Skyfall

I don't care what anybody says: James Bond is dumb. I've seen most of these movies and I've read a couple books, and all I get is that they're all the same. Bond gets sent off to fight a racial/cultural stereotype, he seduces a girl with a terrible namen, banters with Q, uses a carrot as a machine gun or something, kills the bad guy, quips, martini line somewhere in there, end. Lather, rinse, repeat, be sure to cut out Ian Fleming's virulent sexism, and you've got a franchise. A franchise that as far as I'm concerned, only gave us Sean Connery. I prefer spy fiction where the spies don't go around telling people they're spies; stuff like Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. But as much as I don't like Bond, I liked Skyfall. More or less. After getting shot and taking a break, James Bond (Daniel Craig) returns to MI6, only to find that he is returning to a broken home, so to speak. A mysterious baddy has blown up the headquarters, revealed the identities of several undercover agents, and is targeting M (Judi Dench) for death. After meeting the new Q (Ben Whishaw), a very rusty 007 is thrown back into the field. Even though he still has his moves, Bond's loyalty to M is tested by deranged ex-MI6 agent Silva (Javier Bardem), who knows a lot of secrets about her. Now Bond must stop Silva, and wonder if he should've stayed dead. Even though Skyfall is definitely the best James Bond in a while and is arguably the best Daniel Craig Bond film, it honestly has one of the worst scripts of the year. Silva perfectly plans for events he couldn't have possibly predicted, there are no good henchmen, and they took out the martini line. Also, Javier Bardem is completely underused; they give him terrible dialogue that just tries to be a mixture of Chigurgh from No Country for Old Men and the Joker and fails at both. The product placement is ridiculous too; many shots focus on Bond's Rolex, there are comments about the awesomeness of popular car brands, and there are random scenes of MI6 agents sitting round and knocking back a couple bottles of Heineken. There's also a completely pointless Albert Finney cameo, the dumb decision to make Q a hipster, and too many jabs at old Bond tropes like gadgets and villain gimmicks. It's almost like Skyfall is ashamed of its heritage, and while I prefer realistic action films, the few 007's I like are real "Bond" movies. But there are some clever moments, the women are beautiful and only kind of objectified, and the action is pretty great. The martial arts are actually well done (watch Goldfinger or Tomorrow Never Dies and you'll understand what I mean here), the car chases are really fun, and Bond actually comes off as professional instead of a tuxedoed tornado of destruction. Really, this means a lot coming from me, because like I said I'm not a Bond fan and I usually don't like Daniel Craig either. So yeah, I liked Skyfall. I'd probably see it again with a couple friends, but I wouldn't casually turn it on and I definitely wouldn't buy it on DVD. Personally I'm more into the silly Bond films like Man With the Golden Gun and Live and Let Die; I never thought these needed a gritty reboot. Thankfully Skyfall isn't too ridiculous or too much of a Bourne ripoff, and it never gets boring. There's plenty of explosions and quips and babes to keep classic fans pleased, and enough hyperbolic dialogue for modern culture snobs. I was hoping for a nod to older films or maybe an appearance by Roger More or something, but we can't have it all. There could've been more "Bond-ness" in Skyfall, but whatever, it's fun I guess.

Lincoln

My dearly departed grandpa an unshakable admirer of Abraham Lincoln. To him, Lincoln was the best American president and possible the best American to have ever lived. And while I was often skeptical of of his undying adoration, to see my grandpa gush about Lincoln was a wonder that I miss a lot. This film directed by Steven Spielberg, gives me some solace, knowing my grandpa would be very happy with it like I was. Welcome to 1865: America is in its fourth year of Civil War, and Abraham Lincoln (Daniel Day Lewis) has just been reelected as the President of the United States. The country is desperate for peace, and both sides struggle to deal with the war's climbing death toll. The president is under constant pressure to make a deal with the Confederacy, but his mind is occupied with passing the Thirteenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights to abolish slavery. To do so, Lincoln needs at least twenty Democratic votes in addition to Republican votes, something Secretary of State William Seward (David Straithairn) and the rest of the presidential cabinet are worried about. So while Abe also must be a husband, a father, and a friend, he must be a president, and, well, Abraham Lincoln. Before watching the film, I was surprised to learn that Lincoln had a rather high squeaky voice, and I got worried that wouldn't work well on screen. I was completely wrong. Daniel Day Lewis is stunning as the sixteenth president; his body language, facial expressions, and speech all bring the man to life. For a while there were three girls behind me chatting loudly, but as soon as Lincoln spoke the whole theater went silent. He is commanding, legendary but also human and fragile. The magnificent script by Tony Kushner never gets too melodramatic, and the scenes and dialogue are written with an amazing authenticity and emotion. With Lincoln, Spielberg is in top form. He paces everything incredibly , and the gorgeous cinematography shows off the perfect production design while keeping you invested. There are moments when the story drags a little, but the performances and direction keeps an amazing tension; I got nervous about what was gonna happen, even though I knew most of the history. The supporting cast, including Jared Harris as Ulysses S. Grant, Jackie Earl Haley as Alexander Stephens, and Sally Field as Mary Todd-Lincoln are also incredible. Tommy Lee Jones in particular deserves an Oscar for his portrayal of abolitionist Thaddeus Stevens. The film is so well researched (Spielberg, Kushner, and the actors and crew did research for two years before even beginning production) and put together; I enjoyed every minute of it. I admit, Lincoln made me cry. Just a little, but it did. Partly because it reminded me of my grandpa, but mostly because it's just so moving. It reminded me that no matter how fed up I get with American politics or the state of the country, that good can be achieved when the right leader brings the right people together. Lincoln is a film about an extraordinary man who was in the end, just a man who managed to be extraordinary. He loved to tell stories and be with his friends, and more than anything he believed in human dignity and the power of the American ideal. He compromised yes, but he never quit fighting for the equality that he knew America could achieve. So go see Lincoln, and remember how good we've got it because of one man and his determination.

Wreck-It Ralph

Theoretically, video game movies should be easy to make. Just ask the creators of the games to help with the script, cast a good actor and try to reach beyond the source material, right? But Hollywood refuses to take video games seriously, and as a result, all video game movies are the same. They're all cheaply made, they're all quickly made and they're all really bad. As far as I know, none of them reach beyond twenty or so percent on Rotten Tomatoes, and infamous ones like Alone in the Dark have been mocked in online videos. The only passable one is 2010's Prince of Persia with not-Persian Jake Gylenhaal, and that was just trying to be a new Pirates of the Caribbean. So I am thankful for Wreck-It Ralph, because it brings the whole idea of a video game movie to a new level. Ralph (John C. Reilly) is a self-aware eighties video game villain in a midlife crisis. His game just turned thirty, and he's tired of being friendless while his game's beloved hero Fix-It Felix (Jack McBrayer) lives the high life. One day, Ralph decides to prove his worth by winning a medal from a new shooter in his arcade. After grabbing the prize, Ralph hops to Sugar Rush, a candy-themed racing game and meets Vanellope von Schweetz (Sarah Silverman), a glitch in the game's programming. Ralph finally has a friend, but when his absence from Fix-It Felix makes it look like the game is broken and threatens the machine with unplugging, Ralph needs to find himself and restore order to the coin-ops. I really hope there's no last-minute foreign animated film or innovative pet project this year. I hope Sylvain Chomet (Triplets of Belleville) and Studio Ghibli (Spirited Away) are quiet until 2013, because I really want Wreck-It Ralph to win an Oscar. Wreck-It Ralph is the best animated film I've seen this year, and it's most definitely the best video game movie ever made. It has a great cast, it's very well written and directed, the animation is beautiful and it's really fun. The film is a love-letter to games and their nostalgia, and Wreck-It Ralph treats them in a sensitive way that ends up really touching. Another great part of Wreck-It Ralph is how much detail the filmmakers put into every scene. The objects Ralph smashes shatters into realistic dust and debris, there are old Nintendo sound effects when people jump and environments are fully animated, not just characters. Every other American video game movie has been live action, and seeing the idea in animation really makes it work. When Ralph walks through "Game Central Station," classic characters like Sonic the Hedgehog and Chun-Li from Street Fighter pass by and chat in the background. There's even an axe-wielding zombie from the old House of the Dead games. These are homages rather than just references; never does the film look to the audience and say "remember this? This existed!" It's all in great taste, and it's a blast to watch. Wreck-It Ralph is a film for anyone who has ever loved video games. No matter what generation you are from, whether you grew up at the arcades or with Final Fantasy, you'll find something to like here. It's just so damn well done; from the jokes to the animation to the story and characters. It all melds really well together and even though there are some parts that are clearly made for kids, adults have a lot to look forward to. However I wouldn't recommend seeing it in 3D, because there's no noticeable effect and the film clearly wasn't meant to be watched through glasses. Other than that, Wreck-It Ralph is pretty flawless, and regardless of age, you'll be sure to enjoy the movie. So plug in and see Wreck-It Ralph.

Argo

Ben Affleck is a really interesting figure in modern cinema. He's one of America's most popular stars, yet it's not easy to name why other than his association with Matt Damon. He's been criticized for being the exact same character in every role, and took the criticism. Then he made a complete 180. Suddenly, Ben Affleck, the quintessential handsome white American movie star, is proven to be a very talented crime director. I liked Gone Baby Gone, I thought The Town was pretty good, but I usually would never expect Ben Affleck to create the tension and pacing that he does. So we come to Argo: Affleck's first spy thriller, one of the best in recent years. It's 1979, the eve of Iran's cultural revolution. The Ayatollah Khomeini has returned, and the United States has angered the revolutionaries by offering the ousted Shah asylum. Protestors take over the American embassy and hold over fifty employees hostage. But six intelligence workers escape and hide out in the Canadian ambassador's house. It's only a matter of time before they're discovered, and the CIA is stumped. But exfil expert Tony Mendez (Ben Affleck) comes up with an idea: have the workers pose as his Canadian film crew, pretend to be scouting for a crappy sci-fi movie called Argo, and have them fly out together. It's a huge gamble, but when the camera rolls, they gotta roll with it. One piece of advice: don't look up the actual operation Argo is based on; it makes the film much more effective. Not knowing the ending allowed me to notice a lot more in the film, and as a result I enjoyed it a great deal. Argo is a movie based in detail; there is a huge effort put into making everything look like it did then, from how cities and people look and talk to the way scenes are constructed based on photos and stock footage. Ben Affleck makes a real and successful push to make sure his audience feels the intense atmosphere of the situation. As a result the script works much better with the direction, and it's much easier to get invested in the story and characters. And Argo's characters are what makes it worth watching. The direction, the script, and the cinematography are all great, but the characters shine as the driving force behind the film. The great Bryan Cranston is great as Affleck's boss, John Goodman is as fun as always as a famous makeup artist, and Alan Arkin steals the show as Argo's foul-mouthed producer. Even the minor characters have done a lot of research into their roles and try to bring their all. They portray the seriousness and tension of the story, the most important part of the film, very well and very convincingly. As such Argo manages to stay realistic and dark but also funny and exciting. Like last year's Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, Argo is a great step forward for spy movies. Keep in mind that "spy movie" is basically just a synonym for "James Bond" in popular culture. But as a big fan of John Le Carre and classic thrillers of the forties and fifties, I like stories that are meticulous and dense, with realistic characters, actions, and tons of tension. James Bond is a character whose adventures have no stakes and no real consequences, whereas in Tinker Taylor and Argo, the stakes are very high and the consequences dire. Knowing this film is a true story only impresses this. Argo is genuine; the story and screenplay are good, the acting is great, and the direction is very well done. Go undercover and see Argo.

Taken 2

This is gonna be a weird one to talk about. I mean, even though every bad action movie and their brother gets a sequel these days, was Taken 2 really expected. The first Taken was its own thing; it had a unique tory and a badass main character, and it ended without a cliffhanger. There wasn't much wiggle room: what would your Taken sequel even be about? Who would be kidnapped, and who would rescue them? Liam Neeson again? Why? Well, somebody answered these questions, because here's Taken 2; it's really real. I wish they'd left it alone. When good-old Brian (Liam Neeson) brings his ex-wife Lenora (Famke Janssen) and his daughter Kim (Maggie Grace) to Istanbul for a vacation, he (literally) puts his guns in the closet and is ready to have some fun. Reconciliations and cute conversations are abound; Brian even seems to accept his daughter's serious relationship back home. That is of course, until the family of the Albanian traffickers from the first movie and kidnaps Brian and Lenora. Kim helps Brian to escape, but the baddies escape with Lenora. Now, Brian needs to get her back...2. If I'm going to judge Taken 2, and I absolutely am, I'm gonna have to forgive the fact that it's incredibly dumb. Because come on, nobody was gonna attempt an intelligent and complex sequel to Taken. And even if someone did, they wouldn't have succeeded. So yes, I can forgive the silliness. However, I absolutely cannot forgive how cheap, boring, and lazy Taken 2 is. Every expense was spared, every shortcut was Taken; so much so that it would be hard to make a worse version. Liam Neeson is apparently a teleporter, Albanian terrorists only speak English, the clearly twenty-something Maggie Grace apparently doesn't have her driver's license yet, it's a mess. Absolutely nothing many any damn sense. Not even the action, literally the only thing director Olivier Megaton had to deliver on, is any good. For some reason Liam Neeson does all his own fights, and he's no Tom Hardy, so all of the kung-fu is very jerky and boring. Megaton also decided to up close and with tons of cuts, so it's very disorienting and hard to follow. There are even scenes where Neeson kills bad guys by just kind of pushing them over. And it's just as bad in the ludicrous car chases and the gunfights, when somebody can shoot in the wrong direction and still hit someone dead on. The script is just so bad and none of the actors put in any effort; it's really frustrating how little work went into Taken 2. Seriously though, Taken 2 is awful. I didn't expect much from the film, and I didn't really want anything out of it. But this is just so...lame. Like I said earlier, this really is the most barebones sequel they could've done. Keep in mind there was no chance this would be a good movie, but it could have at least been kind of fun. At least it could've been entertaining. Taken 2 is exactly the opposite; it's dumb, boring, terribly made, nonsensical, ridiculous, and strangely trippy. As goofy as the first Taken was, at least it kept my attention. This does nothing of the sort; don't let it Taken your money.

Hotel Transylvania

C'mon Hollywood, why are you doing this to Genndy Tartakovsky? He is literally one of the most talented animators working today; he created Samurai Jack and Powerpuff Girls for Pete's sake. Why is he doing movies like Hotel Transylvania? Films like this allow almost no creativity or experimentation with the medium of animation, and are really scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of humor and story. Want barebones animation? Look here. Want a terrible plot? Look here. Want a cringe-worthy song at the end? You're in luck. Want a film that should've been direct to DVD and is worse than Shrek Forever After? Welcome to Hotel Transylvania. After losing his wife and being forced into hiding, Dracula (Adam Sandler) starts a hotel for monsters which doubles as a safe haven where he can raise Mavis (Selena Gomez), his teenage daughter. Mavis is about to turn 118, and Dracula wants the celebration to be perfect and to curb Mavis' desire to leave and travel the world. Stuff seems to be on track, and usual guests like Frankenstein (Kevin James), Wolfman (Steve Buscemi), and The Mummy (Cee-Lo Green) are all showing up and helping with the party. That ends however, with the arrival of Johnny (Andy Samberg), a human backpacker who finds the Hotel by way of being a complete idiot. Dracula hires to get rid of Johnny, but Mavis falls for him, and hijinks ensue. Hotel Transylvania made me feel like I was on some sort of hallucinogenic drug, in a bad way. A very bad way. Dear god, was this a bad trip. Hotel Transylvania is, for lack of a better word, schizophrenic. Someone or something is constantly moving or jiggling or twitching, even when nobody is talking or making noise. And when there is talking and noise making: oy. Just oy. I honestly had no idea what the hell was going on ninety-nine percent of the time, and when I did follow the story, it was so absurd and insane I started looking for the David Lynch credit. People in the audience around me laughed at what I think were jokes, but as it stands I cannot identify specific lines or scenes that made me laugh or were supposed to. If anything, I left Hotel Transylvania extremely confused and mildly terrified. Furthermore, whose stupid idea was it to make Cee-Lo Green a minor character? I love the guy and I love his music, and making him an exuberant and musical mummy is a great idea, but don't just keep him for the very end. Also, Fran Drescher as Frankenstein's wife? Why? Why would you subject us to that? Not to mention how profoundly dumb the plot is; it's a complete pandering to Disney kids, and it's really boring. I'm not quite sure what I expected, but I didn't expect something this shockingly lazy and terrible. Now I know what it's like for Roger Ebert to sit through a Friday the 13th film. It's just bewildering and upsetting and maddening. I mean it. I am baffled by Hotel Transylvania. I literally have no words. Wow. I mean wow is this one bad. Everything falls flat. Everything backfires. Nothing works. Wow. I don't care if it's a kid's film, there is no excuse. Bible cartoons put more effort into their productions. Sorry, I know I'm overreacting, but I just can't deal with this film. Hotel Transylvania truly needs to be seen to be believed. It's Wal-Mart Bargain Bin level terrible. How do I even end this review? I have no idea what else to say. Genndy Tartakovsky...I feel so bad for you man. You're so talented and creative, I don't understand how you get stuck with crap like this. Maybe that's why I had such a problem with a dumb kids film. Or maybe just because it's awful.

The Master

Recently, I've seen a lot of lists online naming the so-called "Best Directors of the Modern Era." There are parts of the lists I don't agree with, parts I would change, but I always agree with the inclusion of Paul Thomas Anderson. Anderson is unique in his talent; few other directors get the performances from their actors Anderson does. Almost no one else puts the detail into their cinematic worlds Anderson does, and nobody does character pieces like Anderson does. Even in this world of Quentin Tarantino and Christopher Nolan, Paul Thomas Anderson has his own niche that no one can touch. For me, The Master only elevates him more. World War Two veteran Freddie Quell (Joaquin Phoenix) is doing pretty badly. He's an alcoholic, he's vulgar, violent, abrasive, promiscuous, and alone. One night while intoxicated on his homemade paint-thinner moonshine, Freddie takes refuge on a yacht belonging to Lancaster Dodd (Philip Seymour-Hoffman), a charismatic intellectual and leader of "The Cause," a religious movement based in Dodd's writings. Dodd and his wife (Amy Adams) take Freddie in as a patient, and Dodd in particular becomes attached to him. Freddie travels the country with The Cause, hoping to find his purpose and curb his PTSD. But his cycle of depression and self-destruction only seems to get worse, and threatens to bring everyone down with him. The Master is not the scientology story. It's not a commentary on said group, it's not a fictionalized origin story, and it's not a biopic. The film's trailers unfortunately marketed it as such, and while Lancaster Dodd's character is clearly based a lot on L. Ron Hubbard, The Master isn't really about him or The Cause. Rather, Freddie Quell is the subject here; he carries the film, and while his friendship with Dodd is a huge part of the film, at the end it's about Freddie. And as a result, The Master is a much richer experience then it would be as a scientology movie. Paul Thomas Anderson knew exactly what he was doing while writing the film, and it makes the movie very worthwhile. But the most impressive part of The Master is the directing. Everything from the dialogue to the scene structure to the jackets on the books Philip Seymour-Hoffman carries around is so thought out and perfectly placed it's ridiculous. The Master is one of those films with a story but without a real narrative, and if you let it take you in you won't regret it. And the acting, dear lord the acting. Everything about the lead performances is noteworthy. Their body language, how they talk, it's incredible. Joaquin Phoenix and Philip Seymour-Hoffman are very captivating in their roles, and are both completely Oscar-worthy. You have to be willing to let The Master wash over you. If you go into it expecting a hardcore slam of scientology through the eyes of Daniel Plainview, you will be disappointed. Each of Paul Thomas Anderson's films is different, so when you watch this one, don't compare it to Boogie Nights or Magnolia, etc. Just dive into this film. Let the characters, the story, and the production flow. Be a transparent eyeball. Enjoy yourself. The Master is a brilliant rumination on post WWII America, and being emotionally detached and isolated from everything, especially the plastique of the time. It's unbelievably well acted and shot and written and directed. It's just a great piece of American filmmaking.

Looper

Why isn't sci-fi fun anymore? Why does everything have to be a commentary on religion or a 2001 wannabe? Why are all the societies dystopian? Why are all the main characters jaded and brooding? What happened to the sense of adventure and hope for the future? Where are the science villains and the ray guns and the jet packs? And since when did doing away with all that become synonymous with "smart" genre filmmaking? Tarantino is smart, the Coen Brothers are smart, and they have lots of fun with genres. So how come sci-fi is becoming so pretentious and empty? I'm not exactly sure, but Looper doesn't help anything. Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is a Looper, a hitman who kills targets sent back from thirty years in the future by the mob. He gets paid in silver and is saving most of it to move to France. Joe is doing well for himself, but notices that most of his colleagues are "closing their Loops;" killing their future selves for a huge payday and erasing evidence of the Looper working for the mafia. This doesn't bother Joe, even when he gives up his friend (Paul Dano) for cash. One day, Future Joe (Bruce Willis) arrives with a mind to change the past and prevent a future, and knocks out Joe before getting away. Now Joe has to avoid mob assassins while trying to close his Loop, and figure out their plan for each other. I feel pressured by Looper. I feel like it's a movie that I'm supposed to love, just because of the cast, and Rian Johnson, and because it's "smart." It's a film that chastises me for bringing up the flaws because like Scott Pilgrim, it's "cool" to like it. As if I needed another reason to dislike Looper. Looper is one of the messiest and surprisingly shallow action films I've seen since Unknown. Around ninety-five percent of the film is hype riding on the coattails of Johnson's previous films, and the remaining five percent under the simple fact that Looper doesn't really make sense. The time travel concept is unique, but it's so convoluted, and it's made moot by the endless explanatory dialogue that just contradicts itself. The other major problem with Looper is that it desperately wants to be Blade Runner, and it just isn't. To say that Looper is influenced by that film would be a gross understatement. The entire visual aesthetic, especially the lighting and use of narration, is so similar that I actually scrubbed my eyes a couple times to make sure it wasn't a remake. Looper isn't as clever as it seems to be; people teleport, consequences are selective, and nothing really happens. It's also far too long before Bruce Willis shows up, and then he introduces a whole new plot that adds another level of silliness to the whole thing but ALSO ends up being the driving point of the story. One thing I will give Looper is that the makeup used on Joseph Gordon-Levitt is incredible. He looks just like a young Bruce Willis, if Bruce Willis had a full head of hair. THe acting, besides the pointless Emily Blunt character, is pretty good, but it's hard to praise it when JGL is just doing an imitation of Willis. Plus, there's a criminal underuse of Jeff Daniels, which I cannot condone nor forgive. So overall, Looper has a lot of good intentions and ideas. Futuristic hitmen are after all, badass. But it's sadly such a big mess and such a misfire on almost all counts that I cannot recommend it.

V/H/S

Horror anthologies really need to come back. I really dig stuff like Creepshow, Tales From the Crypt, and Masters of Horror, and I'd really like to see more new stuff in that vein. Anthology horror can be a great way to let filmmakers "do their thing" so to speakm and can allow for really unique work. This is especially true in terms of modern independent horror; directors working together can definitely be a method of getting their stuff out there. So I was pretty excite for V/H/S, and hoped it could convert me from my hatred of found footage. Did it? Let me tell you. When a group of sleazy, low-level criminals are hired by anonymous benefactor, they expect an easy payday. After all, all they have to do is break into some guy's house and steal a VHS tape. It seems easy enough, but they find that the owner of the house is dead and the basement is filled with tapes. They decide to take as many as they can and get the hell out, but something keeps them there. As creepy as the house is, they don't leave, and one of them decides to start playing random tapes. Each one contains something scary and supernatural, and watching them has an effect that nobody could predict. V/H/S didn't make me like found footage. To me, it's still the easy way out, and it's still an excuse to be cheap. So ven though the style works in a few of the shorts, the majority of them would've been much more effective without the camera having a seizure half the time. The films are, for the most part, very well made and entertaining, but the found footage thing just looks bad. As a result, several shorts that could've been very scary aren't very scary at all. V/H/S also suffers from Indie Syndrome: a trope of independent film that commonly results from a filmmaker who wants to fit in just one more tribute to his idols. One specific short is quite good, until the director pushes too far at the last minute. Nevertheless, most of the shorts are very fun to watch; filled with good jump scares, great gore, and hilarious acting. The films by Ti West and Radio Silence are in particular fantastic. Over the corse of the tapes, most horror cliches are covered, and each director does try to do their own thing. We see cool twists on genres like slashers, scary women, home invasions, and exorcisms; but like The Last Exorcism, it's just not that scary. Partially because of the found footage, partially because of IS, but generally because they're not scary. It's hard to pinpoint or explain exactly why this is, in fact it's nearly impossible, but it's the truth. V/H/S just needed better writing and less found footage. In terms of bringing back the horror anthology, I'm not so sure that V/H/S is a step in the right direction. Sorry, but found footage is not the way to go. If some of the segments were found footage, with other genre experimentation filling out the rest of the film, V/H/S would've been much stronger. And again, many of the parts simply are not scary, which is disappointing. Still, it's a fun ride, and when it's good, it's damn good. If nothing else it makes me want to further explore the works of Ti West and Radio Silence. Overall, V/H/S is entertaining, but has a stench of wasted potential.

Dredd 3D

Wow, really guys? Of all the comic book movies we could and should be making, you're gonna do Judge Dredd again? Really? Fine. It's not like a movie about a generic dude shooting people in a city should be that hard. Oh right, the original Stallone movie. Oh, and both Punisher movies. To be fair, this one does have a really promising cast, and claims to keep more true to the comic books. I changed my mind, let's give this 3D, low-budget remake of a nineties action movie a chance, shall we? Wait, it doesn't suck? In post-apocalyptic America, MegaCity-One holds over half a billion people, and all the crime that entails. The City is rampant with drugs, gangs, and murder, and the only enforcers are the Judges, armored supercops who also serve as jury and executioner. Judge Dredd (Karl Urban), one of the most legendary Judges, is paired with rookie Judge Anderson (Olivia Thirlby) for a standard assessment, or so he thinks. It's all routine until the Judges run afoul of Ma-Ma (Lena Headey), a famously violent criminal. Dredd and Anderson threaten Ma-Ma's business by arresting a possible snitch, so she traps the two in her two-hundred-story housing complex chock-full of criminals. Now, the Judges have to convict the defendants. Ok, I know what you're thinking: "come on Jess, don't go all 'Conan the Barbarian' on us." I'm not, I promise. Dredd is a much better film than Conan, Battle LA, and most other action movies coming out these days. Dredd is surprisingly well done; the pacing is steady, it's really cool to look at, and the acting is actually pretty good. Olivia Thirlby isn't just a pretty face and holds her own, and Karl Urban is a total badass, but also brings a level of humanity so Dredd isn't just a robot with a big gun. The script, while completely ridiculous has a good structure and natural story progression, with just enough dumb one-liners so that it never gets too serious and keeps a sense of humor about itself. And yes, of course there are the plot points that go nowhere, deus ex machina up the wazoo, bad 3D, and underdeveloped characters. But the film does a good job of creating a (mostly) unique and interesting universe witha great aesthetic feel. and a reasonably good story for what is. Its highest points are definitely the action scenes however, which are pretty damn awesome. Dredd makes great use of slow-motion and the tight environments of Ma-Ma's lair. The mandatory buckets of gore are also lots of fun; eyeballs fly, people explode, it's great. By the end of the film, Dredd is knee-deep in corpses, and each one was killed in a different crazy gunfight, each one equally entertaining. Dredd is a film I walked into expecting exactly nothing of. It started off badly with cheesy narration, and didn't progress well by throwing a lot of silly stuff at me. But by the end I was very happy with the movie. Dredd turned out to be way more smooth and well made than I thought it would be, and was just goofy enough to satisfy my action sweet tooth. The film was definitely a pleasant surprise, and it killed time and left me in a good mood. I could've speculated on whether or not the whole Judge Dredd concept is a just neofascist wet dream (it is), but I didn't. Sometimes, it's just fun to watch the good guys kick some ass.

Lawless

I hate to see things go to waste. Like Shia LaBeouf: very funny and charming in Even Stevens and Holes, and clearly capable of drama based on Disturbia. Then he somehow became synonymous with being smarmy, arrogant, and insufferably obnoxious. I guess he played Sam Witwicky too well. Also, "The Road" movie. Beautiful opportunity ruined by cheesy narration, terrible music, and too much happy. I hoped Lawless would be a new chance for both the Beouf and The Road director John Hillcoat. Come on, it has Tom Hardy. No such luck. Jack (Shia LaBeouf), Howard (Jason Clarke), and Forrest (Tom Hardy) Bondurant are successful bootlegging siblings in Franklin, Virginia during prohibition. The law doesn't bother them, they are well liked in town, and allegedly, Forrest is unkillable. Things shake up with two new arrivals from Chicago: Maggie (Jessica Chastain), a waitress with a past, and Charlie Rakes (Guy Pearce), an eyebrow-less FBI agent who wants a cut of the business. The Bondurants refuse to bow down, and Jack tries to court Bertha (Mia Wasikowska) in his spare time. But Rakes won't give up, and when he decides to make it personal, all hell breaks loose. When your violent gangster movie features Tom Hardy as a hulking yet wise tough guy with a penchant for brass knuckles and a reputation for surviving death, why make his little brother the main character? Especially when that brother is Shia LaBeouf and is cowardly, useless, and the cause of every bad thing that happens to the characters in the film? Also, why go through the trouble of having Gary Oldman if you only have him in one scene? So yeah, the plot and characters of Lawless aren't great. In fact, both are pretty boring. God knows the actors work hard with nothing, but there's a limit. The script by Nick Cave (seriously?) is hyperbolic, shallow, and confusing, and like in The Road, Hillcoat's direction is much too slow. As I said earlier, it sucks to see things go to waste, especially an interesting story like Lawless that could've been a unique and interesting prohibition film. I admit that I'm a bit tired of big-city shootouts and fedoras. But Lawless is so endless and monotonous that I'm reconsidering that. Not much happens, but the film takes so long to do anything that I couldn't get invested. It's also relentlessly and cartoonishly violent, which is completely unnecessary and only served to take me further out of the story. Saying that I was disappointed by Lawless wouldn't be true. But at the same time, I know it could've been so much more. Especially since it's a true story, which should've been a reason to attach emotionally to the characters and narrative. Sadly everything is underdeveloped; the people are uninteresting, the dialogue is insipid, the plot is a mess, and the pacing is terrible. Lawless probably would've been silly no matter who made it, but it could at least have been more fun to watch. So stay away, because something nasty got into the moonshine.

The Expendables 2

The first Expendables was disappointing, at least to me. I didn't see the point of Terry Crews and Randy Cotoure, I wasn't big on the villain, and there wasn't enough blood. Seriously, I could make a list of people who should've been in the last movie, but that would take way too long. This inevitable sequel has a few of the people that list, and a few I didn't overall. Overall, I was more confident with this movie going in. Should I have been? Lemme tell you. Barney Ross (Stallone), Lee Christmas (Statham), and the rest of their gang of bad puns have returned, but so has Mr. Church (Willis), and he's calling in his favor. Threatening the team with prison time, Church sends them on a routine snatch-grab that turns bad fast with the arrival of Jean Vilain (Van Damme), a terrorist for hire. After Vilain makes it personal, the Expendables are left with no option but payback. Now in a world where the odds are against them, these steroid-pumped seniors must get paid back, no matter the cost. If nothing else, Expendables 2 is consistent. From the very beginning, reality is head-butted out of the way, and we are treated to a buffet of eighties action cliches, gore, bad CGI, worst plastic surgery, bromance, and Dolph Lundgren. There's more action, more blood, more one-liners, and more nostalgia. Sadly, it's not as great as it may sound. Jet Li disappears around fifteen minutes in, and Liam Hemsworth leaves soon after, only to be replaced by a generic "I can take care of myself" girl character. And my main man Jean-Claude throws barely five roundhouses. For some reason Stallone decided to focus more on specific characters than the team, and the film suffers. Also not helping is the schizophrenic and ridiculous plot that tries too often to be brooding and fails miserably. But when you see Stallone, Willis, and Schwarzenegger all together blowing away armies of henchmen, it's difficult not to enjoy yourself. I admit that I have a bias towards loving Arnold no matter his age, but still, it's pretty glorious at parts. The overall action is just better, with more attention paid to being fun to watch than brutal. And yes, there's a Chuck Norris fact. And yes, it's pretty funny. People expecting anything deep or smart from Expendables 2 shouldn't go see it. At the same time, people who want to see it shouldn't expect much. The Expendables 2 is a silly and fun action movie, nothing else. It is very flawed and very dumb, but I still enjoyed it way more than the first one. I like to check my brain at the door every now and then, so I welcomed this movie, however I completely understand why someone wouldn't like it. The Expendables 2 is a big goofy train ride that's a lot of fun if you're in the right mindset. That's all it will ever be, so take it or leave it.

The Campaign

If anyone is going to lambast the giant game of grab-ass that is American politics, Will Ferrel is a great choice. And if one were to choose Ferrel's opposite, Zach Galifianakis is good too. And of all the comedy directors that came out of the nineties, Jay Roach is one of the best. All these ingredients coming together should make something absolutely hilarious; as biting as Thompson and as side-splitting as Anchorman. The Campaign only sort of succeeds. Cam Brady (Will Ferrel)is a seedy North Carolina congressman who will say and do anything to get reelected for his fifth term. After a sex scandal, Brady's corporate backers decide to set up local loser Marty Huggins (Zach Galifianakis) as their personal candidate. Innocent and naive Marty just wants to help the people, but a dirty campaign manager (Dylan McDermott) changes his whole world and forces Brady to start get desperate. With both sides going nuts, war is declared, things get personal, and hijinks ensue. A political comedy is a comedy that would understandably be hard to do. What with the brilliance of Jon Stewart, Colbert, South Park, and hundreds of others out there, it's gotta be hard to stand out. That's why The Campaign gave me quite a bit of hope, because the people involved are so great. And there are a lot of moments that are side-splittingly funny, but it's just that: moments. The film as a whole isn't that great. I blame this mostly on the script, which to be honest is thin on character and doesn't go far enough. As a result The Campaign isn't as focused and tight as it should be. Still, when the film is funny, it is damn funny. The best jokes in the movie are really biting satire on the whole Super-PAC corporatization of congress and its representatives from both parties, and I laughed hard. But there are just too many in between moments that aren't funny and go on way too long without progressing or developing anything. There's a message about Citizens United that's forced into the end, and I almost want to say that it doesn't go hard enough on the corporations that it sets out against. I also wish there were more analogues for real world politicians, but hey, ya can't have it all. The Campaign is a step down from Jay Roach's other political and comedic films, and Adam McKaye's writing, but it's a step up for pretty much all else. It's good to see Will Ferrel outside of dramadies and Mexico, and it also moves Zach Galifianakis from his Awkward Beard-Man persona for once. Sadly the script is underwritten and a bit of a mess, and I know it could've been better. In the end The Campaign has many great moments, but just never rises to the level it should have.

The Imposter

True crime is great; TV, books, whatever. I can spend hours watching Unsolved Mysteries or looking up serial killers on wikipedia. The subject of what darkness is just behind the layer of society and morality is fascinating to me.This also ties into my love of mystery fiction, specifically the hardboiled stuff by Raymond Chandler and Edgar Allen Poe. I love stories of weird circumstances, dad ends, gumshoes, and dark secrets. Who knew you could have all that with a documentary? In mid-1994, thirteen-year-old Nicholas Barclay disappeared while walking home in San Antonio, Texas. His family did an extensive search, but nothing came up. Three years later, they get a call from a shelter in Spain claiming they have Nicholas. Nicholas' sister personally went to pick him up. The person she brought back claimed to have been kidnapped into a child prostitution ring. He also looked nothing like Nicholas, had different colored eyes, and spoke with a French accent. But the Barclay family took him in without question. Why would they? Were they that desperate? And what happens when the impostor becomes scared of those he's duping? For lack of a better term: holy cow is this movie engaging. I was literally on the edge of my seat for most of it, and I was talking and thinking about the film for days after seeing it. The documentary interviews everyone involved with the case, including Nicholas' family, an FBI agent, a private eye who noticed early discrepancies, and the impostor himself. We get the facts of the story packaged with speculation from two equally unreliable narrators, and the director handles it magnificently. I'm no Marlowe, but I have mild confidence in my observational skills, and for the first time I did real detective work. I won't say my conclusion, but let me say I was surprised. Most unique about The Imposter is how the story is told. The film is a completely new and original take on crime documentaries, and it's cool. As we listen to first hand accounts from the various taling heads, we watch high quality reenactments, news footage, and home movies that reveal intricacies that otherwise wouldn't have been included. The Imposter also makes use of voice filters, nonlinear narrative, and creepy music to tell a truly haunting and bizarre tale full of lies and unsolved suspicions. For me, watching this film was like reading a great whodunit novel. What killed me was the fact that it was all real. Not "based on a true story" real. Nobody's names were changed, no sides are taken. There's just the facts, set up in an incredibly fascinating way. It's definitely a film I'd see again with others who haven't seen it, if not just so I can reexamine the story. There's really nothing else for me to say except go see The Imposter because it's awesome.

The Bourne Legacy

I really do love the Bourne movies. They're a great representation of serious and realistic action films, and I enjoy the hell out of them. The original Bourne films with Matt Damon are visceral, engaging, and smart. And you know what? I was open to Jeremy Renner being a new character in the same universe, because realistically there had to be other secret agents besides Bourne who weren't sent after him. So when the trailers had Ed Norton saying Bourne was but the beginning, I allowed myself to get psyched. I'm not sure that was wise. Taking place during the second half of The Bourne Ultimatum, The Bourne Legacy follows Aaron Cross (Jeremy Renner), another agent of Outcome. After surviving an attempt by Eric Byer (Edward Norton) to eliminate loose ends in wake of the Bourne scandal, Aaron finds that he is running out of the CIA drug that allows him to function as an enhanced individual. Unwilling to face withdrawal systems, Aaron seeks out his program physician (Rachel Weisz) for help after saving her from being taken out as well. The good doctor suggests they go to the main lab and try to cure Aaron's addiction, and the pair starts a race against time. Ok, that isn't exactly the plot. I admit, I paraphrased a bit, but for good reason. The real plot makes much, much less sense. Maybe it's because I haven't seen Bourne Ultimatum in a while, but that shouldn't be a reason for me getting lost in the narrative like five times. Considering how long it's been since the original trilogy came out, I feel like Legacy should've been an easy refresher. Remember, the Damon films, especially Ultimatum, are pretty complex. But even if I remembered the original ones perfectly, the whole pill thing still wouldn't make a lick of sense. Jeremy Renner is a good actor. He was the best part of The Hurt Locker, I dug him in Ghost Protocol, and he's Hawkeye. But he's not given much to work with here. The action scenes, while awesome, are few, far between, and short. So when Renner has to single handedly bring the story forward through the convoluted dialog, he doesn't do so well. I'd love to see more of Aaron Cross, he's an interesting character, but Legacy falls on its face developing him. And as gorgeous as Rachel Weisz is, her character is really boring in this movie. Bourne Legacy is not a bad movie, no matter how awful I've been making it sound. It's just not really good, per se. It's the perfect example of "not bad," or "could be better." Hopefully, there will be another film that improves on Legacy's mistakes, because while I miss Matt Damon, Jeremy Renner could be great if only they give him the right script. In the end The Bourne Legacy is a fine first effort at a totally new kind of Bourne movie. It isn't fantastic or horrible, it's honestly just ok.

Hara-Kiri: Death of a Samurai

Takashi Miike is nothing if not a defier of stereotypes. He is a director best known in America as the director of gore-fests like Audition and Ichi the Killer, but has directed at least five kids movies. Miike is one of the most prolific and weird cult filmmakers in the world, but was chosen to make the Phoenix Wright movie. He has quickly become one of my favorite Japanese directors, in no small part because of his 2011 masterpiece 13 Assassins. With Hara-Kiri, Miike returns to the world of the samurai, this time with a different approach. On a peaceful afternoon in feudal Japan, the prominent Li clan is visited by a middle-aged samurai named Hanshiro (Ebizo Ichikawa). Hanshiro claims to be poverty-stricken and alone, and wishes to commit suicide on the grounds of a famous house, in front of its three most revered warriors. Worried that Hanshiro just wants money for pity, Li retainer Kageyu (Koji Yakusho) attempts to scare him off with the story of Motome (Eita), a ronin who bluffed and was brutally killed. Unknown to him though, Hanshiro was closely related with Motome, and has a plan for revenge. I was immediately surprised by Hara-Kiri when I learned that Takashi Miike's method of directing the film was the complete opposite of 13 Assassins. By that I mean he uses the same hair-raising tension and suspense as he did in Audition. Hara-Kiri is constructed like a stageplay, forgoing wall-to-wall violence in favor of subtle development and a stripped-down feel. The lack of CGI, orchestral music, and fancy editing serves as a highlight to the fantastic cinematography and lighting, as well as the occasional drag in the story. But what really shines are the performances. Ebizo Ichikawa plays Hanshiro with the restraint of Geoffrey Rush and the power of Toshiro Mifune, setting up a wall of calm that feels like it's uncomfortably surrounding you. Koji Yakusho is in top form, an the rest of the cast handles the film like serious thespians. So even though this is a long and sometimes boring movie, there is a very intense atmosphere that keeps you guessing and surprised. Hara-Kiri is really a suspense film dressed in a kimono and katana. My one warning to those who may wish to watch Hara-Kiri is that it's very sad. There were parts where I almost fast-forwarded because it's so melancholy. We meet characters in flashbacks that are extremely likable, and we root for them, but they just can't catch a break. Two scenes were especially hard-hitting for me, and I almost laughed at how sad it was. But overall Hara-Kiri is a very well constructed and cerebral film that is made and performed beautifully. Not as good as 13 Assassins, but worth watching all the same.

The Dark Knight Rises

What a wild and amazing ride Christopher Nolan has taken us on. In the past seven years he's revolutionized superhero movies, made Heath Ledger legendary, created hundreds of internet memes, and brought philosophy back to blockbusters. He has changed the way the world looks at action movies, and of course made Batman more relevant than he has ever been. So after two nearly perfect films, his conclusion must be even better right? Right? Eight years after the events of The Dark Knight, Gotham is nearly rid of crime, and Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) has hung up the cowl. Hoever, he hasn't been able to move on, and spends his days as a shut in. After an encounter with Selina Kyle (Anne Hathaway) and some encouragement from Alfred (Michael Caine), Bruce seems ready to rejoin the world as everyone's favorite eccentric billionaire. That is, until Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) is nearly killed by Bane (Tom Hardy), a mysterious masked man with a hard-on for Batman. Bane is bigger, stronger, and more cunning han Bruce, so when Batman returns to the streets, he might not get the triumph he expected. See that big paragraph I just wrote as a plot summary? It's about five run-on sentences long, which is standard for me. And I left out almost half of the movie. I didn't mention Marion Cotillard or Joseph Gordon-Levitt, nor did I actually develop the stakes of the story. That's how much this movie has going on in it, and I don't necessarily mean that positively. Nolan proved with Inception that he could masterfully handle complex plots, but here is cup overflows. By going all in immediately, The Dark Knight Rises loses the carefully structured narrative of its predecessors and is honestly a bit of a mess. It's like The Godfather 3; there are just too many new characters and plot points, and there's no real binding piece like in the last one. Also, while it's unfair to compare anyone to Heath Ledger's Joker, Bane is a disappointment. His big Darth Vader mask covers so much of his face that we see no movement, so even though he has a cool voice and is the amazing Tom Hardy, it sadly feels dubbed in. And I love Tom Hardy, so this is hard to say. But it's like seeing a shark in a tank; menacing yes, but not very scary and a bit detached. That isn't to say I didn't like the movie. I could nitpick it all day, but I had a great time and was satisfied. I wasn't blown away, but besides Bane the acting is top-notch, and most of the script is too. I shouldn't even have to tell you about how great the music and direction is. Interestingly, the best part for me was Anne Hathaway. They never call her Catwoman, but Hathaway owns the role, being smart, cool, and sexy all at once without missing a beat. So in the end, it kinda sucks that The Dark Knight Rises isn't the earth-shattering conclusion to the trilogy that I wanted so badly for it to be. Yes, I'm a bit resentful that I didn't cry at the end. The film really should've given Tom Hardy a better mask, and they never should have kicked David Goyer off the writing team. But this is still a solid and worthwhile ending to an incredible franchise, so my gripes don't really matter.

Beasts of the Southern Wild

Sometimes movies make me cry. I'm not afraid to say it, because film is an art, and sometimes that art induces tears. Sometimes the movie is like Up and it's just sad, sometimes it's like The Muppets and it's just touching. Whatever way the film goes, if it makes me cry, I'm crying for a good reason. And, films that make me cry usually end up on my best of the year lists, like Toy Story 3. Beasts of the Southern Wild made me cry because it's just so beautiful. Hushpuppy (Quvenzhane Wallis) lives with her dad Wink (Dwight Henry) in The Bathtub, a forgotten bayou community made of trash and empty bottles of liquor. Hushpuppy spends her days listening to animals' heartbeats, wondering where her mom went, and going through her dad's school of hard knocks. But when Wink contracts a mysterious and deadly illness, Hushpuppy's world falls apart. The icecaps melt, The Bathtub floods, prehistoric monsters called Aurochs get unfrozen, and Hushpuppy has to put the universe back together. Beasts of the Southern Wild was written and directed by people who had never produced a feature film, and stars actors with no other credits and no experience. Dwight Henry was a baker in the location's town before being cast. Yet this film is one of the most philosophically and aesthetically gorgeous films of the past twenty years, at least since 2009's Where the Wild Things Are. There isn't much of a story, but its narrative is perfectly structured. The characters aren't superheroes or very quirky, but they are fascinating to watch. This is a truly beautiful film, and I've never really seen anything else like it. Everything about this film astounded me. From the mind-boggling cinematography and directing to the beautiful music. Then there's the acting, which is amazing. Never before did I think the performances of a six-year-old girl and a baker with no prior experience would immediately strike me as Oscar-worthy. Things change. Quvenzhane Wallis is a force of nature as Hushpuppy, and Dwight Henry is so captivating as Wink, I felt like he was really there. I felt embraced by Beasts of the Southern Wild, in the same way I feel embraced by a sunrise. This film brought up emotions I haven't felt watching a movie in a while. It's a mixed bag that just wants to burst out of me in an explosion o energy that leads me to running down the beach. There's some sadness, some fear, and some confusion, but it all turns into joy. I felt this watching Where the Wild Things Are. I feel it when I hear Gorillaz' "On Melancholy Hill," Arcade Fire's "Wake Up," and Jonsi's "Go Do." I feel it because I've experienced something extraordinary here, and I think you should too.

Magic Mike

Steven Soderbergh is truly one of the most perplexing filmmakers working today. He's made some great movies like The Limey and Traffic, but I think the debate over whether Soderbergh is a "good" director would be a long one. He's been especially weird recently, because he is constantly making films whose trailers are nothing like the actual film. For example, The Informant! was billed as a quirky comedy and turned out to be a dialog-heavy Office Space-lite. Contagion was supposed to be a realistic look at a biblically-sized disease pandemic, and turned out to be an overwrought B thriller. Magic Mike should've been a raunchy comedy, and it turned out to be something hard to describe. Mike (Channing Tatum) is a Tampa-based male stripper who wants to start a custom furniture business, but is held back by bad credit and his club's weirdo owner Dallas (Matthew McConaughey). At one of his side jobs, Mike meets Adam (Alex Pettyfer), a lost kid living on his sister Brooke's (Cody Horn) couch. Mike likes Brooke, so he agrees to help Adam out and get him a job as a stripper. For a while things are great, and the lifestyle of cash, partying, and hot babes works well for Adam. But when he starts to get out of control and Mike starts to realize how truly unhappy he is, the dream begins to crumble. One thing Soderbergh does way too much is have overly long and usually single-shot dialog sequences where nothing is really achieved and the plot isn't progressed. When he has the right writer like in the aforementioned Limey, this can work well as a tool for character development and witty one-liners. However with a script as confused about its genre and tone as Magic Mike, these scenes serve only to bore the audience. And Magic Mike is very, very boring. I am comfortable enough with myself to know that a male stripper movie won't get me all uncomfortable and freaked out. I am also confident enough in my abilities as a film critic to decipher surreal films like The Tree of Life and The Skin I Live In. But I'm not that sure what to make of Magic Mike. There are moments I think were supposed to be funny and some people in my theater laughed, but the film plays everything completely straight. Even the moments that are clearly attempts at humor are shot with no music, barely any cuts,and lots of background noise. It's weird. Recently, Soderbergh claimed he would retire within two films. That was just before Contagion came out. Then he made Haywire. And then, he made Magic Mike. So I have to ask, when is he gonna stop? I mean, as long as he keeps making bad movies that is. I never saw Haywire so I can only count two strikes right now, but his IMDB already has at least three more projects lined up and I'm worried. Even though Soderbergh isn't my favorite director or anything, I don't want to see him tarnish the memory of his good movies. Maybe if everyone stays away from this turkey he'll get the message.

The Amazing Spider-Man

Spider-Man has never been one of my favorite superheroes. To be honest, I've always found the character kind of boring. Every now and then I've enjoyed a comic book or a video game, but there's only so much spider-angst I can take. I feel the same way about the Raimi trilogy; I don't love any of them, nor do I hate any of them. Spider-Man 3 is dreadful, but I don't really think about it. So I am open to the idea of a reboot as a fresh start. Too bad it came out rotten. Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) is a loner student living with his Aunt May (Sally Field) and Uncle Ben (Martin Sheen). His parents disappeared mysteriously when he was little, and he's pretty depressed and bored, except for his crush on Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone). When Peter solves his dad's algorithm about regeneration and teams up with his dad's old partner (Rhys Ifans), life is on the up until Uncle Ben is killed trying to stop a robber. After buying a suit and making webs, Peter becomes Spider-Man, defending New York from criminals and the ghosts of the past. I was dumfounded after seeing this film. I thought superhero movies of this quality had died out with Punisher: War Zone. You know, the kind with no redeeming qualities. I hated The Amazing Spider-Man. I hated everything about it; from the nonsensical and severely cut-down plot to the terrible direction and wincingly awful script. I hated the stupid villain, the snail-like pacing, and the cheap CGI. Most of all though, I hated that it didn't even try. The Amazing Spider-Man immediately kills all semblance of creativity in favor for a completely commercial romantic comedy that just happens to feature Spider-Man. Now, you may be asking: "Jess, why get so worked up over a character you don't dig that much?" Because even though I'm not a huge Spider-Man fan, I recognize the endless potential of the character. Writers like Brian Michael Bendis and Todd MacFarlane have done, dare I say it, amazing things with Spider-Man, and I know there are even more great stories out there. But this movie is the bare minimum of the franchise's potential. Like I said, they didn't even try. We even have to see all the stupid super-strength and sticky fingers jokes from the original film, and there's barely any action or charm. The only thing I can relate this film to is Twilight. That may seem harsh, but The Amazing Spider-Man is that generic and asinine. It feels more like the pilot for an MTV show called "Peter and Gwen" than a superhero movie. Everything from the insane finale to the sad lack of J. Jonah Jameson is just so inept and mediocre. And remember that facepalm-inducing moment in Spider-Man 3 when Spidey posed in front of the American flag? Remember how the film had at least been building its silliness up to there? The Amazing Spider-Man starts that low and never looks up. Nuff said.

Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter

If you're like me, when you saw Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter sitting in Barnes & Noble you said: "lolwtf." Then when you actually bothered to read it, as you are an impulsive book shopper, you saw it was a very smart humor novel. Then when you saw that it was being made a movie by Timur Bekmambetov (Wanted), you got excited. But most people are not like me, and many judged this film by its title. I'm here to tell you why they shouldn't have. When Abraham Lincoln (Benjamin Walker) was a tyke, his mom was murdered by a mysterious businessman. As an adult, Abe finally gets the guts to take revenge, only to find that his quarry is kinda-sorta-undead. After being almost killed, Abe becomes the disciple of vampire hunter Henry Sturgess (Dominic Cooper), and trains to wipe out the evil clan led by Adam (Rufus Sewell). Armed with a blessed silver axe and his smarts, Abe begins the journey that will lead him from meeting Mary Todd (Mary Elizabeth-Winstead) on the streets of Springfield to Gettysburg. My late grandfather loved many things, two of his favorites being: action films and Abraham Lincoln. As far as he was concerned, Lincoln was the ultimate example of moral good in American history. He would've loved this film. Unlike Sherlock Holmes or the (thankfully dead) Da Vinci action movie, Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter is a celebration of the man and his accomplishments rather than exploitation and patronization. Benjamin Walker is great in the title role, and the film balances humor and seriousness well enough that it never gets lost. It knows what it is, and basically says "how can you even try to take me seriously?" By no means is this a great movie. The whole thing is completely ridiculous, tons of stuff doesn't make any sense, and some moments are inexcusably stupid. Still, as wacky as this film is and as silly as the premise is, I have seen and reviewed much worse. It's just an action movie you guys, and it doesn't have Shia LaBeouf in it, which automatically gets a thumbs up. And it helps to have Timur Bekmambetov directing it, because as a result the action scenes are super creative and very badass. Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter is a movie that most people will see on TV or iTunes, and will hopefully gain popularity as a cult film. Like Scott Pilgrim, it didn't get good marketing and is a true niche film. And you know what? I like it that way. I won't rant about silly-but-fun action movies and Michael Bay, because that has no place here. All I will do in these final sentences is how people shouldn't judge a book, or a film, by its cover or its trailer. No matter how dumb you think this looks, I say check it out. You might be pleasantly surprised.

Brave

Regular readers and friends of mine know that if there's one thing I am very critical about, it's the image of women in cinema. I do consider myself a feminist of sorts, and I do not believe excuses can be made when it comes to gender stereotypes. Besides Katniss, Hanna, and (arguably) the girl from Haywire, I cannot think of a female action lead in the past ten to fifteen years who hasn't been either motivated by or tied to their sexuality or a boy. Even supposed badasses like Lisbeth Salander throw themselves at the first dominant male that comes along. Pretty women are always shot like their in a porno, sometimes when they are being attacked or sexually assaulted. If anyone is going to change this, Pixar is who I'd pick. Do they succeed? Sort of. Merida (Kelly Macdonald) is a young Scottish princess who doesn't want to grow up. Her mother Queen Elinor (Emma Thompson) ahas raised Merida to be a proper lady, but Merida is a tomboy who has always been closer to her dad King Fergus (Billy Connolly). When Merida runs off after fighting with her mom over arranged marriage, she finds a witch (Julie Walters) who offers to solve all of her problems. But when Merida ends up with her mom as a bear and time running out, she needs to take responsibility and repair the bond. Brave could of gone two ways. We could have been given either a watered down Disney Princes rehash for little kids or a truly groundbreaking symbol of progressive feminism in movies. Neither happened. Brave is definitely a fresh look at the whole princess thing; Merida is a strong and independent character full of personality, and there's no forced romance or anything. But I have been told that the film went through years of development hell, and it's obvious that that is true. Brave is just underwritten. It isn't by any means bad or Pixar's worst *cough*Cars*cough*, but the movie is very unfocused and it feels like something is missing. I hesitate to even mention the animation because really, what can I say? Of course the movie is beautiful; the environments are lush, the lighting is gorgeous, the people are great, and Merida's hair is amazing. The story is simply underwritten. I get the feeling compromises were made, and I was left wanting more at the end. Besides that, Brave is a very entertaining film with memorable characters and great humor, and I don't regret seeing it. However, Pixar can and should have done better. To be clear, this film is a step forward for girl protagonists, but a shaky one. At least it tries to do new stuff with its character and break tradition. The film could have taken more risks, but for whatever reason it doesn't. Movies need a female character who sweeps away the Charlie's Angels and the Pussy Galores and the Rose Dewitts. As the audience, it is imperative that we demand more Ellen Ripleys and Jackie Browns and Sarah Conners. I don't know when or from whom that revolution will come, but for now, Brave is welcome.

Savages

People, when I praise goofy action films, it's not because I get my kicks making fun of them. Some of my biggest writing influences are comic books for crying out loud. Hell, I own the Super Mario Brothers Super Show on DVD. And also, I really do love pulp novels and grindhouse movies. I wrote an eighteen-page paper on the latter topic, and watched over fifteen grindhouse movies as research. The thing is, most neo-grindhouse is silly, and I hate it when it wants to be taken seriously. Then there's Savages, which could've been made in 1975, but is pretty awesome in 2012. Laguna Beach bros Ben the nice guy (Aaron Johnson) and Chon the tough guy (Taylor Kitsch) are sitting pretty. They run the most popular and safe pot business on the west coast, have their own personal DEA rat (John Travolta), and live in a menage-a-trois with O (Blake Lively). But times change, and Ben and Chon are threatened with takeover by the ruthless Baja Cartel and its sultry leader Elena (Salma Hayek). When the boys refuse the deal, Elena sends her mulletted enforcer Lado (Benicio Del Toro) to kidnap O. Now Ben and Chon have to get her back, no matter the cost. To say the very least, I don't like Oliver Stone. Platoon is a classic and Wall Street is fine, but JFK, Born on the Fourth of July, W., and Natural Born Killers are films I just can't stand. I'm also not the biggest Aaron Johnson fan after Kick-Ass, and Blake Lively is kinda boring to me. So you can imagine my surprise when I ended up enjoying Savages quite a bit. It's a damn silly movie, but man is it a blast to watch. The plot is ridiculous, the dialogue is beyond dumb, and the acting, particularly by Del Toro and Travolta, is hilarious. But it's handled in such a way that it all works. Again, I was pleasantly surprised. One major benefit the pulpiness of Savages gives is the general simplicity of the film. The story and the characters are very clearly laid out for the audience, and nothing ever tries to reach too high. Sure there's slick editing and a blaring "HELL YEAH BRO" soundtrack, but at its core, Savages is a straightforward, old-style grindhouse flick. If it was mad ein the 70'd we'd see "The Savages" starring Rutger Hauer and David Hess as Ben and Chon, Lynnea Quigley as O, Dyanne Thorne as Elena, with Bob Kerman as DEA guy and Franco Nero as Lado. All directed by Abel Ferarra. And I love the fact that I can make that kind of comparison, and I kinda loved Savages. Before I sit down to write a review, I jot down notes in my film notebook, and read reviews of the movie by my favorite critics. And the thing I noticed in every positive Savages review was the critic trying to make the film seem intelligent and highbrow for the sake of Oliver Stone. But Savages isn't a web of intrigue, or a fresh take on thrillers, and it doesn't have suspense taught as rope. Savages is a high energy, pulpy crime flick that isn't very smart or at all deep. And I wouldn't want it any other way.

Ted

When I was but a young thing, I had an Elmo toy that I brought everywhere. He was my best friend, and I still have him today. And sometimes I do take him out, and it's just nice to hold him in my hands. But I'm glad Elmo never ame to life, because I got into enough trouble without those kinds of hijinks. However the world of film wouldn't have family comedies without magical stuffed animals. Ted is here to show us that the adult world should try sometime too. As a kid, John Bennett (Mark Wahlberg) wished his teddy bear to life. Now thirty-five, John is living with Lori (Mila Kunis), the girl of his dreams, and getting ready to pop a big question. Well, he would be, if he didn't spend all his time with Ted (Seth MacFarlane), also grown up and now super lazy and vulgar. John loves Lori, but his crappy job and childish attachement to Ted has put their relationship on the rocks. So when Lori gives him a choice between her and Ted, hijinks ensue. Everybody is already thinking this so let me say: yes, I like the cartoon works of Seth MacFarlane. American Dad! is by far my favorite, but both Family Guy and The Cleveland Show are staples of my Netflix recently watched list. The downside to this is that Ted's humor doesn't really do anything new. It earns its R-Rating and is still the funniest film of 2012 so far, and I almost peed a couple times, but MacFarlane never goes out of his comfort zone. Ted still has 80's references and dark jokes galore, and there are even a few cutaways. Still, it works. Of course now I reach the same problem I always do; how to review a good comedy. I really can't discuss without spoilers, and the jokes in Ted are worth waiting for. Actually to reach back a little, I can say that Ted isn't a movie length, uncensored Family Guy episode. Seth MacFarlane really manages to give the film its own tone and characters. And even though the voices of Ted and Peter Griffin are exactly the same, Ted is a very unique and memorable figure in his own right. The last really great raunchy hit comedy was the original Hangover. But since not knowing what was coming up next was what made it funny, I never saw it more than twice. Multiple viewings of Ted on the other hand, are definitely justifiable. Ted is the kind of raunchy (and I do mean raunchy) that one could find something new to like in each viewing. It's a very funny summer comedy that knows what it's doing and how it wants to do it. Leave the kids at home, but see Ted.

Prometheus

To quote one of my favorite South Park episodes: just because something is convoluted does not mean it's smart. You can put as many subplots and layers and twists as possible and still have a dumb movie. Case in point: The Matrix: Revolutions and the Cube movies. Also, visual flair and lots of symbolic imagery does not a philosophical subtext make. But if you're Ridley Scott and you haven't made a noteworthy film in years, maybe all you want is for people to talk. Mission accomplished I guess. When scientists Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) and Charlie Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green) find a series of cryptograms that make a map, they think it was left by our creators. So they board the starship Prometheus for a two-year journey to a moon that supports life. Joined by the android David (Michael Fassbender), their corporate sponsor (Charlize Theron), and a host of others, the two are excited to meet their makers. But what they find may not be what anybody was expecting. Prometheus has some of the absolute best CGI ever put on film. The sheer scope and epicness of the effects, especially in 3D, is simply incredible. But it's also sad, as these aesthetic elements turn out to be the only depth Prometheus really has. Sure the film sets up some really cool questions about the mythos and origins of the Alien universe, but it gets lost. The film takes place in a world where everybody has ulterior motives and arbitrary secrets, and by the end it has nowhere to go. Prometheus is a film that ends before answering anything, and I found that frustrating. I mostly blame the flaws of this film on the writing. The script by Damon Lindelof and John Spaihts knows what it's trying to say, but has absolutely no idea how to say it. Very early on the script makes the decision to chuck hundreds of years of evolutionary science and humanist philosophy out the window in favor of an underdeveloped creationist view that doesn't make any sense. There are some things that Prometheus states to us as super innovative and deep that are just completely wrong. I mean, these are mistakes anyone with access to Wikipedia could correct. Directly after seeing this film I began to criticize it. I didn't hate Prometheus, but my Father's Day activity with my dad was making a list of the nonsense. Neither of us could suspend disbelief enough to buy into all the conspiracy theories and pseudoscience the film was shoving down our throats. Prometheus is entertaining, but when films like Inception manage to successfully be both that and layered and smart, I won't cut slack just because it's Ridley Scott. I really tried to love Prometheus, but in reality it's just a beautifully presented empty box.

Snow White and the Huntsman

Creativity is a good thing. As far as I'm concerned, turning old folklore into something new can be really cool as long you make it your own. The perfect examples are Guillermo Del Toro's Pan's Labyrinth and Neil Gaiman's Sandman graphic novels. For me, along with Fables by Bill Willingham and the Hellboy movies, those two are the ultimate examples of a great reinterpretation. And in the film world, we have rising stars like Tarsem Singh and Joe Cornish doing awesome stuff with traditional concepts. And from the interviews I've read with Snow White's director Rupert Sanders, I can tell he really tried to put a unique spin here. Too bad it all falls apart. Snow White (Kristen Stewart) is a girl with blood red lips and hair black as night who is being imprisoned by her evil sorceress stepmom Queen Ravenna (Charlize Theron). Obsessed with keeping her youth and (quite plentiful) beauty, Ravenna constantly consults her magic mirror, who tells the queen to eat Snow's heart for eternal life. When Snow White escapes into the Dark Forest, Ravenna sends a troubled Huntsman (Chris Hemsworth) after her. But fate has more in store for both the Huntsman and Snow White, and it mainly involves fighting Ravenna's empire in slow motion. Like I already said, I could tell that Rupert Sanders has a good head on his shoulders by watching this film. There's some really cool stuff here in terms of the film's universe and aesthetic design. The CGI is great and pretty to look at and the sets and action clearly had a lot of work put into them. But the writing, dear GOD the writing. And the acting, oy VEY the acting! Snow White had so much potential, but the film chooses to waste its assets and never ends up being any fun. More specifically, the problems with the script and acting are just too easy to pick at and should have been easy to fix. First of all, the script takes character and plot points from everything; nothing about this journey hasn't been done better elsewhere. Second, Charlize Theron really tries, but her performance is so overwrought and melodramatic it's comedic. Third, and here;s the root problem, to believe this film we must believe that Snow White is "fairer" than Ravenna. So when Snow White is Kristen Stewart, who has terrible posture and exactly one and a half facial expressions, I think saying she's fairer than Charlize is asking kind of a lot. I was pleasantly surprised by Snow White and the Huntsman, because when I entered the theater I was expecting another Battleship. If this had a better script and less K-Stew, it would be a totally solid summer fantasy-action flick. But the dialogue, and the Deus-Ex Machina, and the characterization is all ludicrous, and the acting is so dumb I can't compromise. Even though the dwarves' cast includes Nick Frost, Ray Winstone, and Ian McShane, my hands are tied to the faults. And remember, I write with my hands. Still, I do think it can go uphill from here, but as it stands, Snow White and the Huntsman hits the ground crawling.

Men in Black III

Truth be told, I love Will Smith.He is one of the few movie stars that my generation can call its own, and a damn good one at that. He's incredibly charming, he has great politics, and he does his best every time. Smith has made some "eh" movies like Seven Pounds and Wild Wild West, but he is specifically good every time. I love Enemy of the State and Hitch and I Robot, and I even like Independence Day. But my favorite Will Smith films will always be the Men in Black films, even the second one. Well, no changes to report. Agents J (Will Smith) and K (Tommy Lee Jones) are back, and their relationship is on the rocks. Not helping is the fact that Boris the Animal (Jemaine Clement), an old enemy of K's an an unstoppable assassin, has broken out and wants revenge. When Boris' plan succeeds after he jumps back in time and kills K, J finds himself in a world being attacked by some very big and very bad green men. Seeing no other options, J jumps back to 196, the year Boris was arrested. Teaming up with a young K (Josh Brolin), J has to set the record (and the timeline) straight. While MIB 3 is not a horse, it is fair to say that it stumbles hard out of the gate. Seriously, some of the early jokes and one-liners are so freakin' dumb that I quite literally cringed. One scene with Emma Thompson in particular is just embarrassing. But once Josh Brolin shows up, the story whips into shape and the movie starts kicking ass. The acting, jokes, action and storytelling all get way better. And on a side note, Bill Hader as Andy Warhol is fantastic. Of the three MIB movies, this one definitely has the best characters. Josh Brolin's K brings life to the film, Jemaine Clement is hilarious and menacing as Boris, and Michael Stuhlbarg as Griffin is wonderful to watch. I also liked how this film made the wise decision to focus on J and K's relationship. Because even though the gags and the action are the mind and body of this series, that chemistry between the two main characters is the heart and soul. Just as Tommy Lee Jones wouldn't be cool without Will Smith to bounce humor off him, Will would be kind of cheesy without TLJ's seriousness. The exploration of this theme is actually pretty touching too. It is completely fair to say that Hollywood franchises have taken a downhill tunr. The past generation had Terminator, Indiana Jones, and the Matrix. For every Pirates of the Caribbean and Harry Potter we have, there seems to always be a Transformers or an Underworld around the corner. And then there're the Battleships and the Van Helsings, the failures that prove that studios never learn. So until Avengers 2 comes out, I am happy to sit and watch Men in Black 3. It's fun, nostalgic, exciting, and pretty moving near the end. So hop in, slap on your sunglasses, and take a ride.

Battleship

Being someone who was raised Jewish in New York City, I know when it's appropriate to just say "oy." Not "oy" followed by curses and epithets. Just to sit down, put the thumb and the first two fingers of my hands to my forehead, and say "oy." For example, when major movie studios begin producing films based on board games, it is appropriate to say "oy." Man is it ever appropriate while watching Battleship to say "oy." Alex Hopper (Taylor Kitsch), is an unemployed screwup whose behavior is so bad, his older brother Stone (Alexander Skarsgaard) makes Alex join him in the navy. A year later, on the eve on the annual international naval war games, the ships of Alex, Stone, and a Japanese rew are trapped in a forcefield after setting out. The entrapped destroyers are then forced into battle with three alien ships all armed to the teeth. Meanwhile, Alex's physical therapist girlfriend (Brooklyn Decker) is stuck in the mountains with a whole mess of ET's trying to phone home. And of course, hijinks ensue. The first thing most rational people asked when seeing the first trailers for Battleship was: "why?" I myself thought it was fake. But no, it's real, and I watched it. And after all the uproar and the complaining and the jokes, I'm kind of disappointed that the film isn't really a big deal. It isn't good, GOD no, but it isn't the antichrist. Battleship is just kind of there; nobody would mind if it was made twenty years ago. Of course it has all the crackpot jingoism, all the ludicrous twists, and all the bad acting you could want, but I didn't despise it like I thought I would. Don't get me wrong, Battleship is one of the most inept, cheesy, and moronic blockbusters of recent years, but I don't want to waste energy on it. Unlike Transformers or Dragonball: Evolution, it didn't rape my childhood. Unlike Daybreakers, it didn't talk down to me. I just don't care that much. However, the script and direction make no damn sense, the actors take it way too seriously, and it's just silly. Why is Rihanna the only girl in the navy? Why do the aliens make a battlefield? Why can alien missiles pass the field bot not human ones? The list goes on. I really don't think there was a point of me writing this review. Quite literally everybody knew Battleship was gonna suck, and lo and behold it totally did. I doubt that Hasbro will learn that adapting toys that had a cartoon, comics, and an animated film to live action is easier than adapting a board game, but who cares? Battleship has come and gone, it failed at the box office, nobody had the desire to talk about it, and we should just leave it at that. This is in the end only a blip on the radar. A terrible blip, but a blip.

The Avengers

I can't believe this. I can't believe that I, Jess Linde, am sitting down to review The Avengers. This is a film I've been waiting for since I discovered comic books. Now it's here, and it's made up from other movies put together. Movies with real stars and real directors that really happened. The Avengers. It's real. It's real, and it's directed by nerd-god Joss Whedon. And, it's a masterpiece of both superhero and action cinema. I can't believe this. Loki (Tom Hiddleston) is back to harness the power of the tesseract and invade earth with his alien army. Shoved into a corner, Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) activates the Avenger Initiative, a proposed team of the world's greatest misfits. Those gathered are: Iron Man (Robert Downey, Jr,), Captain America (Chris Evans), Thor (Chris Hemsworth), Black Widow (Scarlett Johansonn), Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner), and Dr. Bruce "Hulk" Banner (Mark Ruffalo). Now, these clashing personas must come together and be earth's mightiest heroes. Wow. Just wow. I have to admit, I never thought I'd see a non-Dark Knight superhero blockbuster that does everything perfectly. The effects, the acting, the story, the script, the action; I have no complaints as both a comic book geek and a film buff. Somehow, Joss Whedon managed to combine the signature tones of each character and their respective films without any hitches or bumps. That, and he gives The Avengers its own signature feel and experience. The only words I have are: holy crap. There really isn't much else for me to say. The acting has never been better, the character and story development is perfect, the script is great, and it's just so epic. I haven't been this excited about a big-budget action movie since Avatar. Sure, Avatar had its problems, but the moviegoing experience was unique and made it worth seeing on a huge screen. For me it was also like that with Hugo. The Avengers just does it all right, and there is also great subtext under the whiz and the bang. There really is meaning behind how the characters come together as a team. Oh, and it's also got some sides-splitting humor to boot. You see, if I didn't love the feeling of sitting my butt down in front of a huge screen, I wouldn't review films. For me the point of new movies is to see them in the theater not on your laptop. When one has the option of checking Facebook between scenes, the experience is lost. Seeing a movie in the theater with friends while eating popcorn and candy and drinking soda is a beautiful experience that bonds people like no other. The Avengers made that experience true for me as well as thousands of others. Be part of it. Go see The Avengers.