christian Bale and his performance as Batman. He did great in his return. Usually with sequels the main character are plagued with their familiarity. Bale, however, is not. Instead of a similar performance to what he did in Batman begins, he gives a fantastic expansion to the character. Batman is goes through a huge emotional character arc in this film. Gotham City doesn't know what to think of Batman, is he friend or is he foe? Bruce Wayne himself doesn't even know if he wants to continue as Batman and in fact is using Harvey Dent as a means to get out of the superhero business which creates much conflict within Wayne/Batman and creates a dynamic character.

Heath Ledger was the Joker. Heath Ledger is the Joker. I don't believe anyone can top what he did because he honestly was everything the Joker is. Unless the fiction character could be taken from the comic books then there is no way anyone can top his performance. That is how good he did with the role. Everything to his walk to his breath patterns to his psychotic methods never showed a hint of Heath Ledger because he was completely cloaked and extinguished by the Joker. I don't have much more to say except his performance was an 11/10. He did beyond the work needed to bring the character to life.



Aaron Eckhart also gave a brilliant performance. I haven't seen him in anything else so I can't base his performance on anything else. I couldn't tell if he truly was Harvey Dent or Aaron Eckhart but he did do a great job, especially when he was Two-Face. Usually in films where there is a love triangle I would root for the protagonist and his love interest but in this I was rooting for Harvey and Rachel. They had great chemistry and Harvey Dent was a likeable character before he did the whole villian thing.

Gary Oldman as Lt. James Gordon was great. He did for the character what was exactly needed. I'm glad he did not play the comic relief in some parts of this film because I didn't think it worked for him in the last one. He still was the tentative character he was in the previous film but he definitely was more confident in the role. Oldman really does put the SUPPOURT in suppourting actor. He never outshines any of the others but merely performaces with them, enhancing the protagonists and their struggles. Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman also did well with their suppourting roles.

I did not like Maggie Gyllenhaal as much as I liked Katie Holmes as Rachel Dowes. I'm not saying she did bad, she did very well, I just liked the way Holmes played it out better. I did feel her struggle between Harvey Dent and Bruce Wayne but a few of the moments she had I though could have been better performed if Holmes was still around.

The story was great but I think I'll get more into that in the next review as well as other aspects of the film.


The Bad of The Dark Knight
Not much bad, except a few effects and the fight choreography. I thought the sticky bombs looked pretty fake and the scene with Bruce Wayne and Lucious Fox was clearly green screened. The fight choreography also looked very fake at times, especially when Batman battled with more than one foe.

Like I said before, I liked Katie Holmes as Rachel Dowes better. I would have loved to see her in that pivotal scene near the end, I would have felt a lot more if she was still in the role, I think. Plus this new gal looks way to old to be playing the character.

Conclusion of The Dark Knight
A fantastic work of art. It's more than just a comic book adaptation but its own franchise within itself. The acting was superb, the story was even better but it did lack with some choreography issues and fake special effects.


Story: Sheer brilliance, perfect. (10/10)
Acting: Even better. Heath Ledge is the Joker. Christina Bale really is Batman. And Aaron Eckhart does very well as Harvey Dent. (10/10)
Action: Good but the choreography was clearly staged. (8.5/10)
Special FX: A few of them were a tad fake. (9/10)
Pacing: Kind of slow in the beginning. The Acts were very lengthy but it picked up at the end of Act II and into Act III. (9/10)
Recommended: Yes, for teens and above. Comic book enthusiasts and regular movie goers.

TOTAL: (9.9/10)

The Wackness Review

Wow, where did this Sundance Audience Choice Award 2007 film come from? This film is a fantastic coming-of-age story set in 1994 about a marijuana-selling, New York teen, who's infatuated with the daughter of his shrink who he sells weed to for private session. His name is Luke Shapiro and he's played by Josh Peck who you might remember from Snow Day or Drake & Josh. And let me tell you, he is neither of the characters he played in those silly things. For once, I've seen Josh Peck somewhere where he can flex his acting muscles. The whole film is weighted on him and his character's change and he does it very well. Veteran actor Ben Kingsley also does very well as Luke's mentor/best friend and Olivia Thirlby does very well as the love interest who's mildly interested in Luke.


The Good of The Wackness
The acting was really great in this. I'm still thinking about Josh Peck's performance. In every role I've seen him in he's played an overly cheesy and comedic character but I never expected this from him. He pulled off a '94 New York kid flawlessly and the audience definitely empathized with him when he went from first love to heartbreak. He has some great moments, especially the first phone call he makes to Stephanie after the big upset. I don't know Ben Kingsley, but he did a fine job. I looked him up but didn't find anything I recognized him in and I think that's good. Usually with veteran actors you associate them with previous roles and to me he's just the crazy, drugged-out Dr. Squires. The relationship Dr. Squires has with Luke is more of a friend then a mentor and a psychiatrist, which is really great. Olivia Thirby does very well as the pivotal love interest. Her chemistry was phenomenal with Peck and the moments she has with him are some of the best in the film.

The story was also very well-written and although set in the 90s with a lot of references to the period, it was timeless. Or perhaps I'm being biased because I lived in the 90s and I remember Nas and the Notorious B.I.G. on the radio. But beyond that I just love the arc the characters have, especially the protagnonist Luke. Of course we've all seen coming-of-age stories and we generaly know how they work. A young boy or girl goes through a journey in their live where they grow and change in the end. That is what The Wackness is at its core but there are different elements to it that really drew me in (aside from it being a period film). What really stands out in my mind is the last thing Luke says to Stephanie when he is leaving. (MAJOR SPOILER ALERT STARTS HERE, you must highlight to see) Before he goes down the elevator she comes out and asks him to wait and he says, "Stop, just stay right there and don't say anything to me, I want to keep this" she of course says, "What?" and he says, "I've never gotten my heartbroken before, I want to hold on to this" and just walks into the elevator and leaves. I may have gotten the quote wrong but that was the gist of it and it was really well-written. (MAJOR SPOILER ENDS HERE)


The Bad of The Wackness
The only major issue I had with this film were some of the editing choices (especially when they get busted) and one lighting problem during a night scene.

Also, I did not fully understand why Luke was not accepted by his peers. He seemed cool enough with them when he sold them marijuana but during the party scene he's sitting alone watching them enjoy themselves. This could have used a bit more development. We as the audience really have to understand why he's an outcast and why it would be so unlikely for him to hook up with such a popular and hot girl.


Conclusion of The Wackness
A great coming of age story we all can relate to. Aside from a few nit picky editing issues and story problems, it's a great and entertaining film with a lot of heart.

Story: Great, just a few small problems. (9/10)
Acting: Some great casting and great chemistry between Luke > Stephanie & Dr. Squires. Josh Peck does a fantastic job. (9.5/10)
Entertainment: Some really fantastic and classic moments. (9.5/10)
Editing: I just wouldn't have done some things they did (8/10)
Pacing: Little slow at times. (8/10)
Recommended: Yes, but only for those looking for some 90s nostalgia, some sex scenes and a good time :)

TOTAL: (8.5/10)

Peace

Wall-E Review

I saw an interview with the creators of Wall-E a little while back and they claimed it was not a "message" story. By that they meant it wasn't a message story about human being's reliance on machines and the human's polluting of the earth. This is riddled with messages about both and there is no way they can say it's not. What they wanted to be the foreground was the love story between Wall-E and Eve (the egg-shaped robot), which they did but it certainly wasn't a love story solely, it was a love story AND a social commentary on technology-reliance and pollution and it was a beautiful film about both stories. Whenever Disney and Pixar come together they make magic, they really do. No one can honestly say there is a bad Disney-Pixar film. There may be mediocre or "okay" films but there has never been on that was garbage and that's because both those companies really take care into making the best film they possibly can with their movies. The animation in their films are top-notch and their stories are increasingly entertaining and well though out. They are masters of the formula. Wall-E is no different. Dreamworks has come pretty close with films like Shrek, Bee Movie and Shark Tale. Shrek has been murdered by its played-out and mildly entertaining sequels, Shark Tale just doesn't have the same heart, but Bee Movie is pretty close because of it has heart and in smart in its comedy. That's what Pixar and Disney always have: heart and entertainment. Not only do they have them but they have it in a perfect balance. Wall-E's heart lies with the love story while it's entertainment and comedy is with the social commentary and even a bit with the romance.


The Good of WALL-E
Honestly, all of this movie was great. Great CGI, great pacing, great story, great characters. The audience is instantly drawn to the little robot when we first see him and his little cockroach better, that's right, his best friends is a cockroach. Again, the story is set on a Earth around the mid-21st century, I think. There are no humans of any kind and all there are that's left are cockroaches and WALL-E units. Then came Eve, WALL-E's love-interest in the film and even though neither of them were human beings you really got a feeling for their love. What I really love about how it was done is that it didn't revolve around some big moment to them kissing but a big moment to them holding hands, which is an entirely new take on the way love is expressed in films and in real life. I liked that aspect a lot. Love is more than a kiss, sometimes it's just being close to someone and holding their hand that matters. WALL-E's general pursuit of Eve is especially funny. I love the part where he makes her this gift and she walks right pass it and he kicks a mountain of pipes in annoyance to which the entire thing collapses atop his metal body. WALL-E just has a lot of heart.

Although the creators denied the film being a message story about global pollution and all that I definitely could see it and I thought it was great. From the beginning of the film when there is a huge zoom in from outer-space into Earth I could see an atmosphere covered with satellites, and I mean covered all around like a force field. We zoom in further and see the disgusting thing which is now Earth. This is all before we see WALL-E or even before we see Eve which would indicate their love story which is supposed to be the forefront of the film. Even the opening title displays a message of pollution. After WALL-E is finished crushing some cans he piles it onto a tower of trash as tall as a skyscraper. We zoom out and we see more skyscrapers of trash. Ha! And they say this isn't a message-movie! I don't know why they would deny it because it's a beautiful, or ugly, message of the future if we continue to what we do to the Earth now.

Also, there was another fine message about human's reliance on technology. When we leave Earth we see that humans have retreated to a huge space ship called the "Axium" which was supposed to be a five-year cruise while the WALL-E units cleaned up Earth. Well, that didn't go to well so ever since 2100 to about 2800 mankind has been floating through the Milky Way and they are not well off. Humans have now been straped in these hover chairs that take them everywhere which leaves to with very little exercise which means they are very large, to put it nicely. Plus, they don't even seem to be aware of the situation they are in. They always have a screen in front of them where they are speaking with their buddies on video chat when they are hovering right next to them or to see there is a new fashion. Basically, there is a huge message against total reliance on technology. It's really funny at the end of the film when the people tried to walk on their own two legs for the first time.


The Bad of WALL-E
Honestly, there isn't really anything "bad" about WALL-E. The only thing that could have been done better was the beginning, which started off a tad slow. Plus, it just doesn't feel like a total classic which is the only way I would give it a 10. Classics are like Lion King or Toy Story, this just doesn't make it that high for me but it is still very superb.

Conclusion of WALL-E
Splendid.


Story: Fantastic, totally drown into the robot love and the messages against technology-reliance and Earth-pollution. (9.5/10)
Entertainment: I was very entertained but the beginning was just a little slow. (9.5/10)
Special FX: I mean, come on, it's Pixar! (10/10)
Pacing: Great pacing accept for the beginning. (9.5/10)
Recommended: Yes, and for all ages :)

TOTAL: (9.5/10)

Peace

Hancock Review

Supehero movie after superhero movie. Wouldn't Hollywood think we were tired of these web-slinging, super-flying, claw-killing superheroes? I mean, we even have television show titled Heroes! In this summer alone we are seeing at least four or five superhero movies. Why should we go out and see this film Hancock? Well for one, it's just different. It doesn't play out like most other superhero movies. It felt like the old school comic book society where pedestrians and villians were quite ridiculous. Hancock is surely not set in any sort of reality even by the standards of newer superhero movies are going (i.e. Iron Man and Incredible Hulk). Actually, Hancock reminded me of Meteor Man and Blank Man which had some pretty wacky societies. Also, they were both two failed African-American superhero movies. Sure, Blank Man was meant for shear comedy but Meteor Man had something behind it, a moral, a backbone.



The scene above actually reminds me a lot about the theme of Hancock, or at least, what I thought the theme was in Act I (I'll go over that more later). I mean, a message like that is great and I really hoped Hancock would have had a similar communication, especially with gangs of L.A., but it stirred in a completely different direction which was not bad but left me less satisfied. Hancock, instead focused on the comedy of a wreck of a superhero to his ascend to a public icon.

The Good of Hancock
The comedy is where the strength of Hancock lies. If you even have the tiniest bit of a sense of humor you are sure to chuckle a bit. Will Smith pulls it off, of course. I haven't seen a mediocre or uninteresting character/role for him in sometime but he has had them. He had a pretty good relationship with Jason Bateman but I didn't fell much between him and Charlize Theron, except for when the huge twist happens at the middle of the film. There were some really funny moments in this film, especially the segment of Hancock-You Tube videos where he's trying to save all these people but just fails. The ice cream truck and whale in particular are very hilarious.

The CGI for this film was pretty neat. I could tell when Hancock was CG but I didn't' mind it so much, I bought it. I did want to see more flying though because there is this one shot where he comes straight at the camera that makes him look like a super awesome flying hero. I don't think we've ever seen a drunk and flying superhero. That was fun to watch. They animated that very well, making him tilt in his flight like one who tilts in their step when they are drunk.

Oh, and I totally called that twist!

The Bad of Hancock
Like I said before I honestly thought the moral of the story was heading in a different direction. Actually, don't even think I caught the moral of the film because I was so caught up in what I thought it should be. I really was expecting Hancock to get up in front of Los Angeles and asked them what they've all done to help themselves but in a profound way much like in Meteor Man but then it became this odd cross between an action/love story and I won't go to far into that cause it gives a lot away (actually, I probably have already given a lot away by saying that).

I really didn't like the cinematic choices either. The shakey camera just wasn't doing it for me during the talking scenes and they had a lot of snap-in shots in the wrong places. For action, I'm all over using a camera handheld but I think it was used way to often. There wasn't enough static moments within the film and sometimes it needed a static moment or two.

The ending bugged me as well. It was very cheesy, no, extremely cheesy but it's easy to get over it as long as you give them a break.

They beat us over the head with his "tick-off" weakness thing which was triggered by a single word.


Conclusion of Hancock
It was good. Definitely not great. It does not surpass any of the other comic book movies I've seen thus far (i.e. Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk and Wanted). Really though, it can't be compared because it's really in a league of its own. If anything you could compare it vaguely to Iron Man by its entertainment and comedic flavor. Simple enough story, very nice twist and just wished it went in a more profound and broad subject, but again, if I go into it any further I'm going to give stuff away. Go see it for yourself, but try not to bring small children.

Story: Good start, weaker ending. (6.5/10)
Action: Well done. I was a bit on the edge of my seat at the end of it. (8.5/10)
Special FX: Passable. I could tell it was CGI but it didn't bug me too much. ( (7.5/10)
Pacing: It paced alright but I think we were beat over the head with some of the character aspects that could have been cut to make everything more close-knit and tight. (7.5/10)
Editing: I guess it was alright. Nothing distinctive. (7.5/10)
Recommeded: Yes, but only to those who are 10+ years of age because there is a lot a language. No F bombs but there is just a lot of B-words and A-words used liberally.

TOTAL: (7.5/10)

Peace

Wanted Review

Wanted has its origins in the graphic novel by Mark Millar, Paul Mounts and J.G. Jones. I have never read the comic book but I did read up on the intro in Wikipedia. It seems very new. It only came out in 2003/2004. And usually it takes two or three years to make a film so this got picked up very quickly. In the Wikipedia article it mentioned that it is very much like the Matrix. The protagonist of Wanted, Wesley Gibson (played by James McAvoy from Atonement), starts off in a plain cubicle job he is unhappy with when one day he is thrown into a whole new world. Also, it mentions that Wesley Gibson is some sort of "super-villian" but in the movie I did not pick that up from him. I guess I'll discuss that later too. Fundamentally, the movie is about this "nobody" protagonist who is taken into the arms of an organization of weavers (yes weavers) called "The Faternity" which was created one thousand years ago to regulate the "balance" of human life after his father is murdered. He has these special ablities/special powers used to assasinate any of his targets. This includes super-speed, super-sense, the ability to curve a bullet's path and etc. Wesley's assignment is to kill the man who allegedly murdered his father. Generally, the movie was quite enjoyable but hard to deeply get into because of its over-the-top physics and situations.


The Good of Wanted
The reason you'd go to a movie like this is because of the action. When you saw the trailer or you saw the commercials in your mind you aren't thinking "oh, that looks like an interesting story". That could cross your mind but in the forefront you think "what great action that seems to have". I can tell you this, it delivers with action. The first scene of action was very cool and the huge reveal at the end of the scene (as well as the reveal at the end of the movie) were especially thrilling. The curving of the bullet effect was done very well and surpasses even the things anyone in The Matrix could achieve. The car-chase scene, however unbelievable, was done very well, especially its finale. It wasn't as amazing as The Matrix: Reloaded freeway scene but it was a nice urban action scene. The montage of Wesley's training with the weavers was pretty awesome and engaging. There were a few scenes of his first hits that were really great amazing, especially with the the hit he had to do with the the man in the limousine. The train scene was fantastic. I really love how since these people are ultra-assassins they have the ability to pretty much "duel" with the bullets in their guns. It was rather neat. One person will shoot their gun, curving the bullet when the other would do the same and their bullets would collide in mid-air. I actually wish I could see more of that but in a faster pace. The finale of course is epic, especially what Angelina Jolie's character, Fox, does.

The next thing that is very strong in the film is the humor and comedy of it all. I didn't except to laugh as much as I did in this film as I did, especially in the first act of the film. I was laughing really hard when Wesley quits his job, cursing out his boss and giving his so-called best friend a well-deserved hit across the face with his keyboard. McAvoy whom we last saw in Atonement played a very serious in that and he transitions from Robbie to Wesley in Wanted very well. He handled the comedy with wit and charm. Jolie's character Fox has a few comedic moments. She definitely plays the role she should as the hot co-star, which brings me to my thoughts about the acting and the story.

Although Fox is merely the co-star, the "hot chick" of the flick I always felt like she had a lot of character and Jolie pulled it off well. She could have been developed a tad bit more but all and all the slight mystery holds it well and her motives hold true to her final decision in the film. As I said before McAvoy did very well and I forgot that he was Scottish (what is with all these forgein actors playing Americans now-a-days?). Morgan Freedmon did alright as the top-dog of the faternity. The story too, was pretty cool. For me, it brought up a lot of questions. Basically, the faternity is ruled by this giant weaving machine which has the names of the people "fate" chooses to kill through an intricate code in the cloth. The code is interpreted into binary code (which explains the binary code on Fox's arm in the poster) and then deciphered into a name. There is a great twist with this in the end which I won't discuss because it's a major spoiler but I do have a lot of theories and ideas about it. The story actually kept me very intrigued and I do not believe it was over-done as most other reviews are saying.


The Bad of Wanted
When one sees the title "Wanted" they may think that the protagonist are running away from the law. Well, at first near the beginning of the movie we see Wesley on a newspaper as a "wanted" man but the thing is I never once saw a cop on his tail or saw him on the run. In fact, there isn't a single police officer in the whole film (there is a police car though). The title is a bit misleading but when I look into it further now it could play into the fact that the fraternity wanted Wesley.

While I was intrigued by the story and I do not think it was over-done I did pick up a few plot-holes, or what I thought were plot-holes but they could be forgiven. Plus, some of the over-the-top nature of the film bugged me at points. I couldn't tell what was my reality that I am familiar with in my own life and what was their reality. That doesn't make sense but what I mean is that I could really decode the limitations of these assassin's powers. While one thing was possible, another wasn't and I couldn't make sense as to why. But again, with the nature of the rest of the film it was a passable.

The action was great, of course, but sometimes in terms of the editing and the way it was shot it was hard to follow some of the sequences. Yes, action stuff should be shaky and hectic at time but the audience should be able to follow what's happening within the scene or else how would they know their hero is in danger or is conquering over their foe when all they can see is a bunch of blurry motion.

The acting was good but Morgan Freedmon didn't give a phenomenal performance as Sloan. He was alright, not even good, perhaps at points though.


Conclusion of Wanted
Good, solid action flick. Story may be a little bit out-there at times and there may be a total disregard for human life within the film but it's definitely an entertaining film. McAvoy does well from coming from an Oscar-nominated film to a summer blockbuster. Jolie is back in the action, but its a bit sad seeing her in the co-star chair. And Freedmon has had much better performances.

Apparently this film does not relate to the comic book once it gets into its second act. In the comic book it's about superheroes versus supervillians and its a world where the villains have killed off all the heroes and ruled the world but the film took the approach from an assassin organization's P.O.V.

Story: Passable. Good but may not be for everyone. (7/10)
Action: Very great. Over-the-top but once you get into it it's very enjoyable indeed. (9/10)
Special FX: Very good. But I could tell the rats were done digitally :( (8/10)
Pacing: Very fast, very humorous, slowed down when it needed to. Well paced. (8.5/10)
Editing: Good but sometimes couldn't tell what was going on in the action scenes. (7.5/10)
Acting: Avoy and Jolie give some good performacnes and have good chemistry. Freedmon could have done better. (8/10)
Recommeded: Yes, but only to those who are 14+ years of age and want to see some awesome action.

TOTAL: (8/10)

OTHER REVIEWS:


I like what one of the girls said and it really isn't a typical comic-book movie about superheroes and the like.

Peace

Off Subject Note: I bought a sixteen-ounce strawberry wild & a zucchini bread from Jamba Juice and it came out to $4.20. Hehe!