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

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: 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: VOLCANO

VOLCANO

1997

PG-13

"Lava? Right here in L.A.?"
-- Mike Roark

Volcano is a 1997 action film directed by Mick Jackson. On a regular day in Los Angeles, a moderate-sized earthquake entices Mike Roark (Tommy Lee Jones), the head of the city's Office of Emergency Management, to put his vacation time with his daughter Kelly (Gaby Hoffman) on hold so that he can investigate the ramifications. After a number of city workers are injured and killed in some of the sewer system, Mike elects to search the area himself, finding an incredibly high temperature level in some of the city's subterranean areas. He calls on a geologist named Amy Barnes (Anne Heche) for help, and she offers the theory that there could possibly be some sort of volcanic event occurring beneath the city streets. Miffed by the idea, Roark shrugs off the theory and goes about his business in finding a way to ensure everything is fixed properly. After a massive aftershock the following morning, however, Mike comes face to face with the start of a volcanic eruption as lava starts to burst out of the La Brea Tar Pits. Head to head against the deadliest crisis he has ever seen, Mike steps up to the challenge and leads the charge to stop the super-hot substance from destroying everything in its path.

I can distinctly recall seeing the trailer for Volcano in theaters as I waited to watch one of the Star Wars "Special Edition" re-releases in early 1997. As an eight-year-old living in Los Angeles County, the sight of a volcanic eruption in Downtown L.A. frightened me to no end, and I can remember closing my eyes and covering my ears at the preview playing before me. I soon forgot about the trailer as my film of choice began, but I'll always remember that initial feeling I had when I first heard about Volcano. Over the years, I have seen bits and pieces of the film, ranging from a few seconds on television to a clip here or there on the Internet. I've always had a desire to give it a view, despite the fact that it's been relatively panned by critics and audiences alike. Something about it entering my consciousness at such a young age has continued to draw me to it, and now that I've finally had the opportunity to give it a view, I figured I would share my thoughts on the flick.

To be fair, there probably isn't a ton that I can say now, fifteen years after the fact, that's going to cause any sort of revelation about this film and its place in cinematic history. It's your typical disaster flick, with a so-so story about survival and heroism, and the character development is forced yet still underdeveloped. Essentially, we're just getting the reactions of characters to the events surrounding them, but there isn't anything terribly in-depth about the film at all. It's a shallow movie that doesn't force you to think, and some of the scenarios are downright outlandish. It forces emotion on its viewers through a string of "heroic" acts - always shot in slow motion, by the way - that serve as the only true feeling within the film itself. I can't say that this film ever truly deserved to be considered a "quality" flick, but who knows, right?

The cast proves to be decent, but it's not as though anyone is truly stepping up to the plate to stand above the rest. Jones and Heche as serviceable in the leading roles, and the aforementioned Hoffman is okay in her limited amount of screen-time. Don Cheadle, one of my personal favorite actors, manages to shine just a little bit brighter whenever he's on-screen, and his presence alone makes this one worth watching for me personally. We get a decent bit from Jacqueline Kim as a selfless surgeon trying to help the injured, and we even get a bit performance from Keith David, so that's nice, I guess.

Also, I do have to say that I'm not quite sure how to critique the film's special effects. At times, the computer-generated lava flow seems to look very realistic, but at other times, it's so blatantly apparent that it's been crafted by through CGI. The sign of strong computer-generated effects is the inability for the viewer to distinguish between the effect and the real world, and at times, Volcano succeeds in doing just that. It just isn't consistent throughout the entire film. There are a few moments where you simply have to laugh at the shoddy effects and take it for what it is. At a time when films were creating realistic-looking dinosaurs for Jurassic Park or brilliant effects for Titanic, it's hard to explain how Volcano managed to drop the ball.

And still, despite everything I've just said, there's something endearingly entertaining about the film that stems from its simplicity. From the start of the film, we can hear the engine revving in the background, and as soon as it steps on the pedal, the film never lets off and never allows the viewer a moment to look away. Sure, there are going to be moments where you'll laugh at something over-the-top and ridiculous, but you're going to be honed in on the movie as it progresses forward, laughable as it may be. It's a selfless film that holds no delusions of grandeur; rather, it simply offers what it has and does its very best to keep us engaged until the final credits role. In that simple task, I think Volcano is a triumphant success, and although it's nowhere near the most intriguing of the disaster films, I have to say that it's definitely one of the most entertaining.

Movie Review Summary

Grade: D+

Should You Watch It? Maybe

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: MEN IN BLACK III

MEN IN BLACK III

2012

PG-13

"I promised the secrets of the universe, nothing more."

-- Agent K

Men in Black III is a 2012 sci-fi comedy directed by Barry Sonnenfeld that serves as the third installment in the Men in Black film franchise and the first to hit theaters since 2002. After a dangerous killer named Boris the Animal (Jemaine Clement) escapes from his lunar prison, he heads back to Earth to find and kill Agent K (Tommy Lee Jones), who had captured and imprisoned him forty years earlier as he had attempted to aid in an interplanetary invasion. He devises a plan to go back in time to kill a younger K so that he will no longer exist in the present. Soon afterward, K disappears from the present day, leading to emotional unrest for his partner Agent J (Will Smith), who then follows Boris into the past to keep him from exacting his plan. When he reaches 1969, he finds a young K (Josh Brolin), and the two work together, with the help of a solitary alien named Griffin (Michael Stuhlbarg), to stop Boris from destroying the planet.

It's been fifteen years since the first Men in Black film turned into a box office smash back, and it's been ten years since we last saw Smith and Jones team up as the alien-fighting team we've grown to know and love. Although I've enjoyed the past two entries in the series, I can't say that I was ever the biggest fan of the films. Still, they proved to be entertaining enough for me to want to see this latest installment, and the addition of actors like Brolin, Clement and Stuhlbarg definitely made the concept a little more intriguing.

Let's start with the screenplay. Although the film doesn't necessarily break any ground on bringing forth new ideas, it still manages to be entertaining. The jokes and gags are pretty consistent, and although I was never l rolling with laughter, I still managed to offer a chuckle here and there. The storyline proves to be engaging, and even though the idea of cinematic time travel has been tried and tested, it still manages to feel fresh in this one. And we're even getting a few twists and turns here and there, some of which I didn't predict until they happened. Ultimately, the story allows the viewer to enter the film and remain engaged with it throughout the film, and for that, it should be commended.

We're also getting a slew of decent performances from the cast. Smith and Jones are their standard selves, but this is really Smith's vehicle. Because of the story's constructs, Jones only appears in the early and later moments of the film. Fortunately, we're getting a clever impersonation job from the likes of Brolin in the intermediary moments. When I first saw the trailers for the film introducing Brolin as the younger Agent K, I immediately thought him to be a fine choice purely based off his look. After seeing the film, however, I can say that Brolin does a fine job filling the shoes, and he proves to bring most of the film's comedy to the table. I also thought that Stuhlbarg managed to steal the show with his performance, and if there's any reason to see the film, it's him alone. Also be on the watch for decent bits from the likes of Clement, Emma Thompson, Nicole Scherzinger and Bill Hader in a cameo appearance.

At the end of the day, Men in Black III might not be the best in the franchise, but it still proves to be an entertaining venture and pleasant addition to the franchise's overall storyline. It fills in a lot of questions that fans may have had about the characters, and even manages to flesh out our two leads a little bit further. For that, I think we can all be appreciative.

Movie Review Summary

Grade: B

Should You See It? Yes

Movie Review: INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL

INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL

2008

PG-13

"How much of human life is lost in waiting?"

-- Professor 'Ox' Oxley

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is a 2008 action-adventure film directed by Steven Spielberg that serves as the fourth installment in the Indiana Jones franchise. Released nineteen years after The Last Crusade, this new adventure with Indiana Jones took a very different turn than its predecessors. The film opens on the 1950s, where an aged Indiana (Harrison Ford) has been taken captive by a group of Russian KGB operatives led by a Dr. Irina Spalko (Cate Blanchett). At gunpoint, Indiana helps the Russians steal a classified box from a secret warehouse, but he does not know exactly what the box's contents contain. After being returned home, he thinks himself done with the situation until a young man named Mutt (Shia LaBeouf) seeks him out to tell him that a mutual friend named Professor 'Ox' Oxley (John Hurt) has been captured by the same Russians in connection with the box they stole. The two make their way to South America to find Ox, and it is there that they learn that their friend had found himself caught in a plot to find a legendary city called Akator by using an equally legendary artifact known as the crystal skull. Indiana and Mutt start to piece together the puzzle that Ox has left for them, but the Russians are soon on their tail once again, eager to find Akator first.

I would like to start this post by telling you a story. I was a sophomore in college in Santa Cruz when Kingdom of the Crystal Skull hit theaters, and like most other Indy fans, I was rather excited to see it. So excited, in fact, that I made the trek down to the local theater for the midnight screening on opening night. The theater was sold out, and fans were lined up around the block to see Ford don the fedora for the fourth time, so you can imagine our audience's anticipation as we sat impatiently waiting for the opening credits to roll.

Fast forward to a little over two hours later, and you would have found me walking out of the theater talking nothing but trash about this film. After that first go-around, I hated it. I despised it. I though that Spielberg had found a way to destroy one of my childhood cinematic heroes. And for that, I was rightfully angry. It took me a few days, but after I thought about the film for a while, I started to come around and think that maybe it wasn't as horrendous as I had originally thought. I soon came home for the summer, and I had the chance to view the film again per my father's request, and seeing Kingdom of the Crystal Skull actually helped to open my eyes to its concepts and themes a little bit more.

I always hear quite a bit of opposition towards this film when I talk about it amongst my friends and my readers, and I can somewhat see their point. I am in now way going to spend hours here trying to convince you of why this film fits into the Indiana Jones canon - although I may save that project for a later date - but I think that I should at least tell you why I happen to enjoy the film. Because so many people did not like Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, many actually forget that it managed to secure relatively positive reviews amongst the critical community. On Rottentomatoes.com, the film holds a seventy-seven percent approval rating and holds the following critical consensus:

Though the plot elements are certainly familiar, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull still delivers the thrills, and Harrison Ford's return to the title role is more than welcome.

Even more indicating of the critical response is the film's score of sixty-five on Metacritic.com, which correlates to "generally favorable reviews." Still, so many of the fans have yet to come around, and I'm sure I know why.

Ultimately, it all boils down to the fact that Kingdom of the Crystal Skull does not measure up to its predecessors. Because those films set such a lofty bar, it would have been nearly impossible to reach that particular goal. Still, fans were deservedly spoiled by the first three installments, so why shouldn't they expect something the same, right? But enough of this vagueness. Let's talk about why I like this film.

For starters, I like the story. I think it's an original tale of something that an over-the-top archaeologist like Indiana Jones might actually find himself looking for. Sure, there are some snags here and there, but to be fair, none of the Indiana Jones flicks are perfect. They all have flaws here and there, and Kingdom just has a few more that it couldn't quite work out. But the storyline works well and flows incredibly well, and it manages to keep you wondering where it might actually be going. Let's be honest - did any of us really expect those climactic scenes in Akator? I think not, and I think that's why so many people have spoken out against it. But the story itself works and proves to be entertaining.

I also thought the cast proved to be effective as well. Ford does a fine job reprising his role from nearly twenty years earlier, and he plays the part to a tee considering how much he's aged. I also think that Blanchett was a good addition to the cast list, and her star power alone makes this one worth a gander. Some of my readers will know that I'm not much of a Shia LaBeouf fan, but after re-watching this today, I have to say that I'm not entirely turned off by his performance. It works well with the context of the story, and he's really not as central as I had remembered. John Hurt gives a fine performance in a supporting role, but it's so out there that I think most people overlooked it. Also be on the watch for decent supporting roles from the likes of Ray Winstone, Jim Broadbent and Karen Allen, who returns as Marion Ravenwood.

At the end of the day, there's no way that Kingdom of the Crystal Skull can ever be compared to the rest of the Indiana Jones franchise. However, that does not make it a terrible film. I think it's a movie that polarized a lot of viewers at the time of its release, but by giving it another chance now, I think many of them might be able to see past their original insecurities. Ultimately, it's an entertaining romp through the Indy universe, and for that, I think we should all be glad.

Movie Review Summary

Grade: B

Should You Watch It? Yes

Movie Review: INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE

INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE

1989

PG-13

"You call this archaeology?"

-- Professor Henry Jones

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade is a 1989 action-adventure film directed by Steven Spielberg that serves as the third installment in the Indiana Jones franchise. This film once again sees our hero, Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) doing battle against the Nazis, who are once again on a quest to find a a famous Christian artifact: the Holy Grail. Indy is brought into the chase after wealthy artifact collector Walter Donovan (Julian Glover), who is funding an expedition for the Grail, tells him that his father, Henry Jones Sr. (Sean Connery), has gone missing whilst researching the Grail's whereabouts. Indiana immediately flies to Venice, Italy to pick up the trail where his father left off. He's joined by his close friend Marcus Brody (Denholm Elliott), and the two join forces with the young Elsa Schneider (Alison Doody), who had been assisting the elder Jones in his search. As the three dig deeper into the Grail legend, it becomes increasingly clear that there are many sides to the tale, both of the Grail and of the people on the journey.

Fans of the Indiana Jones franchise had to wait five years after Temple of Doom for The Last Crusade to hit theaters, but many of them found it to be quite the return to form. It definitely feels a lot more like Raiders of the Lost Ark, and many a fan greatly appreciated the switch back to that particular feel. I've always found to be The Last Crusade my personal favorite in the series, even if it's not necessarily the best of the bunch. There's something incredibly endearing about it as a movie, and it's entertainment factor is only matched by the franchise's first installment.

Part of the reason this film proves to be so good is the fact that we're getting what might arguably be the best screenplay in the franchise. On the one hand, we're getting a clever tale that rivals the quest for the Ark of the Covenant from Raiders, and the twists and turns with that part of the story make this one engaging and entertaining by themselves. It's some of the other facets, however, that push The Last Crusade over the top. The characterization provided by this particular screenplay is the best of the series by far, and for the first time since Raiders, we're given a true sense of being from the Indiana character. We're seeing multiple dimensions added to the character throughout the film, and by film's end, the audience can clearly see that he has changed. And he's not the only character who offers quite a spectacle. By introducing Indy's father into the series, we finally get to see the relationship between Henry Jones Sr. and Henry Jones Jr. We could've made a movie solely centered around that particular relationship, and it probably would've proved to be incredibly insightful and clever, but there's something even deeper going on here.

Although there's always been a facet of either religion or magic or mysticism or what have you in each of the Indiana Jones films, we never really get the sense that Indiana himself is starting to buy into all the hoopla. In Raiders, he merely understands the power of the Ark, but it's not as though he truly comes to respect it. In Temple of Doom, we get a look at an older, more pagan religion, so there wasn't really any sense of conversion on Indy's part. In The Last Crusade, however, there's a definite change in beliefs and ideas on the part of our hero. In order to complete his journey, he's almost required to go through a spiritual conversion, and that bit of personal growth is what makes this film all the more powerful. I know that I only hours ago stated that Temple of Doom was easily the most emotionally powerful of the Indiana Jones films, but after re-watching The Last Crusade, I think I have to change my opinion. With the spiritual change and the relationship between Indy and his father, there's no doubt in my mind that the screenplay allows for this one to take the emotional cake.

The strong characterization in the screenplay also allows for the actors to bring forth some fantastic performances. Of all the Indiana Jones films, I'd have to rank this as the best-acted by Harrison Ford, and a lot of it has to do with the aforementioned points of the script. It gave him the opportunity to flesh out Indy a little bit more than he had been able to do in the previous films, and for that, I think he owes the screenplay a debt of gratitude. It's also a pleasure to see the great Sean Connery on-screen, especially in what might be his most iconic role aside from his numerous portrayals of James Bond. The chemistry between Ford and Connery is so authentic that you'd even start to believe that they could be real-life father and son. They just work that well together. It's astounding, really. We're also getting some good performances from the likes of Doody and Donovan, who's more René Belloq than Mola Ram, and I think that works for the better. Also be on the watch for a short cameo from River Phoenix as a young Indiana Jones that proves to be rather entertaining. The only issue that I had with the acting was the performances by Denholm Elliott and John Rhys-Davies, who both reprise their roles from Raiders of the Lost Ark. Whereas they were both relatively serious characters in the first film, they seem to be more caricatures of themselves this time around. Now, this might be what the screenplay calls for, but it was just a little bit off-putting for me.

And, once again, we're getting a fantastic score from John Williams, who brings a lot of new pieces for this particular film to accentuate the march he established in the first film. One of my favorite pieces from this film is the score he gave to the Grail, which proves to be rather powerful and beautiful, in my opinion. Here's a snippet for your listening pleasure:

At the end of the day, I'd have to say that Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade is probably my favorite film in the franchise. Although it's not quite as good as the original Raiders of the Lost Ark, the characterization and spirituality of this film pushes it over the top in terms of personal preference. Ultimately, it's one of my go-to films whenever I need a pick-me-up because it just manages to blend all of its themes and tones together so perfectly. It's just a beautifully-made film, and I have to tip my hat to Spielberg for having the guts to give the Christianity bit another go-around. Kudos, good sir.

Movie Review Summary

Grade: A

Should You Watch It? Yes

Movie Review: THE AVENGERS

THE AVENGERS

2012

PG-13

"You think you're the only hero in the world?"

-- Nick Fury

The Avengers is a 2012 superhero action film directed by Joss Whedon that brings together the Marvel super-team for which the film is named. It serves as a type of sequel to a number of Marvel-centric films that have been released in the past four years. This film centers around an object known as the Tesseract, an energy source with an unknown amount of potential, which is stolen in the opening scenes by the banished Asgardian Loki (Tom Hiddleston). Because he perceives this as a threat and an act of war, S.H.I.E.L.D. director Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) chooses to assemble the Avengers in the hopes of bringing them together to stop Loki's nefarious plot. After pulling some strings, he manages to bring together Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.), Steve Rogers (Chris Evans), Thor (Chris Hemsworth), Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo) and Natasha Romanoff (Scarlett Johansson), but they initially have a bit of trouble getting along. Loki, with the help of Dr. Erik Selvig (Stellan Skarsgård) and Clint Barton (Jeremy Renner), makes a successful attack against S.H.I.E.L.D., and the ensuing battle helps pull the Avengers into a more cohesive unit. Armed and ready, they prepare to square off against Loki and his army of Chitauri who aim to conquer the Earth.

I would like to start this review by saying that I am by no means a die-hard Marvel comics fan. In fact, I'm not quite sure whether I've actually read an Marvel superhero comic, let alone one that's Avengers-centric. Anything I know about the Avengers Initiative stems from the films that have been released over the past few years. Still, I found myself becoming increasingly excited about the potential for The Avengers despite my relatively positive review of Captain America: The First Avenger and my so-so review of Thor. However, when the film started to garner extremely positive reviews, I definitely started to pay a little more attention. At the writing of this review, The Avengers currently holds a ninety-two percent approval rating on Rottentomatoes.com, and it holds the following critical consensus:

With a script that never forgets its heroes' humanity and no shortage of superpowered set pieces, The Avengers lives up to its hype - and raises the bar for Marvel at the movies.

I'd have to say that I agree wholeheartedly.

Part of the reason the film works so well is the creative genius that is Joss Whedon. Those of you who read my review for The Cabin in the Woods will know that I think very highly of Whedon's talents as a screenwriter, and I personally think he's rather deft behind the camera as well. While this film doesn't necessarily feel like your typical Joss Whedon fare, it certainly has the pitch-perfect dialogue that fills his work. And what's truly great about the screenplay is that Whedon was able to flesh out the characters incredibly well despite the fact that there's so many different personalities dominating the screen. One of my biggest fears entering this film was whether the high number of A-list actors might overcrowd the film as they all jockey for position. With Whedon at the helm, however, each character is given exactly the right amount of screen-time, and just the right amount of touch is given to each of their personalities. While we may have been introduced to the characters in their own respective films, their relationships with one another in The Avengers are the facets that truly start to humanize each individual, making them more likable both individually and as a whole. This is where I thought the film succeeded most, by establishing each member of the Avengers as an individual with a specific set of emotions that ultimately makes them more easily relatable.

I also think that the dialogue and screenplay allowed for each of the actors to step up their game. Now, it was going to be tough for Downey Jr. to top his performances as Tony Stark/Iron Man from his two films, but I thought he did a fantastic job at least staying on par. I thought both Chris Evans and Chris Hemsworth stepped it up a notch and brought more thoughtful and emotional characters to the screen this time around. It was also nice to get a little more of a back-story on Johansson and Renner's characters. The real surprise, however, was Tom Hiddleston as the devious Loki. As I previously mentioned, I was not a huge fan of the film Thor, and part of the reason it was so off-putting was that I didn't feel the need to root against Loki, who was also the villain in that film. This time around, there's something much more sinister about him, and I honestly thought Hiddleston brought his A-game. It's a truly fantastic performance, and I have to say that he should be applauded. Also be on the watch for some great smaller performances from the likes of Clark Gregg and Cobie Smulders, as well as vocal performances from Paul Bettany and Lou Ferrigno.

Oh, and some of the film's intangible qualities are top-notch as well. The special effects are utterly fantastic, and I was continually wowed by just how great the visual aspect of the film continued to be. On a personal note, I think they finally found a way to convey the Hulk properly, but that's just my own opinion. Some of the special effects are so beautifully intricate that you'll have a hard time believing that it's actually computer-generated. It's just that good. I'd also like to applaud Alan Silvestri for the score he composed for the film. It fit perfectly, and it might be one of the more memorable scores I've heard of late. Here's a snippet for your listening pleasure:

(Oh, and as with any Marvel film, make sure you stay all the way through the credits. There's a scene - or two - left there for your viewing pleasure.)

At the end of the day, The Avengers is one of the most honestly entertaining films I've seen in quite a while. I laughed and cheered along with the rest of the midnight audience, and it's easily one of the better movie-going experiences I've had in recent memory. I heard a few people already calling it the "best superhero movie" they'd ever seen, and although I can't quite place it on that high a pedestal just yet - The Dark Knight still holds that spot, and The Dark Knight Rises looms on the horizon - I'd say The Avengers definitely has to be in the conversation. It's just a fantastically-made film that's sure to keep a smile on your face.

Movie Review Summary

Grade: A

Should You See It? Yes

Movie Review: THE HUNGER GAMES

THE HUNGER GAMES

2012
PG-13


"May the odds be ever in your favor."
-- Effie Trinket

The Hunger Games is a 2012 dramatic action film directed by Gary Ross that serves as an adaptation of Suzanne Collins' novel of the same name. In a dystopian future amidst the ruins of what was once North America, where the nation of Panem has arisen. After suffering a massive civil war, the leaders in the Capitol decided on a punishment for the twelve outlying districts that rose up against them. From that time, each year would see an annual "Hunger Games," in which each district would send one young man and one young woman between the ages of twelve and eighteen to be trained in combat and survival before fighting one another to the death as part of a show for the residents of the Capitol. The time has come for the 74th Annual Hunger Games, and we meet our heroine, Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence), who finds herself as one of District 12's "tributes" to the Games after volunteering to take her sister's place. She and Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson), the other tribute from the district, make their way to the Capitol to receive their training before entering the arena against twenty-two other young people, all of whom are desperately trying to survive.

I think I have to start this review by stating that I have not read Collins' source novel in its entirety. At the time I saw this film, I had not read any of it, but in the time since, I've managed to secure a copy and have started to read a little bit here and there. Therefore, most of my relationship with this story comes from the film, which I've already begun to realize stays relatively true to the source material, but as with any adaptation, it also has its differences. So all that being said, let's get on with the review, shall we?

Because I wasn't all that familiar with the novel itself, I can't say that I was terribly excited when I heard about the film's adaptation. I had heard all the buzz from the fans, but seeing as I didn't have any prior knowledge, I couldn't seem to wrap my head around all the fuss. As the film's release date grew closer and closer, the buzz increased tenfold, and when the film opened to stellar reviews, I knew I had to see it as soon as I could. Joined by my fanatic of a girlfriend, I ventured down to the local theater and quietly watched as the reel started to roll.

What I saw was a beautifully-crafted film that managed to pull on heartstrings and leave you desperately wanting for more. I suppose I'll start with the film's screenplay. Now, I've heard from a number of fans that this film is one of the better novel-to-film adaptations that they had ever witnessed, stating that the movie follows so closely to the book's storyline that its almost a little uncanny. Not being able to distinguish this myself, I merely had to follow along and keep up as best I can. There were two things about the screenplay that truly stood out to me. First, I liked the fact that it jumped right into the action. We don't waste any time getting to the "Reaping," where the tributes from each district are chosen. By throwing the audience into the fray immediately, it almost catches us a little off-guard and forces us to stay engaged with everything that's happening, and I thought this tactic worked well here. Second, I thought the film explained the events very clearly, which was a huge help for someone like me who was unfamiliar with the storyline. These two things gave me the opportunity to enter the story and keep up with it throughout the film, and for that alone, the screenplay should be applauded.

One of the biggest differences between the book and the movie, however, is the point of view. The novel is written in the first-person, giving us her thoughts and her actions through her own eyes. The film, however, has to take a third-person approach, offering the viewer a slightly different perspective. For example, once she's in the arena, Katniss could only know what's happening in her immediate surroundings. In the film, we're able to see beyond the arena and into the minds of the people watching and hoping and praying that she makes it out alive. Even based off the little bit of the novel I've read, I think that this added a little more depth to the film, only making its story all the stronger.

Luckily, we're also getting a stellar cast to bring the film's characters to life. Jennifer Lawrence has been all the rave since the film was released, and there's definitely a reason for it. She plays her part to the tee, and despite her already above average acting credentials, this has been the performance to spring her to superstardom. I first saw her talents in 2010's Winter's Bone, and I knew then that she could act. Her performance in The Hunger Games only cements my previous thoughts on her abilities. Hutcherson also does well in his performance, but I felt he was a tad bit overshadowed by Lawrence. We're also getting a fantastic supporting cast that includes the likes of Woody Harrelson, Stanley Tucci, Elizabeth Banks, Lenny Kravitz and Donald Sutherland. All in all, I'd have to say that the casting department did a fine job here.

We're also getting a great musical score from the likes of James Newton Howard, who always knows how to set the tone of a film with his compositions. The music always seems to fit into the storyline, and it greatly aids the overall movie-going experience.

At the end of the day, I thought The Hunger Games was a fantastic film that managed to strike a chord with both fans and non-fans alike. It's always rare for a film to drive me to read the source novel, but this has definitely been one of those cases. If a movie can impact me that much, then there must be quite a bit of merit to it. It's just a truly well-made film, and it deserves all the accolades its receiving.

Movie Review Summary
Grade: A-
2 Thumbs Up

Movie Review: SALMON FISHING IN THE YEMEN

SALMON FISHING IN THE YEMEN

2012
PG-13


"We need a good news story from the Middle East. A big one. Get on with it.
 -- Patricia Maxwell

Salmon Fishing in the Yemen is a 2012 romantic drama directed by Lasse Hallström that's based off the Paul Torday novel of the same name that tells the story of a group of people trying to introduce the sport of salmon fishing into the Yemen. The idea started with Sheikh Muhammed (Amr Waked), a very wealthy oil industrialist as well as fishing enthusiast, who not only wants to fish in his native homeland but also wants to bring life and fertility to an area that has seen drought and poverty destroy his people's way of life. The Sheikh enlists the help of his personal assistant Harriet (Emily Blunt) to find a way to make his plan take flight. Her search finds fisheries expert Dr. Alfred Jones (Ewan McGregor), who immediately rejects the idea as ludicrous. At the same time, the British government suffers a massive PR disaster after a battalion in Afghanistan is wiped out. In response, the Prime Minister's Press Secretary Patricia Maxwell (Kristin Scott Thomas) tries to find a "good news story" from the Middle East, and when she stumbles upon the salmon fishing idea, she does everything in her power to push the project forward.

I had heard about this film a few months ago, and although the trailer didn't strike a "must-see" chord with me, I never really counted it out as a possibility. The idea seemed interesting and fresh, and I thought we might be getting an effective film. And, after the film started to garner generally positive reviews (it currently holds a 68% approval rating on Rottentomatoes.com), I figured it'd be worth a shot. I saw the film as a family outing on Easter, and I'd have to say it proved to be an enjoyable experience.

Let's start with the screenplay. It's coming from Simon Beaufoy, the Academy Award-winning screenwriter who brought us films like 2008's Slumdog Millionaire and 2010's 127 Hours, so you know the credentials are sound. And while this screenplay doesn't necessarily measure up to those aforementioned films, I do have to say that Beaufoy brought forth a story that proves entertaining throughout. Although the story delves into a slew of predictability throughout the film, I still found a way to keep myself engaged with the storyline, but I think that may have been a result of the characters moreso than the storyline itself. Beaufoy has managed to craft some well-rounded characters in the past, and Salmon Fishing offers a similar spectacle.

While well-crafted characters can portray themselves well on paper, it ultimately comes down to the actors to bring those characters to life on-screen. Fortunately, we're getting a pretty good cast in Salmon Fishing, and each actor succeeds in bringing their character into a reasonable level of believability. Still, I found it difficult to center on any character in particular, and that proves a bit of a problem for the film. McGregor and Blunt are the film's stars, but at times I was more fascinated by the supporting characters - most often, by Thomas's performance - that our two leads sort of faded into the background. Despite this, I do think the cast is rather well-rounded, and they each played their parts well, but there really isn't anyone who stood out so far above the rest that they truly deserve special mention. It's just a solid cast all around.

A quick side note: for those of you big on film scores and the music used in movies, be on the listen for this particular score, which was composed by Academy Award-winner Dario Marianelli. Although it's not really his best work, I thought his score complemented the film rather well.

At the end of the day, Salmon Fishing in the Yemen is a predictable but enjoyable adventure that delves into romance and politics and war. Is it going to be a film you'll remember for a while? Probably not, but that doesn't mean that you can't enjoy it while it lasts.

Movie Review Summary
Grade: C
1 Thumb Up

Movie Review: RED TAILS

RED TAILS

2012
PG-13


"We have a right to fight for our country, the same as every other American. We will not go away."
-- Colonel A.J. Bullard

Red Tails is a 2012 war film directed by Anthony Hemingway that tells the story of the Tuskagee Airmen, a squadron of African-American fighter pilots in World War II. Subjected to simple missions, the squadron led by Marty 'Easy' Julian (Nate Parker) and Joe 'Lightning' Little (David Oyelowo) finds themselves bored with the war they've chosen to fight. Despite having proven their ability time and again, the higher-ranking officers don't see any reason to give the Tuskagees any more responsibility. However, Colonel A.J. Bullard (Terrence Howard) finally makes a deal with the head of a bombing squadron who has been consistently losing bombers after their fighter escorts chose to attack the enemy fighters rather than provide cover. After a successful first mission, the Tuskagees, who have become affectionately referred to as 'Red Tails,' continue to delve deeper into their wartime effort, taking on more and more difficult missions until they're offered the chance to make a final run at Berlin itself.

I know I'm a bit late on seeing this film, but I finally had the opportunity to sit down and give it a watch. Part of the reason that Red Tails gained so much early publicity is the fact that Star Wars creator George Lucas financed and produced the project. When you have that big of a name stamped onto a film, you can be sure it's at least going to generate a bit of publicity, even if the film itself isn't exactly all that great. Sadly, that's the case here.

The first thing you're going to notice is that the film's dialogue seems way too forced and almost proves to be laughable from the get-go. As you may know, I consider an effective screenplay to combine two things: a decent storyline and above-average dialogue. When it comes to the things the characters say, their words have to match the time and the place of the film and seem realistic given the film's setting and the characters themselves. Unfortunately, Red Tails fails entirely on this given point. While the film offers an interesting - albeit fictionalized - story based on real events, the dialogue is so atrociously bad that it took me out of the film from the start. Nothing any of the characters say seems realistic, and it all just seems out of place from the World War II effort. In a way, the dialogue makes the characters a little too unbelievable, and as a result, there's no way for the audience to get lost in the storyline. The screenwriters got half the formula, but you need all the ingredients to make an effective screenplay.

It's just too bad that the script isn't all that great because the acting isn't half-bad. Sure, we're not really getting anything awards-worthy, but considering the type of film, I thought the cast did a decent job. Parker and Oyelowo steal the show, but Howard does manage to have a few good scenes. Also be on the watch for smaller roles from the likes of Bryan Cranston, Cuba Gooding Jr. and Ne-Yo.

If anything works well within the film, it's the dogfight sequences. Lucas has always been on the top of his game when it comes to special effects, and as we have seen with the Star Wars franchise, he sure knows how to bring forth the aerial battles. The dogfights seem mostly genuine, and they offer the only bits of excitement that the film is going to produce. Sure, the effects themselves aren't necessarily top-notch, but they're still pretty darn good considering. These dogfights may be as close as we get to new Star Wars-esque battles, and for that, Red Tails may be worth the time.

At the end of the day, Red Tails is probably a film you can miss. Although it did generate a bit of publicity early on, it failed to score at the box office, earning less than it took to make. The melodramatic and predictable storyline, mixed with off-kilter dialogue, makes this one a tad bit unwatchable and ultimately throws away some quality visual effects work. It's just too bad no one's really going to appreciate it.

Movie Review Summary
Grade: D
1.5 Thumbs Down