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.

Marley

One of the first albums I ever obsessed over was Bob Marley and the Wailers' "Live!" My parents actually had to take the CD away from me because they were worried that it would wear out. I recently got my own copy, and I've re-fallen in love. Those songs make me feel loved and happy no matter how many times I hear them. However, I have separated myself from the image of Bob Marley because so many teenagers use his Rastafarianism and not his music as a stupid excuse to be constantly high. After seeing Marley, I'm ready to go back. This documentary aims to paint the fullest and most detailed portrait possible of its subject. We see the full story of the legendary artist; from his Trenchtown days as a Frankie Valli copycat all the way to his international superstardom. The filmmakers use amazing tools in order to tell their tale, including photos of Marley's whole career, interviews with his closest friends and family, and rare concert footage. The narrative brings sources for and from every point and insight, allowing us the full view of Bob Marley's personal and professional journey. Because I have a lot of praise to heap onto this film, I have to get a few minor gripes out of the way. First: Marley is too long. It's an extremely well-done documentary that is very inspiring and educational, but at two and a half hours with no narration, some of the fat could've been trimmed. I never checked my watch or anything, but the long runtime was noticeable. There were a few moments where they repeated information, but as I said, the pros massively outweigh the cons. I learned a lot from Marley. For example, I had no idea that Bob was half white, and I knew nothing about his pre-rasta years. The documentary taught me new stuff, and also celebrated what I already knew. I was mesmerized by all the footage and information, especially the interviews with Bob. A doorway into the deepest reaches of Bob Marley's "ness" is opened for us here, and it's worth going through. It's very well edited, the subjects are nicely grouped, and the whole thing is just enchanting. Great documentaries entrance and immerse the audience the same way a standard movie does. Specifically, ones about famous figures negate any reason for a biopic by showing you the real person live. As I've said, Marley accomplishes this magnificently. It's a beautifully painted porterait of an incredible man, and its minor flaws are washed a way by the overall experience. So go see Marley, and feel all right.

The Pirates! Band of Misfits

Animated movies have come a very long way in recent years. I could count Oscar-worthy animated films forever, most of them being made before The Academy even made a category. The fact that the film world no longer dismisses animation as "cartoons" is a wonderful thing, because it allows people like John Lasseter, Brad Bird, and Hayao Miyazaki to do their thing and receive the praise they deserve. Let me now segue into Aardman, creators of Wallace and Gromit. I just want to say that they are brilliant, but you wouldn't know it from this film. The Pirate Captain (Hugh Grant) is an incompetent outlaw with a fat parrot named Polly and a crew of wimps and lazies. Meanwhile, the whole pirate community is gearing up for Pirate of the Year, a contest the Captain has always wanted to win. Because his competition includes the richest and most feared pirates on the seven seas, our hero goes on a series of raid to build up booty and respect. One of these raids results in the capture of Charles Darwin (David Tennant), who informs the Captain that Polly is actually a Dodo bird, long thought extinct. And of course, hijinks ensue. Ok, first things first, yes, Aardman's signature claymation is really good and still fun to look at. Yes it's unique and smooth and stylized well. Yes the movie has that dry British humor with its own flair and appeal. It's just that it isn't funny. Not the slapstick, nor the endless sight gags and one-liners, nor the dialog. Not even the use of a Flight of the Conchords song is that funny. I don't get who Aardman thought this film would appeal to. Elders won't really care because it's a goofy cartoon, and it aims too low for kids above fourteen. But when I saw the movie, my theater was packed with little kids who literally never laughed. Honestly, I was kinda saddened by the whole thing, because the trailers had gotten me pretty psyched. I just feel let down, ya know? The movie just doesn't make sense, it isn't funny, the voice actors barely try, and it's a mess. Pirates never get a fair roll of the dice in movies. These men were treated as the scum of the earth back by society in their day, and were just as mean as the Vikings or the Mongols. They raped, pillaged, burned, murdered, stole, and cheated their way through the world. But besides the antihero character of Jack Sparrow, pirates are always associated with the romantic lead like Errol Flynn. Ok, that has nothing to do with this film, but The Pirates! is still just lazy and forgettable. Sail away from these shores me harties.