The Dark Knight Rises

                                             My Rating: 4/4

                      Seeing as the epic finale to Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy was my most anticipated movie of 2012, it is an understatement to say that I was very excited for "The Dark Knight Rises". I have always greatly admired the Batman series for its style, unique colors, and oddly poetic writing. The question then becomes " can Nolan continue his winning streak?". "Batman Begins" was an incredible new take on a superhero whose previous visits to the screen have not quite done him justice. "The Dark Knight" was a revolution, and not merely for the wondrous fleeting spectacles that make up most comic book films, but for film in general.Where then does the story have left to go when it appears that it has reached the summit?
                      "The Dark Knight Rises" starts off slow, gradually weaning the audience back into Nolan's universe after its four year excursion, or in the film's timeline, returning from Bruce Wayne's(Christian Bale) eight year excursion from the Batman. He has been in hiding for this period of time ever since the Harvey Dent incident at the end of the previous film. Bruce has become a hermit, living with a broken body in his dwindling riches, he has long hair, and walks around with a cane and bathrobe on. He has been able to live in luxury with his internal feelings of pain and loss knowing that Gotham has been at peace, and that he can give up his days of masked crime-fighting. However, a new terrorist leader who is known only by the name "Bane"(Tom Hardy), has different plans for Gotham, and threatens innocent lives. Bruce must then resurface with the cape and cowl, or as police commissioner Jim Gordon(Gary Oldman) pleads, "the Batman must come back."
                       Now I must admit that the first hour or so of the film was not quite as riveting as I hoped. However, the second and third acts completely pick up the pace and throw you into a mindset that the film has really been preparing you for all along. When applied to reality, these acts are the most frightening. One of the big concepts explored in the film is the scenario of terrorist rule.The picture is made even clearer in the mind of the viewer with the fact that Gotham resembles New York City, which of course is not surprising because the scenes that take place there were filmed in New York City, Pittsburgh, and Los Angeles. The terrorists intimidate the government out of saving Gotham with the threat of nuclear annihilation, and introduce a new government. Now I have no intention of spoiling anything, so therefore I cannot reveal in complete detail the context in which these are used, but the film includes lines like "this is everyone's house now" and "We are not here as conquerors, but as liberators, and we only want to give Gotham back to the people", that really drive the idea of terrorist government home.
                       The action sequences and visual effects are stunning, and all combine for a sensational climax during the last half-hour. Many of the familiar toys and gadgets that Batman has used before return, all though I can't help but feel empty at the absence of the Batmobile, which makes no appearances during the whole movie. However, the film makes up for this by introducing a new flying vehicle, "the Bat".
                       There are several new characters in the film, who all have surprising roles in the story, and create new situations. Every performance from the actors is fantastic, bringing the characters to life, but the performance that stands out is Tom Hardy as Bane. Out of all of the Batman villains Nolan has used in his trilogy, Bane is the most menacing, ever more so than the Joker. Bane is an incredibly brutal, hulking, and monstrous man. The fact that Bane wears a very unique mask, and it's horrifying enough that it could work if it was used in a horror film, adds to this effect. The mask covers his mouth, nose, and the middle of his face(between the eyes). Because of this, Tom Hardy essentially ends up playing the character entirely with his eyes, conveying a various array of expressions. It is hard to imagine how difficult it is to do such a thing, but Hardy gets the job done is a terrifying manner.
                         In the end, "The Dark Knight Rises" is a suspenseful, stunning, and visionary epic with a captivating story and massive amounts of action. It combines elements from both "Batman Begins" and "The Dark Knight", and ultimately gives a satisfying conclusion not only for all of the characters that have grown on us over the past seven years as well as the new characters just introduced to us, but for the Batman story as a whole. I am happy to say that the film is a great experience, and is the strongest pillar of Nolan's Batman trilogy.

The Amazing Spider-Man

                                            My Rating: 3.5/4


         As a big fan of Sam Raimi's original 2002 adaptation of Marvel's most classic character, I had my doubts about any new film in franchise that wasn't called "Spider-Man 4". But, as time went on, I gradually began to like the idea of a new start for Peter Parker's story, and now that it's here, I'm glad to say I was not disappointed.  For his very first big-budget film and second film ever, director Marc Webb (I'm also surprised no one has been cracking Spider-Man jokes about his last name) certainly delivers the material well.
        One of the tremendous challenges facing a Spidey reboot is the fact that it has been released a mere ten years after the first installment of the last series. Because of this, the writers has to add a new twist to the origin story so it doesn't simply become a rehash of what we have already seen. The challenge within that challenge is making sure that this twist isn't so odd that it doesn't not belong in Spider-Man's world.
         This new twist is that Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) has become the first successful subject of what the film calls "cross-species genetics". This is the concept of taking certain genes from the animal kingdom and merging them with human DNA, which in this case is of course genes from Arachnids. The concept was apparently explored by Peter's father, who disappeared when he was young. Another scientist who also worked with his father on the project is an amputee named Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans) who later becomes a very unsuccessful subject of cross-species genetics. Serving as both a mentor and an enemy to Peter, Connors holds the key to him unraveling the mystery not only behind the disappearance of his parents, but also behind his very identity as Spider-Man.
         The nature behind Andrew Garfield's version of Peter Parker is the sense that he is a lost soul desperately attempting to find himself. This makes the story's struggle not only a physical struggle, but an emotional one.He must learn the classic lesson of "with great power comes great responsibility." This emotional struggle is made very believable with great performances from every actor. Garfield brings a deeper, more thoughtful take on Peter Parker while Emma Stone, Dennis Leary, and Rhys Ifans  bring new characters to life that we haven't seen before.
        The visual effects are very fun to look at, and the action scenes are much more grounded in style and choreographed in a way that is easy to process. Mindless violence is non-existent in the story, and when there is violence it is for a very specific reason, especially the action scenes that take place long before the hero dawns the tights.
        Overall, "The Amazing Spider-Man" triumphs over the 2002 original. I am happy to be as blown away walking out of the theater from this film as I was walking out of the original film. The performances are great, the plot, despite a few loose ends, goes where it needs to go, and it brings a new interpretation of Spider-Man's story to the screen in spectacular fashion.

The Avengers

                                      My Rating: 3.5/4

      With "The Avengers", Joss Whedon has brought a well-told, witty, and visually stunning story to the big screen. With a lot to dig out of Marvel's comic book lore, the story is put together in a way that will satisfy the members of the audience, regardless of their reasons for attending a screening. When I was at the theater to see this, there was a sea of both people who seemed to know everything about Marvel and people who seemed to know very little about Marvel, and one thing the movie really has going for it is that you don't have to be either to enjoy it.
       The "Avengers" are a group of superheroes from the marvel universe who work together against whatever threat is greatest. Originally, the Avengers had more members and there were constant changes in the roster, however, Marvel luckily decided to stick to its main icons for the sake of the film. The team in the movie consists mainly of Iron Man(Robert Downey Jr.), Captain America(Chris Evans), Hulk(Mark Ruffalo), and Thor(Chris Hemsworth), with its "lesser" members being Hawkeye(Jeremy Renner) and Black Widow(Scarlett Johansson). The Story picks up after the events left off by the respective movies of the four main Avengers. Thor's evil brother, Loki(Tom Hiddleston), has joined with a mysterious race of aliens, robots, or whatever you'd like to call them. It's not really explained what they are, it is only mentioned that they are from another dimension and they are called the "Chitauri". Loki is leading his army of Chitauri to Earth to retrieve powerful cube-shaped object called the Tesseract, which also made an appearance in "The First Avenger: Captain America". In order to defend the Earth from Loki's invasion, Nick Fury(Samuel L. Jackson) and the secret government organization "S.H.I.E.L.D." begin a recruitment effort to bring together a team that can save the planet.
        Now one key concern I, as well as many other people, had about the film was that the screenplay would not give each Avenger the spotlight, and that some may seem less important than the others. In writing the script, I am sure that that was one of Whedon's main challenges. However, somehow each Avenger is given their own time to shine, and none of the Avengers seem to be more important than the others. This achievement ends up being more important than it seems, because with a balance between the characters, it adds another element to the storytelling where each character's own individual story is made known, while at the same time it shows how those stories converge into this story.
       With all of these great heroes, such a story requires a good villain. Tom Hiddleston's performance as Loki has been very underrated since the film's release. His portrayal of Loki really gives you a sense that his character is vengeful, violent, powerful, greedy, and a worthy opponent to the Avengers. The witty combination of argument and banter between the characters is very amusing, with the best being between Loki and the other characters.
        Although the film brings all of these amazing elements together, my favorite thing about "The Avengers" is that it is an engaging story the entire way through. The dialogue always furthers the story, the dynamic between the characters never ceases to flip and twist in ways you would not have suspected, and surprisingly, the movie is very funny. I have been to comedies at the theater where people did not laugh as hard as they did at this movie. I was laughing too, because somehow the film seems to have outdone many comedies. The reaction of the audience did not lie, people were cheering, applauding, laughing, and really enjoying themselves. "The Avengers" reminded me why we go to movies in the first place.

The Hunger Games

My Rating: 3/4

What appears to be a group consisting every teenager who reads and then some has been raiding the theaters in eager excitement for "The Hunger Games". Based on the first book of the best-selling "Hunger Games" trilogy which was written by Suzanne Collins, the story takes place in post-apocalyptic North America which has been divided into twelve districts and a Capitol. The Capitol rules the districts, and as punishment for a rebellion that the districts fought against the Capitol 74 years earlier, Each district must annually select at random one male and one female "tribute" between the ages of twelve and eighteen to compete in an arena where they must fight to the death. This televised event is known as the Hunger Games.
When the story begins, we meet the main protagonist: a sixteen-year-old girl from district twelve named Katniss Everdeen. On the "day of reaping", on which the tributes are selected, Primrose Everdeen, the twelve-year-old little sister of Katniss, is chosen as the female tribute. Not wanting her sister to die, Katniss volunteers in her sister's place, and must fight for her life in the arena.
Right off the bat, "The Hunger Games" has something many stories lack: originality. It brings a new dimension to science fiction in which has a much darker yet more realistic take on the future. The beauty is that the story uses this make a seemingly preposterous idea into a story that grabs the audience's interest.
In preparation for seeing the film, I decided to read the book. I was glad I did, because it turns out that all of the hype centered around "The Hunger Games" was not a false promise. I found that it is a unique story with characters that you come to really care about. I instantly became a part of the giant fan base the series has, and as a big fan of the books, I held high expectations for the movie.
To my relief, I was not disappointed.
Director Gary Ross has brought not only his vision to the screen but he has also brought the author's vision as well. He does a great job of articulating the many different elements and tones of the book, and making sure that the characters are believable and that the audience becomes attached to them whether they have read the books or not. The characters have been perfectly cast, and when I say "perfectly", I literally mean the choices could not have been better. Each cast member portrays their respective characters exactly as they are portrayed in the books. Some of the performances that really stood out were Elizabeth Banks as Effie Trinket, Stanley Tucci as Caesar Flickerman, and the oddly moving presence of Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss Everdeen.
Another smart move the production team made was having Suzanne Collins help write the script. No one would have a better vision for a book on screen than the author herself. While a few details are left out, the film is extremely close to the book, which is really the job of a novel adaptation.
Just as the books does, the movie keeps you on the edge of your seat, and does a beautiful job of incorporating story, action, and character development so that they all work in harmony for the duration of the film.
In the end, "The Hunger Games" reveals itself not only as a movie, but as an experience. An experience that interests an audience that isn't really gender specific or too age specific, even if it may seem that way.
The next installment, "Catching Fire", is slated for release in November 2013. I have high expectations for the next film, in hopes that the production team will continue to capture the essence of the amazing story to be told and bring it to life on screen, just as they have this first of three, and possibly four, rounds.

Kung Fu Panda 2

My Rating: 3.5/4

After three years, Dreamworks, has released the sequel to the very popular 2008 film. It's got the same cast, consisting mainly of Jack Black, Angelina Jolie, Lucy Liu, Jackie Chan, Seth Rogen, David Cross, and Dustin Hoffman.
Fortunately, however, Kung Fu Panda 2 does NOT have the same story. Today, we see many sequels fall prey to the mistake of making the sequel follow the same plot line as it's predecessor. But for this movie, instead of just being another shallow repeat, it's rather a continuation of a grand plot line spanning the series. Or as described in the film by Master Shifu(Dustin Hoffman), "the next phase of Po's Journey". So what is this "next phase"?
Well, the movie picks up right where the original left off. (If you haven't seen the first one, stop reading) Po is now the Dragon Warrior, leading the Furious Five against evil. Now, a fierce enemy comes once again. A "Peacock Lord" named "Shen", who is coming to invade the kingdom his parents banished him from. With bladed feathers and an army of wolves at his command, he is very dangerous.
What I like is that instead of leaving the story off right there, I won't say too much, but in this film you will learn many revelations about Po, mainly centered around his parentage and origins. Things like who his parents are(which is good because I'd hate for all the small children watching this movie to be under the illusion that Ducks give birth to Pandas), where Po was born, and how he ended up at his adoptive father's house.
With this great plot line and script, the foundations are already laid, and the last frontier is pulling off the CGI animation. Which, is very impressive. The first battle sequence in the movie was very well animated and choreographed. When this is done, it is actually very fun to watch these scenes.
With a star-studded cast, I don't need to say much about the acting.
Overall, the movie is done very well, and evades many of the common mistakes in sequel plot lines, and if you liked the first one, I strongly recommend the sequel. I think Dreamworks has achieved a great success, and should put a lot more energy in this series because it may be their next "Shrek".

The Social Network

THE UNTOLD STORY OF THE MOST FAMOUS SOCIAL NETWORK IN THE WORLD. My Rating: ***** - Classic



Facebook has become known to the world. Most people use it. It was another one of those things that revolutionized technology and communication. It took its place beside Microsoft, Twitter, MySpace, and well, the Internet itself. But, have you ever wondered how they came to be? Well, "The Social Network" tells the story of Mark Zuckerberg. The CEO of Facebook and the youngest billionaire in history. After the launch in 2004, a large commotion arose at Harvard University. As friends turned to foes, and jealousy turned to court action, Mark Zuckerberg found himself in the middle of two lawsuits. One from two twins who claim he stole their idea, and one from his best friend, Eduardo Saverin. "The Social Network" does the unique thing of telling the story from all three perspectives. It does the rare thing of causing the audience to not know who the protagonists and antagonists are. It leaves that to the opinion of the audience. I am not the only critic to rave about this film. It has captured the well deserved attention of people worldwide. The script is fantastic. It has sort of modern-day Shakespeare style without the "thous", "thyns", "shalts", and "arts". It also teaches a lesson on money, considering the millions of dollars that were fought over in the film and in the real-life lawsuits. Despite how deep the film is, it also has good entertainment. For some reason, the main character is such a smart allec that it's just plain funny. You can see some examples in the trailer on Youtube. The acting is also fantastic, and is sure to skyrocket the careers of both Mark Zuckerberg and Jesse Eisenberg(the guy who plays him). There are no faults in the lines and therefore that shows up as no faults in the well written dialogue. So far, I've never heard anyone say they didn't like the movie, and I doubt that you, the reader, will say that either. In short, I loved the film so much it inspired me to make a Facebook page myself.

Starring: Jesse Eisenberg, Andrew Garfield,
Justin Timberlake Director: David Fincher

Scott Pilgrim V.S. the World

My Rating: 3.5/4


Some movies in film history have been unexpected gifts. Some films looked like they were either made by a psycho or were going to be duds. "Scott Pilgrim V.S. the World", at first glance of the previews, looked to be both. But, after watching the film, I was proven wrong. Now, "Scott Pilgrim V.S. the World"? What is that? Just hearing the name of the title makes you curious as to what it's about. Well, the plot goes like this: Scott Pilgrim(Micheal Cera...above, last on left) lives in the odd land of Toronto. Heart broken from several recent break-ups. One day, He gets a glimpse of a new girl who's moved there, Ramona Flowers(Mary Winstead... above, second from the very left),. One look and he's instantly into a trance. And is seemingly later obsessed. After much drooling over the thought of her, he gets a date and later finds out her big piece of baggage. He, in comic book-ey, special effects fireworks, cheesy videogame-like battles, must defeat her seven evil exes. Well, nothing is free right? Her exes consist of a weirdo who wears dark make-up, a cocky movie star, a vegan superman, a (well, I'll let you see the film for this one), two twin Japenese electric piano-whiz kids, and a snotty rich guy. With big challenges ahead of Scott, it's a shocker, but if he wants Ramona, he's going to have to fight for her. Now, I understand how weird that sounds. And I presume you now know what I was saying earlier about the previews. You may think it's dumb and weird, but it, like I said, is one of those unexpected gifts. "Scott Pilgrim V.S. the World" (out of what I've seen) is probably Micheal Cera's best film. As for other critics, this one ranks just behind the likes of "Superbad" and "Juno". I loved how the film didn't copy off of any known plot, but was made by total imagination. It's probably the most original film since "Inception", another great movie. This film was a bold attempt to try something new. And folks, this is what keeps the movie industry fresh. New Ideas + hard work = New Movies + very well done = NEW PHENOMENON! While I don't known about Scott Pilgrim becoming a "Phenomenon", considering it ranked # 10 at the box office in it's opening weekend, and now ranks outside the top 10(which is pretty bad for a major movie release), I still think that if it had more attention, more people would rave about it. It is actually a very interesting movie, and it keeps the unique quality of a happy/sad mood at the same time. The acting is so well done that the main characters you meet are instantly very like able. Especially Ramona....anyway, the acting gets the job done and doesn't allow any lack of talent to tear at the film's core. Which the perfectly chosen cast is responsible for. I also like how they took such an oddball plot and turned it into "Hall of Fame" material. Now what makes it hall of fame material? I already mentioned the great acting and original ideas, but the film's script and sequencing is what people like most in movies. And that's what I loved about "Scott Pilgrim V.S. the World". The script is very well done, while lines may be funny, surprising, serious, or are perfect matches for the sequencing, they all contribute to the film's wellness. Avoiding the diseases that plague so many films. And almost all of the things in "Scott Pilgrim V.S. the World" are part of the cure. It was such a fun and enjoyable movie, you can't help but like it. It seems to remain in that tricky middleground of being morally deep and symbolic all the way to being a light viewing sitcom type - ordeal. Although it does use creative yet video- game like special effects(which was what they were supposed to be like, it even does the Universal pictures theme song in a digital remix type way at the beginning), it does maintain that love-story sense of realism. Whether you think the film looks interesting or like a piece of weirdo junk, I recommend "Scott Pilgrim V.S. the World" to everyone. This is a textbook example that shows you how blessings come from the most unexpected places. And I'm proud to say that this was the movie I reviewed for my 50th movie review. I don't know about you, but I'm defintely looking forward to this one on DVD.
Starring: Micheal Cera, Mary Elizabeth Winstead Director: Edgar Wright

Creation

My Rating: 3.5/4





In 1859, Charles Darwin published one of the most famous books in history, "On the Origin of Species". The book talked about his theory of natural selection. Or, more commonly known as "Evolution". Which states that species evolved from a single celled organism over billions of years. "Creation" tells the story of how he came to write the book. I find the title very ironic, however, because these events have sparked a mental and verbal WW III. The contenders being Creation and Evolution. Polar opposites. The title is "Creation", but it's movie about Evolution. Now, you may ask, what's so interesting about a movie about someone writing a book? Well, it's more like watching a journey. Darwin's theory would change everything. As he even described it in the film, when someone asked him what he was so afraid of, he replied: "Suppose the world where people stopped believing in God(because evolution is inconsistent with the Bible's Genesis account), no belief in any sort of plan for us, no honor, or respect, only brute survival. Most of all, it would break your mother's heart." And his daughter replied: "Hearts can't break silly, you told me that." Darwin had so much pressure on him that it lead to puking, sadness, horrible hallucinations, and arguments with his wife who was strongly Christian. So, I guess you could say he wasn't in a very good emotional or, "scientific" state of mind. Now, I am a Christian as well as a Creationist(which is basically the science behind God). Do I believe we have a common ancestor with apes? No. But that did not in anyway stop me from enjoying the film. I'm glad the film focuses less on science and more on story telling. And tell the story it does! In fact, here's the link for the trailer: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aw5hPThezMEyWw . But, even after watching the film, I am not convinced that my faith has somehow been misplaced. I am not in any way "anti-science". And I don't think science and religion are at war. I don't wish to have any sort of animosity with those who disagree with me, and from watching the film, neither did Darwin. But I have been so involved in this subject it's been as if I'm a magnet for that sort of thing. The film is so beautifully acted and written. Never have I seen a script written any better. Some of lines in this film are so priceless I may never forget them. One of the priceless lines is an analogy. Where Charles is talking about the idea for his book to his scientist friends who are greatly encouraging him to write it, and one of them tells Charles "Congratulations, you've killed God sir." And a look of shock went onto Darwin's face and it seemed like the director and writer were leaving it open for interpretation as to whether or not that was meant as something positive or negative. With stars like Paul Bettany as Darwin and Jennifer Conelly as Emma Darwin, his wife, the acting is astonishingly good, and tops even the likes of "Sherlock Holmes". Which takes place in the same time period. It's dramatic, it's interesting, and it's not boring to those who care to listen. The soundtrack is fantastic and well composed, and that says something since that's not usually mentioned in movie reviews. The story is not only true but very powerful. Whether you agree with Darwin or not, I recommend the film to anyone with an opinion on the Creation/Evolution argument. But just to watch with an open mind. But when all is said and done in this battle of beliefs,, who is to say that the other side is not educated? Who is to say that the other side is mental? Who is to say that the other side is not full of good people? What it comes down to is that when each side is done talking, you decide. "Creation" is a mature, interesting, engrossing, colossal manifestation of part of the attitude a scientist should have. Whether you like Darwin or you don't, I definitely recommend the film. It is not rude to religious people, nor is it focused on proving people wrong, and more on telling a fascinating story. And, I hope the same will go for Walden Media's upcoming film "In the Beginning", which is a 3D film about the Genesis account. I also hope the same goes for me as long as I'm involved in the argument.

Starring: Paul Bettany, Jennifer Conelly

Director: Jon Aimel

Dinner for Schmucks

My Rating: 3.5/4


If anyone is hungry, let his/her appetite be satisfied in "Dinner for Schmucks". Having a star loaded cast doesn't seem to be an obstacle for the film, seeing as how it has Paul Rudd(right, "I Love You, Man"), Steve Carell(Left, "Get Smart"), Zach Galifinakas("The Hangover"), and Bruce Greenwood("Star Trek"). I understand this is probably the 5th or 6th movie I've reviewed in the last few months that has a star-loaded cast. Such as "Grown Ups", "Despicable Me", and so on and so forth. When you have an element such as this, great acting becomes the absolute standard. And, I'm sure you noticed my four and a half star rating, so I'm also sure you can take an educated guess that it delivered on the standards with interest. The plot is a remake of an old French film where a man named Tim(Paul Rudd) wants get a promotion at work but in order to do so, he must attend a dinner with his boss and superior co workers. His boss(Bruce Greenwood) hosts a dinner every month where everyone at work(who's in on the messed up scam of course) invites an idiot to dinner. Whoever brings the biggest idiot gets a promotion or a raise on something of that nature. And the biggest idiot, well, gets a trophy. Now, as if it's just his luck, Tim runs into an idiot unlike any other named Barry(Steve Carell) Who's biggest hobby is making dioramas with small mice dolls as the civilians. But, over this journey, will Tim use him to get a promotion, or has he found a best friend? Now, the film is a comedy and so you can tell the story was set-up to be one. I can honestly say it's one of the best comedies ever made. I CAN'T honestly tell you how hard I laughed because I laughed so hard it may count as a near-death experience. But wait, even THAT is not an honest description. So, if you are planning to see this film in the theatre, make sure you don't drink to much Pepsi at once or stuff your face full of Popcorn and/or candy or any other food that we all want to eat but it's not good for us or else you might choke. As I said before, the acting is great, no visible flaws unless you go into the film with intentions of searching for them. The story is interesting and works well with it's characters and script. I obviously enjoyed watching the film, and my attention never ceased or wandered around lost in the clouds(which it normally is) and I never, well, didn't enjoy it. I felt that "Dinner for Schmucks" was a textbook example of how to make a comedy. It's well-rounded, heartfelt, interesting, and most of all...hilarious. But, in order for me to give a Five-Star rating, the film REALLY must go above the "above and beyond" rank. "Dinner for Schmucks" was the above and beyond, but no further. But overall, I loved the movie, it's funny, clever, and just a well-told story. Definitely wanting to buy it when it comes out on DVD. So, my advice to you is, (also given by Time's Richard Corliss in his review) well, that only a Schmuck would miss it.
Starring: Paul Rudd, Steve Carell, Bruce Greenwood, Director: Jay Roach
Zach Galifinakas

Kick-A**

My Rating: 3/4



Okay, I have to admit, in a weird sense, "Kick A**" was a good movie. Now, with a title like that, you can't help but wonder what the film is a about. Well, allow me to shed some light on the subject. This tells the story of Dave Lezewski(Aaron Johnson), a high school comic-book geek who has always wondered the inevitable question: "How come no one has ever tried to be a superhero?" Now I agree. Of course, it is a dumb and especially dangerous idea. But then again, we have thousands of psychopaths who've done crazier things. I mean, don't you think at least ONE of them would've tried a dumb idea with good intentions? But Dave is curious as to why people say it's impossible. He answers them: "Putting on a mask and helping people? How is that impossible?" So, (clearly not knowing what he's getting himself into) he orders a wetsuit(above, front), two batons, and a tazer off of the Internet, and takes on the alias of "Kick A**". Which ends up being all over the Internet, T.V., and pretty much everywhere you'll find news. But, sometimes people do things at absolutely the wrong time. During this time, Frank D'Amico (Mark Strong), a cocaine dealer who disguises himself as wealthy man in the lumber business(although he IS extremely rich), is tracking down another mysterious superhero that the world never saw enough for him to catch on like Dave did. He calls himself "Big Daddy"(played by Nicolas Cage) and he wears what looks like a batman costume ripoff. And his daughter, Mindy, calls herself "Hit-Girl"(played by Chloe Moretz). The crazy thing is that she's eleven and she does the most butt kickin' in the film. From doing backward- flipping kicks to chopping people's legs off and shooting them in the head, when she's involved in violence, there's always going to be blood. But anyway, Dave(or, well, Kick A**) is thought to be the one killing all of his men and destroying D'Amico's drug stock. So, he is mixed into a big misunderstanding and must partner with other superheroes that include the ones already mentioned as well as the one who knows how to ride in style, Red Mist(Christopher Mintz-Plasse), who owns and is driving the car in the picture above. And he must stop D'Amico. Now, you may think that the plot is either cool, interesting, or stupid. But regardless, it works out well. It's funny, entertaining, interesting, and most of all, original! In an interview, Christopher Mintz-Plasse(again, Red Mist) said that all of Hollywood's current comic book films were either reboots or sequels. It was as if everyone was afraid of trying something new. But "Kick A**" was one of those bold attempts to find something fresh that would get a lot of fans. And well, mission accomplished. I loved the film's idea and storyline. It's creative and well done. The acting was also great. Everyone did a great job. But there was, however, some controversy about Chloe Moretz(Hit Girl)'s potty mouth in the movie. But, you must understand that it's acting and she doesn't say that in real life...at least I don't think she does. The star of the film that plays Dave/Kick A** is Aaron Johnson who happens to be a British actor. And for this film he had to use an American accent. Which he does perfectly and if all you did was watch the movie and didn't know anything about the stars, it wouldn't even cross your mind he was British. Now, that aside, I think that the moral of the film wasn't that you should go out and try to be a superhero, but that you don't need laser vision or super-strength or the ability to fly just to help someone out. And I think if you really pay attention, "Kick A**" really shows you that. Now the movie could definitely have been more appropriate. And there was some wasted potential. I had ideas that I think would have made the film more enjoyable. But I recommend "Kick A**"to anyone who can handle it. And for the most part, "Kick A**" kicked a**.
Starring: Aaron Johnson, Nicolas Cage, Chloe Moretz, Director: Matthew Vaughn
Christopher-Mintz-Plasse, Mark Strong,
Lyndsy Fonseca

Salt

My Rating: 3/4


Wow. If I am certain about anything in this movie, it's that thrillers will never be the same. The plot focuses on a woman named Evelyn Salt(Angelina Jolie) who works for the C.IA. . One day, a man comes in for interrogation. He is a Russian. He claims that a Russian spy will come and kill the Russian president at a government funeral in the U.S. . The spy's name: Evelyn Salt. After he says this, the neural scanner says he is truthful. So, Salt becomes hunted by the C.I.A. and must discover who set her up. Now, after reading the plot line, there are quite a few things you can tell. The first thing is that it's an action movie. There's a lot of chasing a gun fights as Evelyn must stay alive. The second thing is that it's a thriller. There are so many shocking revelations revealed that you couldn't see coming. As well as many "WHAT THE (never mind this part)?!" moments. But, this is easily the best thriller I've ever seen. I was never certain of what was going to happen. But, when something did, I was extremely surprised. I was kept guessing and guessing the entire way through. It's the best thriller since "Lakeview Terrace"(as I mentioned in my last review). And one more(or third) thing is that, it's interesting. I wasn't bored for a single second during this film. Everything about it intrigued me and interested me. Just imagine "Lost" on the big screen. That's how much I wanted to know what happened next. The action is very well done too. It doesn't lack the entertainment element but also doesn't use that to hog up the film's running time. Which by the way is a very lean 1hr. , 40 Mins. . The perfect length to tell a story like this. That way the suspense never dragged or kept you waiting too long. The acting was very well done. Of course I like Angelina Jolie's performance...but then again, who doesn't? Liev Schreiber(X-Men Origins: Wolverine) had a very good performance as well. All of it was fully believable. And truthfully, I didn't spend much of my time watching the film thinking about the acting. Because the sheer quality of the movie was enough to keep my mind off the subject. The only problems I had with this film are that of which I had with "Inception". Some of it was a wee-bit confusing. But in the end, I understood. I also understand that it's supposed to be a thriller but I think it was just a little too dull. I'm not saying it should've been a comedy but maybe one or two funny lines could've brought it further. It reminds me of the Joker's famous line in "The Dark Knight": "Why so serious?". But overall, I loved "Salt". Despite it's tiny flaws, Salt delivers on it's promise and will keep you on the edge of your seat...until you move to the center of your seat.

Starring: Angeline Jolie, Liev Schreiber, Chiwetel Ejiofor Director: Phillip Noyce

Despicable Me

My Rating: 3 /4

I must admit, I wasn't particularly excited about this movie. It seemed like just another box-office hogging, dumb-looking, star loaded animated movie. But for the most part, I was wrong. While the cast is again(just like my last review) star loaded, that certainly brings in some great acting from the voice talents of Steve Carell(Get Smart), Jason Segel(I Love You, Man), Russel Brand(Bedtime Stories), Will Arnet(Monsters V.S. Aliens), Danny McBride(Drillbit Taylor), Miranda Cosgrove(The Wild Stallion) and Julie Andrews(Shrek 2, 3, and 4). With talent like this, the acting is without question fantastic. All of the characters are portrayed to their full potential. Nothing is questionable. Unless you have no imagination whatsoever. But Steve Carell of course steals the show and I don't know if it's just good acting or if it's just flat-out funny but you actually get to hear him in a Russian accent. In one scene, instead of "my turn", he says "my torn" and it just made me laugh for some reason. You just never hear that guy outside of an American accent. It's like hearing Brad Pitt's old country accent in that WWII Quentin Tarantino movie that I probably shouldn't mention the name of. But I think it just made the film more enjoyable. But, this accent centers around the plot, which then centers around Carell's character, Gru(above). Gru is, well, I don't know how else to say it, a super villian. He lives in a nice neighborhood and pretty houses flood the block, then you see Gru's huge, haunted-house looking, dark semi-mansion. He has spikes and armored suits as the main theme of his home's decor, and he carries a Medieval mase with him whenever the doorbell rings, and he has pet that I'm pretty sure isn't from this planet and probably has rabies. Oh, and he drives this 20-ft. tall -death machine-type vehicle that more than likely is a danger to society. AND, he has a large weapon-factory of evil that's run by little yellow minions that I also am sure are not from this planet. That is what he calls his basement. So, he really is the hard core- bad-guy of animated films. One day, a new villain named "Vector"(Jason Segel), steals what I believe is the Pyramid of Giza and is considered a better villain than Gru. So, Gru comes up with a master plan that would make him the greatest villain in history, TO STEAL THE MOON. Now I don't want to spoil this movie so i will just not go into the details. But as part of his plans, he adopts three orphans. And he just may find out he would make a good dad. So, the plot is obviously silly, but hey, what did you expect from an animated kid's movie? The satisfaction, however, expands outside of the targeted audience. There's comedy, there's seriousness, and well, it's just plain fun. And I found myself just enjoying the movie. I was was never bored, never minded the small amount of predictability, and I was never confused. It's this heartfelt, funny, ideal animated movie. I guess there may have been some minor details I wasn't liking, and maybe I dwell ed on it too much. Or, maybe it wasn't something I didn't like, it's just that the level of how good it was wasn't the highest it could go. I may even have graded it on this a little too harshly. But oh, despicable me.
Starring: Steve Carell, Jason Segel, Miranda Cosgrove, Directors: Pierre Coffin
Russel Brand, Chris Renaud
Will Arnet, Julie Andrews.

Grown-Ups

My Rating: 2.5/4



Director Dennis Dugan has brought us yet another star loaded-flick for 2010. This film is pretty much "Death at a Funeral" 's twin brother. The plot focuses on five guys, who, like I said, are played by an all-star cast that includes Adam Sandler(The Waterboy), Kevin James(Paul Blart: Mall Cop), Chris Rock(Death at a Funeral), David Spade(Joe Dirt), and Rob Schneider(Don't Mess with the Zohan). They were all part of a coach's only winning championship basketball team back in the 70's. Now, about 30 years later, they all hear that their coach has died and so they all gather for his funeral. They are all meeting each other's families and just catching up. After the funeral, they all stay at Lenny(Adam Sandler)'s lake house for a couple days. And this film is about their hilarious journey through this time of loss and reunion. The acting would obviously be an important element to this movie(or well, really to any movie). And it was very good which is expected from a very expensive-looking cast. But the vital principle of comedies is that you can't treat them like stand-up. When it's a MOVIE, you can't just build the comedy from one-liners. You need to build it off of the situation that the characters are in. And "Grown-Ups" did a good job of that but it did have a little too many one-liners. But that's when the acting comes in. If the acting is good, then the situation seems real, and that's what gets the laughs. The film knows this and does not defy it. It follows it. The movie was just generally funny.I found myself cracking up in the theatre and there are quite a few LOL's. There's so much creativity to be used with this kind of plot. And a lot of it is done right. There are some shocking revelations revealed between the characters, but they all just end-up making it even more hilarious. But, in the midst of all this comedy, it has a heart and that is shown towards the end as they all learn from their experiences. So overall, good acting, good story, and just another light-viewed funny movie. And I couldn't help but walk out with a smile.
Starring: Adam Sandler, Kevin James, Director: Dennis Dugan
Chris Rock, David Spdae, Rob Schneider, Salma Hayek

Inception

My Rating: 4 / 4 

Christopher Nolan has dished out some amazing films in the past few years. The most famous ones include "Batman Begins"(2005), and "The Dark Knight"(2008). Now comes "Inception". Which in my opinion ranks way up there in the best movies he's ever made. While I still think his best film(from what I've seen at least) is "The Dark Knight", Inception just barely misses that line and ranks his 2nd best. Now, I will tell you the plot, but don't drift off because it really can get a little confusing. Dom Cobb(and yes, his name is "Dom", not "Don") is not your ordinary security guard. He specializes in subconscious security. Or, in other words, dreams. He is trained in the art of navigating people's minds. So, when someone has a deadly idea, he breaks into their minds when they are in their most vulnerable state, sleep. Once in there, he steals that idea. He has become a great player in this little game but it is also not strictly speaking legal. And that eventually makes him a fugitive and forced into in hiding. But, he has a chance at redemption. His way home, the only way to get his life back is to pull off one last job. Instead of stealing an idea, he must plant one. This process is called Inception. So, him and his team of specialists must travel deep into the mind of a very rich man and pull off the impossible and in exchange Cobb's life may return to normal and he may see his children again. Now, this idea of plot is definitely original. As well as being perfectly cast. Cobb is played by Leonardo DiCaprio(Titanic), Arthur is played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt( (500) Days of Summer, G.I.JOE: The Rise of Cobra), Ariadane is played by Ellen Page(Juno), Yusuf is played by Dileep Rao(Avatar), and Miles is played by Micheal Cane(The Dark Knight). The acting was fantastic and DiCaprio's performance would make even Sandra Bullock's "Blind Side" role jealous. All performances were believable. I couldn't even sense an ounce of fake-like substance in the lines or anything similar. Now, if you have a decent I.Q. , you will enjoy "Inception". In order to have a good experience watching this film, you must have the intelligence of Documentary-lovers and a wide attention span. The film is certainly the opposite of boring but if you don't understand what's going on, how can you enjoy it? That goes for pretty much every movie. Th action scenes are aligned with the plot perfectly and are also exciting. The special effects are nothing TOO huge but ARE sights to see. I especially love the idea of them going into dreams. I 100% agree with the statement made in the film which was that dreams feel real while we are in them but it's only when we wake up that we realize something was actually strange. That is very realistic. Now, a delicate subject I must discuss is the ending. I will NOT say a word about what happens though, so don't stop reading! But I loved how Nolan left it up for debate as to what it meant at the end. It could go two ways. Either it was just a good and happy ending or it's teasing you with the idea of a sequel. Either way, I'm happy! The one and only problem with this film was that confusion may effect TOO large an audience. Unfortunately, not everyone has an attention span to really try and understand what's going on. And that's the point. This isn't a movie to be lightly viewed(especially with a length of 2 1/2 hours!). You must really TRY to understand. Or, in other words, the film needs your co-operation. If you give it this, however, you have the chance to embrace a long but deep, entertaining, well-acted, engrossing experience. Or, to sum it all up, a masterpiece. I definitely am up for a sequel and I am always on the look out for Christopher Nolan's films. I can't wait for the conclusion to his reinvented "Bat-Man" trilogy in 2012 and hopefully an "Inception 2". But for now, let's just say this DVD would be a nice addition to many collections.

Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio Director: Christopher Nolan
Ellen Page
Joseph Gordon-Levitt
Cillian Murphy
Ken Watanbe
Tom Hardy
Marion Cottilard
Tom Berenger
Micheal Cane

Invictus

My Rating: 3/4

If there was, is, or ever will be a film hall of fame, Morgan Freeman should be in it. Never in my life have I ever seen him give anything less than an exceptional performance. And that quality about him truly shines in his new film "Invictus". This is a true story about Nelson Mandela. Mandela was a prisoner on Robben Island, South Africa until he was released from prison and became the president. Only to be faced with the challenge of bringing the country up to greatness seeing the turmoil it is in. The best way at the time to him was to get their very untalented Rugby team, the "Springboks" to win the world cup so they can"be a shining light in the world". The film is perfectly cast. Morgan Freeman as Nelson Mandela and Matt Damon( who also gives a very good performance) as Francois Pienaar, captain of the Springboks. The best thing in this film is the acting. All performances are powerful and believable and help build upon a strong film. It is not boring to those who will bother to pay attention. But you will probably be bored if you half pay attention while doing something else. But I really thought that the film makers kept the politic-y stuff to a minimum as to keep the audience from drifting off(no offense Obama). And above all, it kept the experience fresh. The film also does a good job of showing you how they must balance "black aspirations with white fears" as they called it in the film. Because when I said the country was in "turmoil", I mean racial hatred, riots, poverty, and all other negative uproar you can think of. The soundtrack was excellent. Mainly using African folk songs that you may even find yourself humming throughout the rest of the day. It serves as a great accompaniment to the characters and events. Another thing I noticed was that Mandela, even though he'd been imprisoned for almost 30 years, came out of that prison a very wise man. He makes decisions that all of his co-workers think are very strange. But in the end, you see that they all serve a great purpose. And Mandela knows it(although only his black co-workers call him "Madiba"). You can also see the growth of the Rugby team throughout the film as well as their lessons learned from Mandela as he begins working with them to win both the world cup and the hearts of 43 million South Africans. But, what I didn't like was that there could have been a little more excitement. Just be a little less Dull. I felt something was missing. And that something destroyed star #5. But overall, I had an inspiring experience and saw some great acting which combined to deliver an amazing story. For those of you who don't judge a book by it's cover, I definitely recommend "Invictus".

Starring: Morgan Freeman Director: Clint Eastwood
Matt Damon

The Karate Kid

My Rating: 3.5/4





After the filmmaking revelation that was "The Karate Kid"(1984), I was feeling a little defensive when I heard about a remake. I thought the original was so good, there shouldn't be a remake out of respect for it. This one didn't look as good or well written. But I was completely proved wrong. Although the plot wasn't very original because it's pretty much structured(and I'm not even exaggerating) EXACTLY like the original. I'm talking down to every last event, with a couple new ones added in. So all in all, the plot is pretty basic. Boy moves far away, boys meets girl, bullies get jealous, bullies beat him up, kid is bullied by the bullies..a lot, boy finds out the maintenance man at his apartment complex knows kung-fu and so he begins to teach the boy, and boy must train to face his fears. The best way I can describe the change between the original and the new one is "better,faster,stronger". The action scenes especially are more fast-paced and, well, violent. The script is stronger, the acting is stronger, the action is faster, and the movie as a whole is just, well, better. The 2010 version of "The Karate Kid" is the most heart pounding, entertaining, moving experience I have had in a very long time. I was never bored, never did my attention wander to the boredom of counting sheep, never was I having anything less than an amazing experience. While I was hoping for this Karate Kid to be a little more original, it does seem kind of like they're making the exact same movie over again. But my definition of remake is that it has the same ideas and story but brings it's own originality. But, "The Karate Kid" did change some things and had a small amount of originality. And when you see that in action, it's very moving. But the names mainly are what changed. Instead of "Danny LaRusso", it's "Dre Parker". Instead of "Mr Miyagi", it's "Mr. Han". Instead of "Alli", it's "Mei Ying". Instead of "Johnny", it's "Cheng". As well as instead of moving to California, they move to Beijing, CHINA. So hopefully, to all the readers, that will get rid of the confusion with the foreign character names. So as you can see, I actually ended up enjoying the remake more than the original. Also, the action scenes are (like I said) more fast-paced. The fighting in the original seemed a little more realistic however, the kids in this are younger and somehow fight like Jet Li! From lightning fast punches to deadly kicks to acrobatic mayhem you will NOT be bored with these scenes. The acting is great. Will Smith's talent must have been carried through his genes and into Jaden. Because after watching this film, there is no doubt acting is in his blood! Both him and Chan deliver excellent performances making a movie about something as common as karate into a unique and moving movie about karate. Moments containing such a thing are what true movies are all about. They can be an influence on society, and give a classic that the whole world falls in love with at the same time, And it's things like that that are part of what we live for. It is difficult to put this element into a film, but "The Karate Kid" is a textbook example of how to do so. Whether you liked the original or not, you will stand up and cheer for "The Karate Kid".

Starring: Jaden Smith Director: Harold Zwart
Jackie Chan
Taraj P. Henson

The Book of Eli

DENZEL WASHINGTON IS PHENOMENAL! My Rating: **** - Great



Denzel Washington should have won an Oscar for this movie even though the last Oscars were for films of 2009 and not 2010. All the same, they could have made an exception. Anyway, in this plot, the creativity is to such a degree that this film will leave you interested but it avoids the dangers of predictability. For the very reason that it's creative. Also, from the heart of the film, it might as well be DIVINE creativity. In this futuristic story, God has had it up to here (imagine me holding my hand high above my head) with America. We have become extremely greedy and sinful and spoiled and take everything for granted(or heck we already have). So God destroys America in an event referred by some of the characters as "the flash". In the aftermath, America as we know it becomes desolate. Very little life is left to walk the soils of the country and most life that IS left is fighting in somewhat of a "caveman type war" over dwindling resources. So, God chose one man, Eli (Denzel Washington) to protect the last Bible on Earth and take it far west. So, with no other form of transportation and very little food and water (but God still provides), Eli has been walking. Walking west and west and west, to complete his God-given task. And has been doing so for 30 years. That's where the movie starts off. And anyone who gets in the way, well, that's another story. As he is under attack by a man named Carnegie(Gary Oldman) who is hooked on getting his hands on that book. The film's depiction of the state of the world in the story is crystal clear and gets for the most part straight to the point. Minus the pretty slow beginning. This is mostly due to the very good acting. Gary Oldman's performance is almost as good as his role in "The Dark Knight" and Denzel Washington's performance is GREAT...just like all of his other films. The action scenes, or at least 90% of them, go down like this: Eli will try to avoid trouble, but some idiots always gotta start it so they attack him, ALWAYS in groups of at least 10, Eli will repeat some verses from the good book that kind of "match" his battles, and then, well, he goes straight to the slicin' and dicin'. After that, he just moves on with his task. Once you see these scenes, you know this guy doesn't mess around. Equipped with guns, knives, a bow and arrows, a small sword, and divine protection, he's one unstoppable man against a thousand men with immovable ways. While, as you can tell, it IS a dark film. But, at the same time, it is also a hopeful one. Which is also how I would describe the film's soundtrack. The somewhat "theme-TUNE" of the movie is very dark but yields a spark of hope. The cinematography is very unique. Almost as if most of the film is "tinted" with a sun-burnt brown color. But does have some normally lighted scenes. But, whatever faults the film may have, a little slowness, a little gore(but the "tint" blocks most of it.), and a somewhat depressing mood, all contribute to costing it a potential fifth star. But, if you can look past all of that or even the outer coat of the film itself, under it all, especially with the ending, there is beauty and moral value in the movie. And that's no leap of faith.

Starring: Denzel Washington Director: The Hughes Brothers

Gary Oldman

Mila Kunis

Extraordinary Measures

BREANDAN FRASER AND HARRISON FORD GO EXTRAORDINARY MEASURES IN THEIR NEW FILM! My Rating: **** - Great



Other than "Indiana Jones & the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull", Harrison Ford hasn't done very many movies lately but he picked the right one to make a comeback! Adding yet another excellent performance but it doesn't quite live up to his roles as "Indiana Jones" in, well, the "Indiana Jones" series or as "Han Solo" in the "Star Wars" series. Brendan Fraser, on the other hand, is surprising me more and more. Despite how much I wasn't a real fan of "The Mummy" series, he is a very good actor. Now, their talents have been combined for a new film going extraordinary measures. The plot is based on a true story where 2/3 of John Crowley(Brendan Fraser)'s kids have a disease called "Pompe". Pompe is a bone deteriorating disease that has confined both of his children to wheel chairs and a lot of medication. The life expectancy of patients with this disease is at most about 9 years. His kids with the disease are 6 and 8. Him and his wife are tired of hearing that they "simply don't have a treatment for Pompe". So, he has been doing research on this disease and he finds an article by a scientist named Dr. Robert Stonehill(Harrison Ford). He has a theory for a life-saving drug for Pompe patients and is on the verge of a scientific breakthrough. The only problem is that he has no funding. John is for one, a very successful businessman and is willing to go, again, "Extraordinary Measures" to save his kid's lives. So, the two begin working together and start a company that works on Stonehill's medicine and with one man controlling the science of the project and one man controlling the business and legal entities, they must exceed all expectations and race against all odds and the clock to ensure a good outcome on the lives of John's children and all other Pompe victims. The story is one that is just as inspiring and uplifting as "The Blind Side". The script was very well written but the story seems just to good to be true. It's a little bit of a turnoff but then again, you have to remind yourself that the story IS true. And it's a true, hope-filled, extraordinary tale that brings the drama genre to another level. All actors contribute fully believable performances to the film driving it further and further to the point where it deserves to be called a great film. But, was there depth to the wording of the script and the emotion of the performances that was missed but easily could've been there? Yes. I did get the feeling there was some missed emotional and moral quality in the writing that, if it was there, which it could've easily been, I think it would've driven it to a 4 1/2 to 5 star movie. But it was missing that little last yet very strong emotional connection you need to a movie. Examples would be like "The Dark Knight", "Avatar", all three "Spider-Man" movies, "Iron Man" 1 & 2, "The Shawshank Redemption", "The Blind Side"(I know I mention most of these movies a lot in my reviews), and so many others that do the missing link to this film right. But, the film still does a great job of getting up after it's knocked down and fights till the end to deliver on the promise of the previews. You do still feel a connection and will be amazed by the beauty and inspiration of a wonderful movie. In spite of all the films that are much darker but at the same time get you thinking about the darkness of reality, this one manages to show us the light and hope in it. And gives us the lesson to hold on to that hope even when against all darkness. It's inspiring because it's a true story where they did exactly that. Just like the movie's tag line, they didn't hope for a miracle, they made one.

Starring: Brendan Fraser Director: Tom Vaughan
Harrison Ford
Keri Russell

The Losers

YOU WIN SOME YOU LOSE SOME. IT'S JUST THAT THESE GUYS WIN A LOT MORE. My Rating: **** - Great



"The Losers"? Considering how good the film is, more like,"The Winners". This new action film was much more than stellar. With a title like that, you can't really tell what the film is about just by hearing it so I will explain it. The plot is about a secret military team known as "The Losers". Not the C.I.A., N.S.A., F.B.I., or heck not even the A.B.C.D.E.F.G.H.I.J.K.L.M.N.O.P. . They are a team of five highly-trained operatives. One day, one of their missions goes wrong and innocent lives are lost. They try to call off the attack when they realize these innocent CHILDREN will get hurt, but the attack continues. Then, they find out that the guy in charge of the job knew they would get hurt in the first place. Then, they try to save them but the kids are killed by the guy in charge because he thought that the helicopter containing the kids was actually containing the losers. The operatives want no part of this anymore and burn their dog tags in the wreckage. The man in charge spoke mysteriously on the phone with them and all they know is that his name is "Max". Then, from that point on, they are wanted fugitives who are pronounced dead to almost everyone. They go into hiding until they meet a girl named Aisha (Zoe Saldana) who wants revenge on this "Max" too. She can also fund their mission to get back to their homes in the U.S. and get some payback. There is no doubt a lot of action in the movie that is both adrenaline-filled and exciting. This film also adds a lot of comedy too. When the Losers aren't running into more problems or getting shot at or well, say magnetically extracting an armored car while in a helicopter getting fired at with next-generation weaponry, they add in some very clever and funny comedy. Sometimes that may even fall INTO the action. You will have no problem paying attention to the film or enjoying it. Most films start out slow and then speed up. But in this case, the film starts out very fast and then slows down a little bit. You are thrust into 30 seconds of comedy and then right into the action. As the movie progresses, you can see that it delivers on what the previews promised - a legitimate and realistic comic-book movie. You can tell that that is what it was meant to be and it works well that way. The team isn't just something the movie passes by, it goes through and you can see each one's personality and it feels like you know each one of them. Almost like they are the "Ninja Turtles" or something like that. Although sometimes the movie may move a little too fast and not very deep but you do get to see that these guys aren't brainlessly fighting and they have families to get back too. The acting is pretty good in the film with particularly good performances by Zoe Saldana as Aisha and Chris Evans as Jensen. Chris Evans is actually a little-known yet very good actor. His most famous roles were in the "Fantastic Four" series as "The Human Torch". He can next be seen in "The First Avenger: Captain America" in July of next summer, 2011. And yes, to all you geeks out there I said "Captain America". Marvel is making that film and Chris Evans is starring. Zoe Saldana is very good too. Her last amazing performances were in "Star Trek" and "Avatar". With these good actors, it seems real and you feel sometimes like you are actually reading the comic book. So overall, very good acting, entertaining action, very funny comedy, and a good comic-book-ey feel. I enjoyed this and the movie does slightly hint at a sequel so I am definitely up for that. For a movie called "The Losers", it sure does a lot more winning than losing.

Starring: Jeffery Deam Morgan Director: Sylvian White
Idris Elba
Zoe Saldana
Chris Evans
Columbus Short
Holt McCallany
Oscar Jaenada
Jason Patric

Iron Man 2

FAVREAU AND DOWNEY SMASH THE RECORD! My Rating: ****1/2 - Outstanding

You know what? I had a good feeling about "Iron Man 2". I knew that it would have a lot to measure up to after the first "Iron Man"(2008) but I thought that it just might actually do that. And , well, it did. But it wasn't in quite the way I expected. The new sequel takes away some of the good things about the first Iron Man that I wish it hadn't but it also brings many new things to the plate. I liked a lot of them but some, however, I really didn't. But, that didn't stop the film. The plot takes place 6 months after the end of the first film and a man named Anton Vanko dies and his son, Ivan Vanko, thinks that the idea for the machine keeping Tony Stark alive was really made by his father and not Tony's father, Howard Stark. He also thinks that Howard fired his father so he could steal the idea and then they become poor causing his father to die without proper care. So, seeking revenge, Ivan studies his father's old blueprints for the invention and makes one to power a suit that has long electric whips attached to it. And so he sets out to kill Iron Man. On top of that, the gadget in Tony's heart is poisoning his blood which is ironic(get it? "iron"-ic ? hahaha!) because the very thing keeping him alive is also killing him. So he is hiding this from everyone. And, at the same time, the government is demanding that he turn over his suit to the military which he REALLY doesn't want to do. So, this film as you can tell, shows the depth behind being the superhero. The fact that it's not just about beating up the bad guys and taking names but there is a lot of stress these characters deal with. Fiction as it may be, there are ways it may relate to real human life. This was also shown well in "The Dark Knight" and the "Spider-Man" movies. Which brings me to my next point, in an interview, director Jon Favreau said that superhero films are on a scale ranging from "The Dark Knight" which is very deep and serious to "Spider-man" which is very deep and playful. He wanted this to be in the middle. I respectfully disagree. I say that it should have been just a wee bit more on "The Dark Knight " side. Then, this film would have been even better. One major thing trying to push me away from the movie was the Rhodey character. He was greatly portrayed in the first film by Terrence Howard and now he is being played by Don Cheadle. Mr. Cheadle is a good actor and I know that Terrence's replacement was due to a contract miscommunication but the film makers didn't have him even act the way Rhodey acted in the first. They don't really seem like friends in this one and Rhodey sometimes seems like he thinks of Tony as a pest rather than a long life friend. He is always so serious around him. Some of the characters just don't seem to have a connection with Tony that much anymore. But, then again, since he is dying and no one knows, he has been acting strange doing things he never does and they are probably just mad at him. I will leave it up to whoever sees it to decide for themselves. Although another thing is that sometimes they have a useless scene or line that just doesn't need to be there and it just stinks up the whole joint? Well, there are one or two scenes like that that are similar to some of the overkill that bogged down "Spider-man 3". Really, if it wasn't for these things, I would say 5/5 Stars. Another thing Mr. Favreau said was that he has come to trust the CGI more and now he said he wanted a little more action and that now he could "play" so to speak. The only problem with this is that sometimes they trust it a little too much and destroy the values that were upheld be the predecessor and replace it with colorful action. But, Jon Favreau fortunately was not really a victim for this movie. But play he did! The final battle to the film is so spectacular and cool that it gives a new definition of awesomeness and you could watch it multiple times. The acting is just as good as the first with yet again another great performance by Robert Downey Jr. Who is impressing me again and again. So overall, the film is great with great acting, action, and fan-pleasing moments. All geeks will be teased by objects shown in the film that hint at upcoming Marvel movies(which reminds me that you need to stay AFTER the credits for one of these moments.). I really enjoyed it and hopefully they can right these few wrongs in "Iron Man 3". But for now, let's enjoy this well-done kick-off to the summer movie season.

Starring: Robert Downey Jr. Director: Jon Favreau
Don Cheadle
Gwenyth Paltrow
Mickey Rourke
Sam Rockwell
Scarlett Johannson
Samuel L. Jackson