Movie Review: LOOPER

LOOPER

2012

R

"The only rule is: never let your target escape."

-- Joe

Looper is a 2012 sci-fi action film written and directed by Rian Johnson that serves as his third directorial effort, and his first since 2008's The Brothers Bloom. The story tells the tale of a futuristic world in which time travel exists but is outlawed, used only by major crime syndicates for purposes of disposal. These syndicates will send victims back in time where men known as "loopers" wait for them only to execute them on sight. Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is such a man, and he maintains an extravagant lifestyle as a result of his career. One day, as Joe waits for his victim, or "loop," he finds an older version of himself (Bruce Willis) kneeling before him. After a moment's hesitation, Young Joe allows Old Joe to escape, sparking a massive manhunt by Young Joe's company to find the older man. As Young Joe and Old Joe start to interact through their meetings, light is shed on the elder Joe's current agenda for transforming his future into something much more desirable.

I apologize if the above synopsis seems a little bit shoddy, but I don't want to give away too much information about the plot and the storyline. What I wrote, along with the trailer posted below, really gives away the first half of the film. It's the second act that proves to be a little bit astonishing, and I'd rather not be the one to give it all away.

I've been anxiously awaiting this film for quite a while. Many of my readers will know that I have a bit of a man-crush on Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and that might have played a part in me seeing this film as soon as I did. The real selling point for me, however, is the return of a collaboration between Gordon-Levitt and director Johnson, who first joined forces for 2005's Brick. I'm sure that fact has probably been mentioned in every single review for Looper thus far, but I figured I'd reiterate it. Because I loved that film so much, the idea of another film from the two seemed like a gift-wrapped present at Christmas. What I'm here to tell you is that Looper does not disappoint. It's opened to some fantastic reviews - it currently holds a ninety-three percent approval rating on Rottentomatoes.com - and that only fueled the fire for me to get to a theater and see it as soon as I possibly could.

Let's start with the screenplay, shall we? In the past, a number of successful film franchises, such as Back to the Future and those little Terminator films, have dealt with the concept of time travel. For whatever reason, the plot device has remained a viable option for filmmakers in today's society as well, but I don't think I've ever seen it quite done like this. Johnson manages to create a cinematic world where the idea of time travel can understandably exist, and yet, he never takes the time to spell out the precise details for such an existence. Instead, he gives us just enough information for the audience to understand and believe the capability, and it's this tactic that sets Looper apart from the some of the other great time travel flicks. Rather than trying to bash the viewer over the head with drawn-out explanations, Johnson allows the explanation to be this simple: it exists, and it works. For the most part, that's all we need to know.

From there, the film plays out in a relatively straight-forward manner. Anytime you involve time travel, there are going to be a few moments where things can get a little confusing, but the screenplay does well to keep things from getting too convoluted. At the end of the day, I couldn't see any major issues with logic and continuity within the constructs of the story, but some nitpickers will surely find a few minor details here and there. The screenplay does go on to excel in the second half of the film, blending action sequences with a number of thrills and some fantastic plot twists towards film's end. While some of the storyline becomes a tad bit predictable, I can honestly say that I was not expecting the film's ultimately finale, one that just might blow your mind.

To bring this screenplay together, we'd need a pretty good cast, and that's just what we're getting. Gordon-Levitt is fantastic as Young Joe, and with a fantastic bit of make-up, he does his best Bruce Willis impression. In the early going, it's uncanny just how much the young actor mimics the likeness of the veteran, and I have to say I was thoroughly impressed. Willis himself also brings a strong performance to the screen. Always one of my favorite actors, I can honestly say that I don't think I've seen him bring forth this strong a character since his turn in 2005's Sin City. I might even go as far back as The Sixth Sense in 1999, if I think about it. Kudos to these two leading men for crafting engaging on-screen characters.

Now, the rest of the cast fills out incredibly well, and you're going to see quite a few familiar faces. Emily Blunt offers a great performance as our leading lady. She continues to impress me with her acting prowess. Also be on the lookout for the likes of Jeff Daniels, Paul Dano and Garret Dillahunt, each of whom brings a great bit to the screen. Where I was truly impressed, however, was with the performance of young actor Pierce Gagnon, appearing in only his third feature film. Even for such a young age, he brought quite a presence and power to the screen, which was definitely a necessity for his particular character. To stand toe-to-toe with the likes of Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Emily Blunt is quite a feat, but the young Gagnon manages to do just that.

At the end of the day, Looper is a fantastic film, as well as an incredible addition to the science-fiction canon. Sure, it has a few minor flaws here and there, but with any film involving time travel, a bit of disbelief is a bit necessary. If you can let yourself get lost in this world and this story, I don't think there's any reason you won't enjoy the film. Rian Johnson strikes yet again, and I can't wait for his net endeavor.

 

Movie Review Summary

Grade: A

Status: Should See

Movie Review: LAWLESS

LAWLESS

2012

R

"I'm a Bondurant. We don't lay down for nobody."

-- Forrest Bondurant

Lawless is a 2012 crime drama directed by John Hillcoat that is adapted from Matt Bondurant's 2008 novel, The Wettest County in the World. The story follows the Bondurants, a family of three brothers led by the eldest Forrest (Tom Hardy), who run an illegal moonshine business in Franklin County, Virginia in the midst of the Prohibition era. With the help of his brothers Jack (Shia LaBeouf) and Howard (Jason Clarke), Forrest has become one of the biggest suppliers of moonshine in the county. One day, a special deputy from Chicago named Charlie Rakes (Guy Pearce) is brought into the county in order to destroy the bootlegging businesses, and he immediately clashes with the Bondurant clan. He starts to rid the county of its numerous illegal distilleries, and he soon starts a personal vendetta against Forrest Bondurant. Youngest brother Jack finds a way to keep the business afloat, only increasing the tension between the brothers and the ever-present Rakes.

I first heard about this film about a year ago when it was still to be titled The Wettest County in the World. At the time, I took a passing glance, noticing it merely for its casting star power, but it didn't necessarily ring a bell as a must-see. When the film's trailer was released, however, something about the stylistic grittiness compelled me to at least give it a view. The film has opened to moderately positive reviews, but I can't quite say they've been entirely stellar thus far.

One of the biggest issues most critics - including myself - have had with Lawless is its screenplay. While there's definitely a strong and emotional story of family bonds and revenge hidden beneath it all, there seems to be a little too much extra storyline given to the film. At its core, the story should be about the three brothers and their loyalty to one another, regardless of how much they drive one another crazy. There were a few ancillary characters that turned out to be more important than they should have been, and it ultimately helps to bog down the story a little bit. Despite this, the film's climax and finale still prove to be quite strong, even with the obstacles along the way.

Where this film's strength truly lies is in its cast. Now, I have to start by saying that I have never been much of a fan of Shia LaBeouf. I'm sure I've mentioned this before, but there have been times where I have downright hated his presence on-screen. However, I think Lawless will ultimately be the film where we as the audience see LaBeouf mature into a legitimate actor right before our very eyes. At the start of the film, he almost seems a little bit of touch, as he often does, but by film's end, there's a power and a grace to his acting ability that I haven't seen him convey before. I have to tip my hat to the young actor for breaking out of his acting shell and transforming (pun intended) himself into something entirely different.

The rest of the cast fills out quite nicely as well. Tom Hardy continues to prove to me that he is one of the better actors working in Hollywood today. You can place his performance in Lawless right next to his noteworthy turns in 2009's Bronson and 2011's Warrior. Pearce is also great as the film's central villain, and I thought he brought the film's second-best character (behind Hardy's Forrest) to the screen. Also worth mention for their smaller, albeit not entirely necessary, roles are Gary Oldman, Jessica Chastain and Mia Wasikowska, who all manage to bring strong performances to the film.

At the end of the day, Lawless manages to bring together a very strong ensemble cast that ultimately falls prey to a less-than-stellar screenplay. Still, the strength of the performances helps to keep this film afloat, and an emotional second act gives the audience an opportunity to stay engaged and involved with the events on-screen. See it for Hardy and Pearce's performances, and be surprised by the growth of Shia LaBeouf into a legitimate actor.

Movie Review Summary

Grade: B+

Status: Should See

Movie Review: PREMIUM RUSH

PREMIUM RUSH

2012

PG-13

"I like to ride. Fixed gear. No brakes. Can't stop. Don't want to, either."

-- Wilee

Premium Rush is a 2012 action thriller directed by David Koepp that focuses on a group of bike messengers making a living on the fast-paced streets of New York City. We meet a young cyclist named Wilee (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), a former law student, who uses his job as a bike messenger to supply him with an ample number of thrills in his life. His fellow messenger and girlfriend Vanessa (Dania Ramirez) thinks he has a death wish with the way he rides, but Wilee simply thinks he lives for the rush. After losing out on one delivery, Wilee asks his boss to give him another route before the end of the day, and he luckily receives one last job from his friend Nima (Jamie Chung), who needs an envelope delivered to Chinatown by seven o'clock that night. After he picks up the envelope, however, Wilee is confronted by a mysterious man (Michael Shannon), who continually attempts to steal the envelope from him. As the clock continues to race toward his deadline, Wilee begins to piece together a much larger plot into which he has unwillingly been made a pawn.

When I first heard about this film, I was immediately drawn to it based solely on the fact that Gordon-Levitt would star. Arguably my favorite actor at the moment, I'll go out of my way to see any of his films, and seeing as Premium Rush is arguably the biggest release this weekend, there really wasn't much debate as to what I would be seeing. Although I wasn't really expecting it to be a brilliant film, I did hope that it would at least be entertaining, and the early, mostly-positive reviews helped quell any real fears I had going in.

What Premium Rush ultimately offers is a fast-paced, action-packed, end-of-the-summer thrill ride. The storyline doesn't necessarily offer much, although it does allow for a number of moderately emotional scenes and concepts, but at the end of the day, it's a basic and rote screenplay that doesn't truly offer anything utterly brilliant. What sets Premium Rush apart is the stylistic power of the direction and the cast itself.

Let's start with our actors, shall we? Now, I have to be honest and say that I do have a bit of a man crush on Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and thus far in his film career, I have yet to see him do any wrong. He's managed to create so many different characters, and his Wilee in Premium Rush is no exception. This may be the most "badass" he's gone thus far in his career (although that's sure to be challenged by the soon-to-be-released Looper), and he plays the part perfectly. I also have to applaud Shannon, who is generally a hit-or-miss actor for me. While I thought Shannon was brilliant in the 2010 film The Runaways, I wasn't sold on his bit part in 2008's Revolutionary Road. With him, it always goes back and forth. At the start of Premium Rush, I wanted to hate his character. It seemed over-the-top and ridiculous, but as the film continued forth, I think it made a little more sense. By film's end, I truly thought he was a great antagonist for a picture like this. It worked well. The rest of the cast fills out quite nicely, but the best scenes come between Gordon-Levitt and Shannon. That's where the meat of this film lies.

But aside from all of that, what truly makes Premium Rush a success is its stylistic production. For starters, setting the story against the backdrop of New York City, one of the fastest-paced cities in the world, was a perfect decision. Having visited New York on a number of occasions, I know just how hustle-bustle those streets can get, and to see bicyclists moving even faster in order to make their deliveries seems incredible. The setting helps make the film seem like its moving even faster than it is, and that works in this film's favor. Because it's not offering a brilliant screenplay or Oscar-winning performances, it has to rely on its ability to grab hold of its viewer and its ability to keep that viewer engaged. And from the very start, Premium Rush does just that. Once it grabs hold, it never once takes it foot off the pedal, so to speak. And that rush of exhilaration is what makes it so darn good.

To sum things up, Premium Rush is the ideal type of end-of-the-summer cinema fare. It's not a film that's too deep to understand, but it's also not too dumb to make it unwatchable. The story is strong enough to keep you caring, but it's the direction and the action that's going to keep you entertained. So sit back, relax and grab a bucket of popcorn because this is one wild ride.

Movie Review Summary
Grade: B+

Status: Should See

Movie Review: JOHN CARTER

JOHN CARTER

2012

PG-13

"When I saw you, I believed it was a sign that something new can come into this world."

-- Tars Tarkas

John Carter is a 2012 science-fiction action film directed by Andrew Stanton that serves as his first major directorial foray into the realm of live-action cinema. Based off the first novel from Edgar Rice Borrough's Barsoom series, the film tells the story of Civil War veteran John Carter (Taylor Kitsch), who finds himself mysteriously transported to an unknown world called Barsoom. Upon his arrival, he is captured by a race of strange creatures known as the Tharks, led by a creature called Tars Tarkas (voiced by Willem Dafoe). After proving his warrior merit, Tars Tarkas admits John into his tribe and claims that he will help the Tharks defeat their enemies. Never one to fight for a cause, Carter tries to back out of the duty but is swayed after saving a young woman named Dejah Thoris (voiced by Lynn Collins). She explains to John that Barsoom is what he knows to be Mars, and that her world is slowly dying. The constant struggle between her home city of Helium and the enemy city of Zodanga has brought the world to its breaking point, and she believes that John is the man who can make a change. Although he initially avoids the fight, John finally decides to battle for the good of Barsoom.

When Disney prepared to release John Carter, they had expected it to be their next big franchise. With a $250 million budget and an accomplished director at the helm, who was to say that it wouldn't be a smash hit? Still, in the months prior to its release, I don't recall seeing many trailers for the film, and I don't think it really got as much publicity as it needed. Added to the mixed reviews it received from the critical community, and John Carter simply did not perform at the box office. Ultimately, the film barely made back all the money it cost to make, and it finally settled for a tiny $30 million profit. Still, I had every desire to see the film but never had the chance to do so while it played in theaters. And so, to RedBox I went.

The first thing you're going to notice about John Carter is that it's mildly confusing. Now, I've seen plenty of movies with screenplays that make little to no sense, and this one definitely doesn't rank amongst those dregs. However, from the very get-go, you're going to be scratching your head wondering exactly what's going on. We get the basic idea: a man is transported to Mars, where he is captured and all that jazz, but there's little things going on in between that make for a little bit of confusion. It's almost as though we're feeling the same confusion that the John Carter character must be feeling upon his transport, and if that was Stanton's aim, then kudos to him. As the film continues along, however, it ultimately falls into a rote action flick that becomes very predictable very, very quickly. The breath of imagination quickly leaves the film, and I was left wondering how the man who wrote and directed both Finding Nemo and WALL-E could bring forth something so pedestrian.

One thing I did like about the film's storyline, however, was the parallels between the Barsoomian people's war and the American Civil War in which Carter himself fought. We're seeing two opposing cities (a la the North and the South) do battle against one another while a more rudimentary culture (a la the Native Americans) stands by and watches from the side. In that sense, the film does bring something rather interesting, but it serves more as a basis for Stanton's entire concept than as a plot point itself.

The cast in the film does a serviceable job throughout, but I wasn't really overly impressed by anyone in particualr. Kitsch, whose biggest claim to fame is his role on TV's "Friday Night Lights," does well with the role, but it doesn't seem like there was a lot to go with. He has the necessary physique for the action sequences, but with only a small bit of intelligent dialogue, there really wasn't much for him to do. Collins falls into the same category, bringing out the character but not bringing anything overly fantastic. We do get some nice vocal performances from the likes of Dafoe and Thomas Haden Church (in a small bit), as well as some slightly stronger live-action roles from the likes of Mark Strong and Dominic West. And there's even some very small roles from people like Ciarán Hinds, Bryan Cranston and Daryl Sabara, but they're here and gone relatively quickly.

The one thing that John Carter does have going for it is its special effects which are sure to dazzle. Although I'm not quite sure it's anything truly spectacular, I'm sure seeing this Barsoomian world on the big screen was quite a sight to behold. After the visual brilliance of a film like WALL-E, I'm glad to see that Stanton didn't lose sight of his visual performance, even if the rest of the film doesn't quite measure up.

At the end of the day, John Carter is a relatively uneven action film that falls into standard cliché very quickly. Still, there's enough to keep you engaged throughout the film, even if you're going to be a tad bit confused from time to time. Viewers beware: this one runs a bit longer than two hours, and the film starts to overstay its welcome around the ninety-minute mark.

Movie Review Summary

Grade: C-

Status: Don't Need to See

Movie Review: PARANORMAN

PARANORMAN

2012

PG

"Can't you be like other kids your age?"
-- Perry Babcock

ParaNorman is a 2012 animated film directed by Chris Butler and Sam Fell that serves as the latest piece of stop-motion animation to hit the silver screen. The film tells the story of a young boy named Norman Babcock (voiced by Kodi Smit-McPhee) who has the ability to see and speak to the dead. As one can imagine, no one in his small town - including his family - truly believes his seemingly outrageous stories, and as a result, Norman has become a bit of an outcast among his peers. One day, however, his equally-outcast uncle Mr. Prenderghast (voiced by John Goodman) tells Norman that a 300-year-old witch's curse is about to destroy the town, and the boy is the only one who can prevent it from happening. Initially pushing the idea aside, a string of eerie visions leads Norman to believe his uncle. With the (reluctant) help of his only friend Neil (voiced by Tucker Albrizzi), his sister Courtney (voiced by Anna Kendrick), Neil's brother Mitch (voiced by Casey Affleck) and a local bully named Alvin (voiced by Christopher Mintz-Plasse), Norman sets out to save the town from the evil about to come upon it.

As many of my readers will know, I've been eagerly awaiting the arrival of August 17, 2012 for the two major films being released. Some of you may have seen my quick review of The Expendables 2 on the affiliated Facebook page yesterday, and now I've had the chance to see ParaNorman, for which I was more excited. Always a fan of stop-motion animation, the concepts behind this particular film seemed incredibly attractive, and I've almost been counting down the days until I could see just what directors Butler and Fell could bring forth.

I have to start by talking about the stop-motion animation. Being such a big fan of the medium, I have to say that I was utterly blown away by just what ParaNorman had to offer. I've seen plenty of great pieces of work from past stop-motion films, but ParaNorman seems to take this one to a new level. I can't quite put my finger on exactly what makes this film stand apart, but I do think that there are little nuances here and there that just make this world seem just a bit more real. There were times that I was left open-mouthed by the beauty of the film, and for that alone, it needs to be applauded.

Luckily for the audience, we're also getting a stellar screenplay that brings a off-beat type of charm to the film. From the very outset, we learn of Norman's spectacular ability see and communicate with those who have passed on. At the same time, we also learn of the struggle Norman must face as a result of his gift, and it immediately gave me the opportunity to relate to the character. From there, we jump right into the action, learning of the witch's curse and Norman's ability to stop it. We meet a number of wonderfully fleshed-out characters who help or hinder Norman along the way. At the same time, we're listening to a perfectly-scripted set of dialogue for each individual character, each of whom brings a little bit more to the overall scheme. And at the end of the day, the film manages to bring itself full circle, touching on the concepts of bullying and evil in the real world. It's a truly well-done piece of work by director Butler, who also penned the script.

While we're on the subject of the characters, I have to say that the vocal cast did a splendid job in bringing these characters to life. Smit-McPhee is great in the central role, and it's easy to fall in love with the character from the very start. I thought Albrizzi and Kendrick offered two of the better roles in the film, and I think Mintz-Plasse deserves a lot of credit as well. Also be on the listen for Leslie Mann and Jeff Garlin as Norman's parents; each of them does quite well with their respective roles.

Where ParaNorman truly succeeds is in its tone and its blending of genre. As an animated film, a film-goer will most likely assume it's going to be a comedy that's branded for children. That's not entirely the case with this particular film. Like past stop-motion ventures like 2005's Corpse Bride and 2009's Coraline, there's a bit of darkness revolving around ParaNorman. While there is quite a bit of comedy - both in dialogue and in slapstick form - throughout the film, we also have a bit of horror and suspense for the avid horror fans. There were a few moments where the tenseness of the film truly felt palpable, and I don't think I've ever had that feeling in an animated film before. I have to give a lot of credit to the entire cast and crew for bringing forth a film that pushes the boundaries of the animation genre. Parents should just beware that this one might not be for the very little ones.

At the end of the day, ParaNorman is a great film that deserves to be mentioned as one of the better stop-motion ventures in cinematic history. As I read some other critical reviews of the film, I stumbled across this particular snippet from Washington Post writer Sean O'Connell, and I thought I'd share:

[ParaNorman is] A colorfully macabre stop-motion animation comedy that embraces the sociopolitical allegories of George A. Romero's zombie pictures and reworks them into a feature-length episode of "Scooby-Doo."

Needless to say, I couldn't agree more, and that's what makes this film so darn enjoyable.

Movie Review Summary

Grade: A-

Status: Should See

Trailer Breakdown: RED DAWN

One of the latest trailers to hit the Internet is the first for the upcoming remake, Red Dawn, which is directed by Dan Bradley and stars Chris Hemsworth. As I usually do with these trailer breakdowns, I'll be bringing up some questions concerning the film just after the trailer. To start, take a glance at this first look of the new film:

And now, for a few questions that came to mind while watching the trailer:

1. To start, what is Red Dawn?

As I previously stated, Red Dawn is an upcoming action flick that serves as a remake of the 1984 film of the same name. This film will center on an apparent invasion from the North Korean army that lands in a small, nondescript American town. An on-leave Marine (Hemsworth) visiting home gets caught in the middle of the attack, and he leads a rag-tag group of survivors in a strike against the enemy. This follows the basic plot and concept of the original film, with the key difference being that the foe in the 1984 venture was the Soviet Union, not the North Koreans. 

2. How will this film hold up against the original film?

The original Red Dawn film holds the illustrious status of being the first film released in the United States to achieve the newly-created PG-13 rating. It earned this rating after being considered, at the time, to be the most violent film ever made according to the Guinness Book of World Records, which states it holds a rate of 2.23 violent acts per minute. Made on a very modest budget of $4.2 million, the film managed to return nearly $40 million at the box office, making it a financial, if not critical, success. Considering the nature of the storyline, critics were divided on the film, which currently holds a fifty-three percent approval rating on Rottentomatoes.com. Still, there are some pretty lofty goals in there for this new Red Dawn to achieve, but will it be able to stand up next to its predecessor?

3. Considering the state of today's political society, how will this film be met by critics and audiences?

In recent years, the threat of a North Korean attack on the United States has always been on the back-burner with the news, and in light of the North Korean's recent misfire with their missile testing, I wonder whether this film's release is timely or not. In a way, the film is taking the idea of a possible attack and bringing it to life, following it through by showing that a small group of young Americans can take down an entire section of enemy army. I have a feeling that the film will be met by heavy resistance from the critical community, but there should be factions of audiences that will probably fall in love with the concept.

4. Plot Issue: This trailer makes it seem as though the North Korean army has a personal vendetta against the main family. Why would they?

The trailer clearly shows Hemsworth's character's father (seemingly) being murdered by a Korean military leader in execution style. The scene then jumps immediately to Hemsworth uttering, "They messed with the wrong family." I have a bit of an issue with this: Why would an army bent on taking over an entire country waste their time with one individual family? I'm sure the film will concoct some way to make it all make sense, but based off the trailer, it already seems a little bit silly. Still, it could easily make for a more emotional piece, but I can't see any way that this subplot won't be a cheap attempt at drawing that emotion from the viewer. 

5. Where does this film place Chris Hemsworth on the Hollywood scene? 

To answer this question, I'd like to take a look at Hemsworth's brief filmography. He made a memorable appearance in 2009's Star Trek, but it wasn't until his starring role in 2011's Thor that he became a household name. That name only grew with the release of The Avengers and Snow White and the Huntsman, both action films that showcased his ability to be an action star. If Red Dawn manages to be a success, it should solidify Hemsworth's status as the next big thing in action, and with sequels to Thor and Snow White and the Huntsman already in the works, he shouldn't have a problem continuing that particular vein of success.

6. How will the rest of the cast play out?

We're actually getting some relatively big names in this particular venture, and it should be a cast that performs well. Most prominent are the inclusions of Josh Hutcherson - fresh of the success of The Hunger Games - and Jeffrey Dean Morgan, but we're also going to see the likes of Josh Peck and Adrianne Palicki. In an action movie, acting sometimes gets shoved off to the wayside, but here's to hoping that this cast can bring something of value to the screen.

7. How will first-time director Dan Bradley handle the film?
After making a bit of a name for himself as a stunt coordinator, Bradley had the opportunity to go behind the camera with Red Dawn, making this his first directorial effort. I've seen many a first-time director make a quality film, but there's plenty more who have failed miserably. Given the type of film, I'd be a little worried that this first venture might be a bit underwhelming, but with his background in stunts, I'd say that the visual effects and stunt work should be top-notch.

8. At the end of the day, will Red Dawn just be another dumb, big-budget action remake?

This is always going to be the biggest question for a film like this. Remakes are always going to be taken with a grain of salt, and while it can be done, it's tough to make a quality remake. People are going to remember the source material in a nostalgic way, so to top an original film, a remake has to be something truly spectacular. Will Red Dawn be able to do just that? My money's on no, but I've been wrong before. 

Red Dawn will hit theaters in the United States on November 21, 2012.

Movie Review: BRAVE

BRAVE

2012

PG

"If you had a chance to change your fate, would you?"

-- Princess Merida

Brave is a 2012 animated film directed by Brenda Chapman and Mark Andrews that serves as the thirteenth feature film for animation studio Pixar. The film tells a story set in feudal Scotland that centers around a young princess named Merida (voiced by Kelly Macdonald). As a child, her father Fergus (voiced by Billy Connolly) gave her a bow and arrow as a gift, and it helped to instill a sense of adventure in her spirit. As she grows older, however, Merida's mother Elinor (voiced by Emma Thompson) tries to craft her into a lady worthy of being married off to one of the neighboring clans' first-born sons. Merida does not take kindly to this particular tradition, wanting only to be the master of her own fate. After a failed attempt at choosing her eligible suitor, Merida strikes out into the wilderness on her own, searching for the path that will lead her to a life of freedom from her overbearing mother. What Merida finds in those woods, however, may lead to a darkness unlike anything she could have ever imagined.

As with most of the people I know personally, I always eagerly await the next big Pixar production, and my anticipation for Brave was no different. I first saw the teaser trailer for the film sometime last year, and I was immediately blown away by the visual aspect of the film. Add the fact that Pixar was finally delving into the story of a female protagonist for the first time in its feature film history. It looked as though Pixar was going to rebound from its critical failure in Cars 2 (which I liked, if you may recall). Everything seemed set up for Brave to be an astounding success.

Then the initial reviews started to pour in. As of this moment, the film currently holds a seventy-three percent approval rating on Rottentomatoes.com, which is still considered a very good film. However, when you compare that to the rest of the Pixar canon, it seems a tad bit off-putting. I mean, the Toy Story films have received either perfect or near-perfect scores on the same website, and even some of the lesser Pixar ventures have fared better than that. Still, there's a many critics who have yet to see Brave, so maybe that's just the early viewers being a little too tough on the film. I mean, that makes sense, right? This particular critic says: Maybe.

Brave definitely offers quite a few things to enjoy. The first thing you're going to notice is just how beautifully-crafted the animators managed to make the visuals. In some ways, it's the most beautifully-animated Pixar film - and perhaps animated film overall - to date, and for that, it should be applauded. The work done with Merida, from her lifelike facial expressions to her wild curly hair, is utterly fantastic, and she may be the most realistic animated human character ever crafted. In addition, we're seeing quite a few beautiful locales that are so well-created that we may as well be seeing animated characters placed onto real-life camera shots. While I still think some of the visuals from 2008's WALL-E manage to take the cake, there's quite a bit to say about the work done here. Kudos, Pixar animators.

We're also getting a very strong vocal cast to bring forth these interesting characters. The meat of the character development belongs both to Merida and Elinor, and I personally thought that Macdonald and Thompson brought the best pieces to the film. The rest of the cast - which is mostly male, with one or two women popping up now and then - and they're all portrayed in an almost caricature-like fashion. So is it a coincidence that the Merida and Elinor are also the most realistic-looking and best-animated? I think not. It's a subtle hint to the viewer that we should be taking these women seriously while we can laugh at the men as they bumble about trying to bash each other's heads in. Still, the vocal work for the men proves entertaining. I'm a big fan of Billy Connolly's, and I thought he did well with his character. Also be on the listen for the likes of Robbie Coltrane, Craig Ferguson and the ever-present John Ratzenberger.

We also get a rather splendid musical score to accentuate the film. Patrick Doyle does well with crafting a score that's both adventurous and whimsical, and it fits the film to a tee. Interspersed with the orchestral segments are a number of songs that seemed, at least to me, a tad bit off-putting, but they still manage to capture and maintain the spirit of the film. Here's a snippet of the score for your listening pleasure:

And yet, despite all of this goodness, Brave does have a bit of a downfall, and it's not really where you'd expect it to happen. While Pixar has always been at the forefront of crafting beautifully-animated treats for their audiences, they've also been able to augment these visuals with astounding screenplays that manage to captivate and move their audiences towards whatever emotions they deem fit. Therein lies the problem with Brave. It almost feels as though we have an incomplete screenplay that doesn't necessarily punch home its message. While the story manages to be a good one, it definitely falls into predictability and rote rhetoric, and that's not something that audiences want to see, nor do they expect it from a studio like Pixar. It just didn't feel like the writers managed to figure out that one last emotional punch, and instead, we're left feeling almost a little bit empty. But it's empty in a good way, I suppose. There are still quite a few laughs to be had, and the story is easy to follow. Maybe we're all just so inundated with Pixar's brilliance that it's difficult to understand that the filmmakers are only human and we're going to hit a rocky patch eventually. It's just sad to see that it happened with a film that had so much promise.

All that being said, Brave was a solid film and definitely a step up from last year's Cars 2. Did it fail to meet everyone's expectations? Perhaps, but it's still head-and-shoulders over most animated fare being released out there nowadays. It's fantastic that Pixar finally took the leap and created a female-centric film, but I just think that they could've done Merida a little more justice than they did. If you're looking for a fanciful animated film like this that manages to impress on nearly every level, I strongly suggest taking a look at 2009's The Secret of Kells, which managed to blow me away. But Brave is still a great film that's worthy of your attention. Just don't expect it to leave a lasting mark in the way that Toy Story, WALL-E or Up did.

Movie Review Summary

Grade: B+

Should You See It? Yes

Movie Review: ROCK OF AGES

ROCK OF AGES

2012

PG-13

"This place is about to become a sea of sweat, ear-shattering music and puke."

-- Dennis Dupree

Rock of Ages is a 2012 dramatic musical film directed by Adam Shankman that serves as a big-screen adaptation of the off-Broadway musical of the same name. The film opens in 1987 with Sherrie Christian (Julianne Hough) on a bus from her native Oklahoma to Los Angeles, where she hopes to find fame and fortune. Shortly after arriving, however, she's mugged and finds herself lost and nearly penniless. Enter young aspiring singer Drew Boley (Diego Boneta) who manages to get her a job at a popular nightclub called The Bourbon Room. The famed venue, however, has hit a recent string of financial troubles, and owner Dennis Dupree (Alec Baldwin) and his partner Lonny (Russell Brand) are desperately trying to keep the Bourbon Room afloat all while dealing with the ultra-right-wing wife (Catherine Zeta-Jones) of the city mayor. In a bit of luck, they manage to book the final performance of a band called Arsenal, which is fronted by superstar rocker Stacee Jaxx (Tom Cruise). As the night of the massive performance draws near, however, relationships between each of the characters begin to strain, causing a massage amount of upheaval inside The Bourbon Room.

I would like to start by saying that, while I have long wanted to see Rock of Ages in its stage incarnation, I have never had the opportunity. Therefore, I went into the film version a little bit blind, seeing the storyline for the first time. All I knew entering the film was that it was all about rock 'n roll and that Tom Cruise was supposedly going to sing. And always being up for a bit of rock music, I figured I'd have a excellent time. Cue the "Bill & Ted" guitar riff.

Unfortunately, Rock of Ages is missing a few notes here and there. One of the biggest problems with the film is that we're getting a rather humdrum screenplay that's about as predictable as you can get. From the opening scene, we know exactly what direction the film is headed, and that takes a little bit away from the film. If the audience knows how the film's going to end, then what's the point of enjoying the ride? Sometimes the ride is enough to keep a viewer engaged, but if we're simply going off the storyline and the plot devices, then Rock of Ages is sinking, and sinking fast.

Also, we're not getting a ton of help from the cast, at least in terms of their acting. Despite the fact that the film holds an all-star cast, I couldn't really find anything terribly redeeming about the acting portion of the performances. Our film's leads - Hough and Boneta - are both a little too laughable from time to time, and they manage to chew the scenery just a little too much. Cruise is decent, but it's nowhere near his best on-screen role. And to be honest, it was a little bit strange seeing him portray sexual rock 'n roll god. He's never been an overt sex symbol during his career, and to have him try to bring that to the table at his current age just seems a little bit weird. We get a bit of nice interplay between Brand and Baldwin, who probably offer the film's best performances. And still, they're only serviceable. Even great actors like Paul Giamatti and Bryan Cranston can't bring this film any higher. Also be on the watch for decent bit pieces from Malin Akerman and Mary J. Blige, as well as cameos from Will Forte, Eli Roth and T.J. Miller.

Now, I only said that the acting portions of the cast's performances were a little lackluster. Where Rock of Ages does manage to excel is in its soundtrack, and each of the performers brings their A-game for that part of the film. I was thoroughly impressed with Hough and Boneta as our stars, and even Cruise manages to bust out a few songs relatively well. Brand, as you may already know, is a fantastic singer, and his bits are glorious indeed. Even Baldwin and Giamatti manage to sing a few lines here and there, and it works to a nice effect. However, the real glory I think belongs to Boneta, who proves to be - arguably - the best singer of the bunch, and he has some of the most opportunity to belt it out. He even manages to overshadow Hough, which is surprising considering she's also very good. Overall, the soundtrack is fantastic, and I thought that some of the song mash-ups worked relatively well.

At the end of the day, however, Rock of Ages simply isn't that great of a film. It has a shoddy screenplay and weak character development, and normally, that would be enough to doom any movie. However, with a stellar soundtrack like this one has, it's tough not to have fun with Rock of Ages. Anyone who's a fan of this particular genre of rock 'n roll is going to get caught up in the emotion of the songs, and that might lead a viewer to believe they're having an emotional connection with the film. I'd bet that won't be the case, seeing as if you take away the music, then this film's about as devoid of emotion as you can get. It's the music that proves to be the glue in the film, keeping it together just long enough to keep the audience entertained from start to finish.

Movie Review Summary

Grade: C

Should You Watch It? Maybe

Movie Review: PROMETHEUS

PROMETHEUS

2012

R

"Big things have small beginnings."
-- David

Prometheus is a 2012 sci-fi horror film directed by Ridley Scott that serves as a quasi-prequel to Scott's 1979 film, Alien. After archaeologists Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) and Charlie Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green) discover a string of clues to the origin of human life on Earth, they enlist the help of the Weyland Corporation to make their way to a distant planet where they believe they will find the alien species that created humanity. Once there, they find the remains of what looks to be an old colony, but as they continue to explore the caves, they start to realize that there may be a menace amongst them that's more powerful and more terrifying than they could have ever imagined.

Those of you who follow my blog will know just how excited I have been for the release of Prometheus. As a huge fan of Scott's original Alien, I waited (im)patiently for his return to the franchise after thirty-three years. And for most of the film, I have to say that I was filled with an awkward giddiness that kept me engaged from start to finish. It's only in the time after the movie ended that I've started to realize that Prometheus wasn't all it's cracked up to be.

The first major issue with the film is its place as a "quasi-prequel" to 1979's Alien. In recent months, Scott had claimed that while the film would not directly precede the events of Alien, it would take place within the same cinematic universe and would explore the mythologies behind the creatures and events he created within that universe. And so, I was prepared for a film similar to Alien but not necessarily connected to it in any way, shape or form. Where the film goes wrong is in its execution of this idea. Rather than steering clear of the Alien storyline, Prometheus acts as though it's going to answer all the questions left resonating by its predecessor. It has all the pieces to do so, but it's only in the final act that it becomes clear that the situations aren't exactly the same. In a way, the film hypes up the story as a direct prequel but then ungraciously reminds the viewer that it isn't by taking the story in a different direction right at the end. Perhaps I was just put off by this idea, but it took me out of the film and made for a bit of a disappointment.

The second issue is the screenplay itself. While the story proves to be inventive, and it does manage to channel some familiar plot pieces from previous Alien films, it doesn't seem as though the situations are interconnected or plausible. We go from one scene to the next, but we're never quite sure why anyone is doing any particular thing at any given time. I suppose the real issue is that we're never given a clear sense of any character motivation. In past Alien films - especially in the original flick - we always had a great sense of character development. We knew who was doing what, and why they wanted to do it. In Prometheus, however, these things prove to be a bit clouded. Our two archaeologists seem straight-forward enough: they want to learn the origins of human life. But it's some of the ancillary characters who act in strange and peculiar ways, and there really isn't a reason given for some of their actions. And aside from Michael Fassbender's David (an android), we never really get to know any of the characters on an intimate level. Maybe that was the idea, and the joke. Let's make the audience know the most about the only non-human character on board the ship. My biggest issue with the screenplay, however, is that it tried to force emotion onto the audience in blatant and over-the-top ways. Because we couldn't establish any real connection to the characters, it seemed as though tiny plot pieces were added here and there to make us feel some sort of emotion to a given character from time to time. Unfortunately, these moments just seemed gimmicky and proved annoying after a while.

What's sad about all this is that the screenplay actually spoils some rather fine attributes about the film. For starters, I thought the special effects were incredibly well-done, and although they're nothing ground-breaking, it definitely looks realistic, and for that, Prometheus should be applauded. We're also getting a slew of decent performances from the cast. Rapace is good as our apparent lead, although I know she's capable of stronger work (see: 2010's The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo). Fassbender offers the best performance in the film, bringing forth an android that is both the most and least human-like in the franchise. That's quite a feat considering we've gotten some great android performances in past films in the franchise from the likes of Ian Holm and Lance Henriksen. I also thought that Charlize Theron and Idris Elba played their parts well, but both were a tad bit under-utilized, in my opinion. Also be on the watch for a fine supporting performance from Guy Pearce, who you may not recognize under all his makeup.

Still, despite everything I've just said, I have a strong desire to return to the theaters to give this one another chance. Part of me thinks that the only reason I'm so put-off by the film is because it hyped itself up to be a direct prequel then left even more questions unanswered. It's almost as though Scott wanted to leave this film open-ended for a potential sequel, and I can see where they might have the possibility. I suppose we'll have to wait and see about that, but I very well may give this one another view, and should I do so, my thoughts and opinions could very well change drastically. But as it currently stands, I'd go into this one a little wary because, despite all the issues I have with its "quasi-prequel" status, there are still a few negative aspects that simply cannot be overlooked.

Movie Review Summary

Grade: B-

Should You See It? Maybe

Trailer Breakdown: DJANGO UNCHAINED

It's been three years since his last film, but Quentin Tarantino looks to come back with a vengeance with the Christmas 2012 release of Django Unchained. The first trailer for the film has finally been released, and I've taken the liberty of watching it a few times through to try to get a decent sense of what we may be getting once the film hits theaters. For starters, let's take a look at the trailer itself, shall we?

And now, let's talk about it a bit. I've come up with a few questions that came to mind while watching the trailer, and I'll do my best to answer them as accurately as I can. 

1. What is Django Unchained?

Although I'm sure many of you already know the basic plot outline, I'll recap what we're given from the trailer: 

A bounty hunter (Christoph Waltz) enlists the help of a former slave (Jamie Foxx) to find a number of slave owners with bounties on their heads. In return, the bounty hunter will help the former slave free his wife (Kerry Washington) from the clutches of an evil plantation owner (Leonardo DiCaprio) who now holds her captive. 

Knowing Tarantino, there's definitely going to be a bit more to the plot than that, but there's a good starting point for those of you curious about the film's storyline. The film is inspired by the 1966 spaghetti western Django.

2. What's up with the music in the trailer?

The first thing I noticed is that the trailer holds quite a bit of more contemporary music than one would imagine for a film of this genre. Normally, I'd think nothing of it considering Tarantino's normally brilliant music selections, but after his 2009 film Inglourious Basterds, which utilized a number of more rustic scores for the soundtrack, I had a feeling he might be going down that road again this time around. Still, this is only the trailer, and we'll have to wait and see just what Tarantino has in store for the film's soundtrack, but we can be sure it'll fit seamlessly into his storyline. 

3. Christoph Waltz is back. Is this the start of an ongoing Tarantino/Waltz collaboration?

Christoph Waltz has been acting for years and years, but most of his work prior to 2009 took place in either Germany or his native Austria. His supporting role in Inglourious Basterds, which landed him an Academy Award, revitalized his career and brought him into the international mainstream. Since then, he's appeared in sub-par films like The Green Hornet, The Three Musketeers and Water for Elephants as well as the stellar Carnage, but his role in Django Unchained looks like it might rival the one he crafted for his Oscar-winning turn. And we all know that Tarantino has a penchant for keeping some actors around his films. We can see Tim Roth and Steve Buscemi in both Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. And I think everyone knows about the continued collaboration between Tarantino and Samuel L. Jackson, who will also appear in Django Unchained. So, if Waltz wants to continue working with the director, I honestly have no problem with it.

4. Will this film revitalize Jamie Foxx's career?

I've generally liked what Jamie Foxx has managed to do as an actor, but since his Oscar-winning turn as Ray Charles in 2004's Ray, he's had much less success in garnering critical praise despite appearing in larger films like 2005's Jarhead and 2006's Dreamgirls. His last role was in 2011's Horrible Bosses where he portrayed a man named - and I kid you not - Dean 'Motherf---er' Jones. If anybody is in desperate need of a push, it's Foxx, and hopefully the role of Django can help push him back over the hill.

5. Is Leonardo DiCaprio playing a villain? 

All signs point to yes, although this isn't exactly a revelation. Tarantino hasn't been shy about letting the world know he's bringing the three-time Oscar nominee into the fray as the film's antagonist, and everything I've seen thus far makes it seem as though this could prove to be one of DiCaprio's best roles yet. It will also mark the first time in his acting career that he'll have portrayed a film's villain. Sure, he's played shady characters before, but to be the outright bad guy is something a little out of his area of expertise. But with his talents and with Tarantino's direction, this could be the surprise performance of the film.

6. What genre will Django Unchained fall under?

That's actually a pretty good question. It's currently being listed as a dramatic western, but if the trailer is any basis, then there should be an ample amount of comedy. Tarantino's screenplays often hold a legitimate level of humor, and that's part of what makes his films so entertaining and engaging. For example, the trailer shows two clips that offer the following two lines uttered by Foxx's Django: 

(when asked whether he enjoys bounty hunting)

"Kill white folks, and they pay you for it? What's not to like?

(when asked his name)

"Django. The 'D' is silent."

So I would say be prepared to laugh. At the same time, however, there should also be quite a bit of action. Django, the film that inspired this particular venture, was once billed as the most violent film of all time, and we all know just how much bloodshed Tarantino is willing to spill. Is it going to be the most violent film of all time? Certainly not; however, I would be prepared for a rootin', shootin' romp through the Southern countryside. 

*****

Ultimately, none of us will know just how good or bad the film might be until it hits theaters this Christmas. That being said, I personally have to say that I'm ecstatic to see this film. Having only in recent years come to the see the brilliance of Quentin Tarantino's filmmaking, I'm sure that Django Unchained will fit right into the canon of his filmography. I simply cannot wait.

Movie Review: DARK SHADOWS

DARK SHADOWS

2012

PG-13

"They tried stoning me, my dear. It did not work."

-- Barnabas Collins

Dark Shadows is a 2012 comedic horror film directed by Tim Burton that serves as an adaptation of the 1960s and 1970s soap opera of the same name. We meet our hero Barnabas Collins (Johnny Depp) in the late-1700s as he grows into a young man in Collinsport, Maine, where his family has established a fishing community. Barnabas entertains himself with physical relations with a servant named Angelique Bouchard (Eva Green), but is real affection lies with a young woman named Josette (Bella Heathcote). Driven by jealousy, Angelique - who happens to be a witch - casts a spell over the young lovers, sending Josette to her death whilst turning Barnabas into a vampire. After informing the townspeople of his true identity, Barnabas is locked in a coffin and buried alive for over two hundred years until he is unearthed in 1972. He makes his way back to his home and finds his descendants alive but struggling to survive with their failing business. He informs Elizabeth Collins Stoddard (Michelle Pfeiffer), the family matriarch, that he shall return the Collins name to its rightful glory. Little does he know that Angelique has survived as well and has turned the town of Collinsport into her own personal gold mine.

To start, I would like to say that I had not heard of the soap opera that inspired this film until I first learned details about the film itself. By all accounts, the soap is a bit of a cult classic, and considering the ideas and concepts behind it, I'm not surprised to see Burton attempting the adaptation. It's right up his alley, really. It's a dark, gothic tale of a vampire looking to seek revenge and restore his family's name, so what shouldn't there be to like, right? Add the fact that this film has all the makings of a typical Burton venture: Johnny Depp in the lead, an appearance by Helena Bonham Carter and music by Danny Elfman. It sounds like your typical fare.

All that being said, I was not entirely impressed with Dark Shadows. Although I was easily drawn into the story and remained engaged until the very end, there seemed something a tad bit off about this picture. Our story and screenplay aren't quite as strong as past Burton ventures, and I think that's part of the problem. While he kinda manages to blend the comedy and fantasy decently, Burton couldn't find the right amount of balance between the two. At one moment, we're locked in the drama between Johnny Depp and Eva Green, and the next, they're both doing their best to make us laugh. It just seemd as though it was very stop-and-go. We had the right amount of each genre, but rarely did it ever blend together in the proper proportions. One moment we're laughing, the next we're wondering whether the horrific deaths should be funny. Another one of the major problems is that there seems to be too many different story-lines trying to intersect one another. Now, having grown up watching my mother watch "The Young and the Restless," I can tell you that I know just how many stories can be occurring all at once on such a show, and I'm sure "Dark Shadows" was no different. Where the film fails is in its attempt to bring all those story-lines into one two-hour engagement. It proves to be too much to handle, and the entire story proves to be muddled. At the end of the day, it's just a strange tale that could've been fleshed out a little bit better, in my opinion.

Fortunately, we're getting some decent performances to augment the film where the screenplay is lacking. Depp is his usual self, bringing forth yet another memorable character for his ever-growing filmography. He might have been able to mail in this performance, and he still would have managed to be the star. That's not knocking the rest of the cast, but no one quite reaches his level. This is Depp's film, and it should be treated as such. Aside from him, I thought we were getting some good performances from the likes of Jackie Earle Haley and Bonham Carter. I thought Pfeiffer and Green weren't used in the proper way, and both of their performances seemed a tad bit strange. I also thought that Chloë Grace Moretz was vastly underutilized. As one of the stronger actresses making her way up the Hollywood ranks, she definitely has a lot more to offer than what she shows here. Perhaps we can chalk this one up to the screenplay rather than her acting talents. And a quick note: be on the watch for cameos from the likes of Christopher Lee and musician Alice Cooper, the latter of which proves to be both hilarious and entertaining.

If anything is holding this film together, it's Elfman's fancifully dark score. He always seems to have a knack for creating a pitch-perfect musical accompaniment, and Dark Shadows proves to be no different. It's not quite his best score, but it definitely ranks as one of the better ones, if I do say so myself. Here's a little snippet for your listening pleasure:

At the end of the day, Dark Shadows is an entertaining film that's not really going to stay with you for very long. Although it's better than most films released nowadays, it doesn't quite measure up to some of the past Depp-Burton collaborations. You're probably better off watching a film like 2007's Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street, or even 1999's Sleepy Hollow. They're both just a bit better than this particular venture.

Movie Review Summary

Grade: B-

Should You Watch It? Maybe

Movie Review: PIRANHA 3DD

PIRANHA 3DD

2012

R

"Welcome to rock bottom."

-- David Hasselhoff

Piranha 3DD is a 2012 horror-comedy directed by John Gulager that serves as a sequel to the 2010 film, Piranha 3D. The film opens with a news story telling us that the Lake Victoria massacre has left the town abandoned, and the reporter questions whether another such incident could possibly happen again. Fast forward one year, and we're now in the confines of a small Arizona town, where Chet (David Koechner) is preparing to re-open his late wife's water park as a not-so-family-friendly play-place, much to the chagrin of his step-daughter Maddy (Danielle Panabaker). After a close friend goes missing, Maddy discovers that the now-infamous piranha have migrated to the lake just outside the water park. Fearing for a spree similar to the spring break massacre, Maddy, her friend Barry (Matt Bush) and deputy Kyle (Chris Zylka) make their way to Lake Victoria to seek the aid of Carl Goodman (Christopher Lloyd). What they learn from him incites a new level of terror, and Maddy rushes back to the water park to plead with Chet to postpone the grand re-opening.

As I've said on so many different occasions, I couldn't begin to express my excitement for this sequel to the smash 2010 hit. I became an instant fan of Piranha 3D, and after I heard that a sequel had been greenlit, I waited (im)patiently for its ultimate release. There were to be a lot of changes: Alexandre Aja would not be returning to direct, and we were losing the basic setting of Lake Victoria. At the same time, we would see some familiar faces with returns from Lloyd, Ving Rhames and Paul Scheer. And, ultimately, we were going to have piranhas wreaking havoc. What's not to like, right? It took nearly two years, but I finally had the opportunity to sit down and watch Piranha 3DD.

What I'm about to say is a little bit discouraging: I don't know how I feel about the film. On the one hand, I thought that there was enough to make this an entertaining film, but at the same time, I honestly think that I've been gypped of so many months of waiting for something that's even a shell of what it predecessor achieved. Sadly, that can't necessarily be said about Piranha 3DD.

While the first film didn't necessarily have a plot, there was still a series of events that the audience was able to follow. This time around, however, nothing truly seems to be interconnected. We have one scene where something happens, then another where something else happens, then another and another. And yet, there's no flow to the narrative. It's simply one attack to another, with a little bit of exposition here and there. But there's nothing really to which the audience can cling, and that's going to leave a few people dazed and bored. 

One of the other reasons that Piranha 3D proved so entertaining is that we could actually care about the characters on-screen. Sure, the film didn't offer the greatest acting, but the characters were fleshed out just enough to make them redeemable and endearing. We knew who to love and who to hate, and that worked quite well in swaying us towards cheering for or against certain characters. In Piranha 3DD, we never get that. We know who we're supposed to like and who we're supposed to hate, but we just can't muster enough energy to have those emotions towards any of the characters. Some of the cameos prove to be rather entertaining, but even those are a little bit fleeting. Still, Lloyd gets to have a little more screen-time this time around, and even David Hasselhoff manages to evoke a few chuckles here and there. And yes, Gary Busey is in this movie, but his scene is over so quickly that you'll forget about it a few minutes later.

At the end of the day, Piranha 3DD is, at best, a shell of its predecessor, and a hollow shell at that. While there are a few redeemable moments, there just isn't enough to keep the film moving along as well as it should. Perhaps Piranha 3D was meant to be a novelty success, and although I can't completely hate this new piranha-centric film, I can't say that I love it either. I'm just on the fence, and sometimes, that's the last place a film wants a viewer to be. 

Movie Review Summary

Grade: D

Should You Watch It? Maybe

Movie Review: THE PIRATES! BAND OF MISFITS

THE PIRATES: BAND OF MISFITS

PG

2012

"Avast! I'm a pirate captain, and I'm here for your gold!"

-- Pirate Captain

The Pirates! Band of Misfits is a 2012 stop-motion animation film directed by Jeff Newitt & Peter Lord. The film tells the story of the bumbling Pirate Captain (voiced by Hugh Grant) who has led his crew on many adventures but has somehow managed to steal absolutely no booty. As the annual "Pirate of the Year" awards descend upon the seas, the Pirate Captain desperately attempts to find a way to win the award for the first time. He has quite a bit of competition from some of the best captains on the seven seas, but his crew is determined to help him bring home the trophy. After a string of unsuccessful attempts at plundering, the crew meets a scientist named Charles Darwin (voiced by David Tennant) who identifies the crew's parrot Polly as actually being a dodo, which the world thought to be extinct. He informs the crew that a scientists' convention might pay handsomely for such a find, so the Pirate Captain makes sail for London, knowing full well that the pirate-hating Queen Victoria (voiced by Imelda Staunton) may lay in wait.

Those of you who have been reading my reviews for quite a while will know that I'm a bit of a fan of Disney's Pirates of the Caribbean franchise, and those films got me interested in the idea of pirate movies altogether. So, when I heard about an upcoming animated film featuring a ragtag group of pirates sailing for adventure, you can be sure that I was terribly excited to see it. The Pirates! Band of Misfits even managed to pull the number five spot on my ten most anticipated films of 2012. That's saying quite a bit. And so, I impatiently awaited my opportunity to see the film, which has finally come.

I have to say that I feel a little letdown by the film, which didn't necessarily prove to be as funny as I thought it could be. Although there are plenty of moments where the film offers a smile or a chuckle, I was honestly hoping for something a little bit stronger. The film has been well-received by most critics, and it currently holds an eighty-six percent approval rating on Rottentomatoes.com. That's strong, I suppose. I mean, I did find the film utterly entertaining, and it definitely kept my interest from start to finish. Some of the jokes and gags were incredibly inventive and intelligent. They help keep the story moving along nicely, and for that, the screenplay should be commended. There just isn't a ton of depth to the storyline and the dialogue, and that itself is a bit of a knock against the screenplay. It's entertaining, but there was definitely room for improvement.

Luckily, we as the audience are getting a rather strong vocal cast for the film. Grant plays the Pirate Captain fantastically, bringing quite a bit of emotion to the character that could have easily fallen into typical caricature. I also thought that Tennant and Staunton did well. We're also getting a number of smaller vocal performances from some big-time actors. Be on the listen for the likes of Martin Freeman, Salma Hayek, Anton Yelchin, Brendan Gleeson and a slightly misplaced Jeremy Piven. But this is definitely Grant's effort, and it's a very strong effort and worth enjoying.

I do have to commend the animation crew for crafting some of the best stop-motion animation I've ever seen in a film. We're starting to see a resurgence in the stop-motion field, and I think each subsequent film will provide a little more of a piece to the puzzle, and it starts here with The Pirates! Band of Misfits. It's a visually beautiful film, and for that reason alone, it's worth watching.

At the end of the day, The Pirates! Band of Misfits is a fun film that's good for a chuckle and a few laughs, and the animation itself is astoundingly beautiful. Still, the film as a whole feels just a little bit flat, and although you'll be smiling at film's end, I'd challenge any viewer to try to remember the film a week from now. It just doesn't have that retaining factor to bring it into the upper echelon of animated films.

Movie Review Summary

Grade: B

Should You Watch It? Yes