Source Code Review

Rating: 4/5


Science fiction is a genre that is really hard to pull of well. Not only do sci-fi writers have to come up with a good story, but they have to come up with a story that has some sort of crazy science to it that makes it unique. Time travel is usually a good place to start, but the story won't work unless there's a creative spin on it. Then, you need to make it plausible, so that it's not too fictional. Good thing Source Code does this stuff.

Captain Colter Stevens (Jake Gyllenhaal) wakes up and finds himself in the body of a complete strangers, surrounded by strangers, and on a train. The woman in front of him (Michelle Monaghan) somehow knows him, and after eight minutes, the train explodes. Stevens then wakes up in a strange capsule, where he is told by Goodwin (Vera Farmiga) that the army is making Stevens relive the last eight minutes of one of the victims of a train bombing, so that he can find the bomber and prevent further attacks.

Ok, the "science" in this movie is absurd. Assassin's Creed level absurd. There is no way that anybody could ever relive and control the experiences of someone who was burned up in an explosion. And yet, the movie is smart enough and well written enough that I just went along with it. Even though the ending is a stretch and quite hokey, I could still buy the whole "genetic memory" thing. This of course is helped by the great performances. Gyllenhaal, Farmiga, Monaghan, and Jeffrey Wright (a brilliant actor who plays the creator of the machine) are all great. The characters are well developed, which really adds to the atmosphere of the film.

Because Captain Stevens gets to know the characters in the simulation, we do as well, and each moment waiting for the explosion we know is coming is tough. The editing is also of note. Source Code never stops moving, and it's really really cool how Duncan Jones and his team put it all together. Overall, Source Code isn't groundbreaking, but it's good. I recommend it.

Sucker Punch Review

Rating: 1/5

When I write a review for a movie like Sucker Punch, I take a risk. By receiving it negatively, I am usually set upon by every nerd on the Internet. I have received several comments and facebook messages telling me I have no taste and don't know what I'm talking about. According to these commenters, I should not only write a positive review of Kick-Ass and Daybreakers and Splice, but I should celebrate them for being breaks from the norm. If that's the case, I am offended to be asked to celebrate exploitation like Sucker Punch.

Baby Doll is put in an asylum by her evil stepfather who wants her inheritance. It turns out that the asylum is actually some sort of brothel run by the villainous Blue and his goons. Luckily, Baby Doll has the power to mesmerize sleazy guys by doing a sexy dance, which gives her friends the time to gather a list of items that will help them escape. The process of getting the items is represented by weird fantasies where the gal pals fight monsters and stuff.

Zack Snyder's big thing about this movie is that it's empowering to women, which is rare in mainstream Hollywood films. Usually heroines are only told for their looks and often mess up more than help for the sake of comic relief. Sucker Punch not only fails to break the trend, but ends up reinforcing it. It is true that the main characters are girls and do kick some ass, but they are not independent or strong.

The characters in Sucker Punch completely rely on their attractiveness, which is exploited throughout the film. Without Baby Doll's dancing (throughout which she is dressed up as a little girl and looks humiliated and unhappy), the girls would not be able to escape. In the fantasy scenes, the girls where impractical and overtly revealing fetish suits, such as a dominatrix suit and a stewardess uniform that's not buttoned up all the way. The girls do kick ass, but not without the leadership of a wise old man.

Where was I? Oh yeah, the movie. You know that stupid slow-mo then speed up thing Zach Snyder loves? Instead of keeping it to the action, the effect is in every scene of Sucker Punch. When that's not happening, the scenes are just slow motion, making 5 minute action scenes into 10 minute ones. The story doesn't make any sense, the music is horrible, the acting is bad, every action scene is a ripoff of an anime or a video game, and it's BORING.

In the end, Sucker Punch is just an exploitation movie. Sure the cgi is nice and the story is kind of original, but does such shameless sexual pandering to the libidos of teenage boys deserve celebration because there's a dragon and zombies? In the end, is Sucker Punch any different from I Spit on Your Grave? I don't think so, and if the audience this film exploits wants to be taken seriously by "old farts" like Roger Ebert, maybe they should stop supporting garbage like this.

Paul Review

Rating: 3.5/5

I do not like to be called a nerd. Not that anybody really does, but there seems to be a trend in "nerd pride" lately that I simply do not understand. Yes, I like science fiction, comic books, video games, and the like, but I don't think that makes me a nerd. If I didn't talk to girls, only ate cheetos, and actively played tabletop RPG's, then I would be a nerd. I don't do any of those things, so I am not a nerd. On the other hand, Paul is one of the only movies I've ever seen that made me almost proud to be called a nerd.

Graeme and Clive (Simon Pegg and Nick Frost respectively) are two English geeks who've come to America for comic-con and to tour the country's UFO hotspots. Outside of Area 51 the two run into an alien named Paul (Seth Rogen) and begin a cross country journey to get the little green guy back to his ship before the FBI catches them.

Even though Edgar Wright isn't involved and Seth Rogen hasn't been on top of his game lately, Paul is very funny. Not exorbitantly funny, but enjoyable to say the least. The vulgar humor combined with the endless nerdy references melds creates snappy dialogue and good jokes. That isn't to say its perfect however. Some of the jokes inevitably fall flat and a couple of conversations end up going nowhere. However, what works works well and Pegg and Frost definitely new how to write the movie.

As usual, Pegg and Frost work very well together and are very funny, especially combined with Seth Rogen's chain-smoking, foul mouthed character of Paul. SNL alums Kristen Wiig and Bill Hader are welcome additions, and each bring something funny to the table. Jason Bateman is a little boring, but he's made up for by everyone else.

The only real problem I had with Paul was the directing. Greg Mottola is a talented guy, but it felt more like the actors were just going at it instead of him giving any real directing. Other than that, Paul is a very funny movie. It won't usurp Get Him to the Greek or The Hangover, but it is worth seeing, especially if you are into the things the characters make fun of.

Battle: Los Angeles Review

Rating: 4/5

Whenever a film like Battle LA comes out, movie critics take the chance to point out that it isn't 2001: A Space Odyssey or District 9. According to these critics, because Battle LA doesn't have the emotional or philosophical depth of the aforementioned classics, it should be ignored and its creators should never work again. And if you enjoy Battle LA, you are a teenage loser virgin who sits in their basement all day long playing Halo and writing fan-fiction. I'm saying all this because according to Rotten Tomatoes, what I just stated is true. I'm here to tell you that it's not.

Staff Sergeant Nantz (Aaron Eckhart) is about to retire. He's done four tours in Iraq and lost too many friends. Suddenly, the human race finds itself at war with a seemingly unstoppable alien race determined to wipe out everything they see. Sgt. Nantz is deployed into Los Angeles, the last bastion of humanity on the American west coast, with the goal of rescuing civilians, and ends up in the middle of a war zone with no way out.

This movie is awesome. The action is intense, the characters, while unmemorable, are human and real, and the aliens are actually smart, moving and thinking like a highly trained military unit. The only reason that the marines triumph at all is because of luck. The script has every war movie cliche of all time, but it all works in a weid way. I actually felt like I was there a couple of times.

The best thing in Battle LA is the atmosphere. When the marines march through Santa Monica, there are dead people and destroyed things all over. The aliens aren't seen until late, and there are moments that truly seem hopeless. It's really well made, and it doesn't try to be District 9, which is good. Also, it's not Halo. Halo is a silly game about a giant green tetris block shooting aliens. Battle LA is about real people fighting desperately against them.

Critics hated this movie. But I'm a critic, and I really liked it. I had a great time. It might be generational, but I think I just saw a good movie. Skip Red Riding Hood, skip Take Me Home Tonight, see Battle LA with a bunch of friends.

Rango Review

Rating: 4.5/5

True detail is hard to capture on film. If you over-stretch your special effects, they become overly noticeable. If you make an animated feature, it's hard to not look like Pixar. Even then, it's hard to be good. Go to IMDB and see how many movies like Igor and Planet 51 and Happily N'Ever After there are, and you'll know what I mean. Now we come to Rango.

Rango (Johnny Depp) gets thrown out of his terrarium by accident and drops smack into the mojave desert. Guided by a mystical armadillo (Alfred Molina) and narrated by mariachi owls, Rango finds himself in the middle of a water conspiracy land grab. He quickly becomes a hero in the town of 'Dirt,' and is named sheriff. Now, Rango must not only live up to the legend that he made up, but help the townsfolk.

I have no idea how you direct an animated movie, but Gore Verbinski does an outstanding job here. I love The Ring and Pirates of the Caribbean, and I love Rango. He coaxes wonderful performances out of each of the actors. This is helped out by the magnificent writing, which has incredible dialogue and action sequences.

If you go back to my True Grit review, you'll understand how much I love westerns. And Rango is a western, there's no doubt about it. There's a dastardly land grabber, a spunky love interest just trying to save her dad's land, a legendary gunman, a villainous yet honorable outlaw, and even a nervous and sophisticated banker with little glasses. And even though they're all anthropomorphic animals, it all melds together into a great movie.

Finally, Rango is arguably the best looking CG-Animated film ever made. The attention to detail put into this movie is nothing short of absolutely astounding. Everything is in absolutely perfect sync, and the story is told perfectly through the gorgeous animation. The voices are perfect (except a rather boring Timothy Olyphant), and the story is a magnificent western journey. Not True Grit good, but damn good. Go see it.

Unknown Review

Rating: 1.5/5

After seeing a lot of action movies like "Unknown" that try to rip off the Bourne trilogy, I've noticed a couple of things. First of all, if you see a person with short hair and glasses, they're evil. Second, if they are talking on the phone, they are evil. Third, if the aforementioned evil people have a henchman or two, these henchmen will be idiots. Follow these rules and I'm sure you'll be able to survive any realistic action movie that comes your way.

Martin Harris (Liam Neeson) is a scientist attending a biotechnology conference in Berlin. When he reaches the hotel with his wife (the incredibly skinny January Jones), Martin realizes that he left an important briefcase at the airport. When he hails a taxi to retrieve the briefcase, Harris gets in a car accident and his memories are jumbled. When he goes back to the hotel, he finds that there is a person posing to be him that has taken over his life. Or has he?

First of all, this movie has a plot twist. A really, really, REALLY stupid plot twist. It comes out of nowhere with no buildup or hints. Then again, most of the movie doesn't make any sense anyway so who cares. People defy the laws of physics, conversations go nowhere, the characters are stock and boring, and the characters seem to have been beaten over the head with the stupid stick.

The biggest thing that bothered me in the movie was that nothing anybody does makes any sense. When a villain thinks Liam Neeson might have escaped through a window, instead of telling his spectacled friend, he goes outside and CLOSES the window behinds him. When Neeson pulls amazing stick shift driving skills out of nowhere, no one questions it. When the crew meets an ex-member of the east German secret police, the first thing he does is admit his past, even though he doesn't know these people and the Stazi are still being hunted in Germany.

Anyway, the acting is wooden, the accents are fake, and again, everyone is an idiot. January Jones is incredibly suspicious, but everyone ignores that fact when she dramatically goes into another person's room. Frank Langella and Liam Neeson both look embarrassed, and it comes together in the stupidest finale I've seen in a looooong time. It's not badass, or cool, or dramatic, it's happy, a Disney ending. I call bull. Or do I?

Green Hornet Review

Rating: 1/5

In the 60's TV was revolutionized when ABC released the original Batman show. Starring Adam West and Burt Ward, it was a very light-hearted show that was really funny and very important in the history of the bat. At one point, ABC tried to capitalize on the bat-craze by resurrecting a forgotten radio character: the Green Hornet. It lasted half a season, but introduced the world to Bruce Lee as Kato. This move definitely does not do anything that cool.

Britt Reid (Seth Rogen) is the son of the chief editor of The Sentinel newspaper, a hardcore investigative paper. Britt's dad has always been mean to him (or so he thinks), and so Britt is a hardcore party boy. When his dad is murdered, Britt teams up with his dad's mechanic and coffee maker Kato and becomes the Green Hornet, and fights against the head criminal in town (Christoph Waltz).

Now, there are three main problems with this movie. Problem #1: the acting. I love Seth Rogen as much as the next guy, but I don't go to a superhero movie to see 2 hours of schtick. The whole premise is simply "Seth Rogen is a superhero." Kind of like how Bee Movie is "Jerry Seinfeld is a bee." Seth Rogen brings nothing to the table except the lovable manchild we all know him as. Christoph Waltz tries his best with a lackluster script, but Chudnofsky is just a one dimensional villain. The worst of the bunch is Jay Chou as Kato. Chou does not speak English, and as a result, does not act in English well.

Problem #2: The directing. Michel Gondry is a very talented guy, but who's stupid idea was it to get him for a superhero movie? He does great art movies, but here when there's random bits of pretentiousness that come out of nowhere, it's stupid. Problem #3: the premise itself. Green Hornet and Kato's method of heroism is: pretend to be villains, i.e. murder people, blow stuff up, steal, deal drugs, and etc, and use this to get close to real bad guys, and beat them up too. Our heroes ladies and gentlemen.

Despite all these flaws, it should be ok, because it's a comedy right? Yes, but it is absolutely NOT ok, because it is even less funny than Due Date, which I thought nearly impossible. None of the jokes work, none of them are clever, and besides a cameo at the beginning by James Franco, I didn't even smile. Seth Rogen shtick does not equal competent superhero movie, which it tries to be along with the shtick. The characters are cliche, most of it makes little sense, and it's completely forgettable in every possible way. Not painfully bad, but you won't remember any of it after you see it.