The Purge (2013)

The Purge is a government sanctioned program that involves 12 hours of hell, where everything illegal is legal. It essentially ends up being a murderous rampaging free-for-all; an incredibly scary concept. This is a highly disturbing movie with grotesquely violent parts.

It doesn't waste time with introductions but still has a well development foundation. Everyone is introduced clearly. The rest of the story moves just as fast; too fast at times.

There is no shortage of screaming and jumping. The directing and music coordination make it even worse (or better, depending on how you look at it). The masks and the slow motion shots are brilliantly scary! The director, James DeMonaco, makes the movie so much scarier than the story itself.

DeMonaco doesn't spend too much time focusing on the underlying philosophical debate of the injustice of inequality, but it's very clear and present nonetheless.

Ethan Hawke as James Sandin is pretty...good. ;) Then again, he's just as consistently good as he is consistently underrated. It's hard to recognize how great of an actor he is because he plays his roles that well. His ego does not let him ruin the role. He knows when he needs to be subdued, and really that is when he is at his best. It's hard to explain.

Lena Headey, of Game of Thrones fame, as Mary Sandin is decent. Her character isn't deeply defined. Do not use this film as a testament to her ability. She is much better than this.

Rhys Wakefield as the "Polite Leader" is SO creepy with his band of psychos. 

The main problem with the Sandins is that they are so under prepared. Then again, it might be to portray their naivety. Which they have a lot of! 

A word of advice when watching The Purge, listen to the intro and the credits. It adds great context. In the end, this is a home-invasion story. But what sets it apart from typical home-invasion movies is the propeller that creates the entire scenario.

I would recommend watching this one, but be warned, it's not for the faint of heart. However, if you're going to watch it, make sure to turn all the lights off to get the full effect.

Don't forget, this is an independent film with a small budget even by independent movie standards. Many people are criticizing it as though it isn't; which is only a testament to how great it really is. I suspect the sequel, because there will most definitely be one, will be much better.

The Purge Trailer...

Spoilers and Questions:

Don't trust anyone!

Why don't they have an escape plan?

Why don't they have a panic room? Hello Jodie Foster!

And finally, TAKE THE DAMN GUN! TAKE THE DAMN GUN! WHY AREN'T YOU TAKING THE DAMN GUNS? It's so frustrating.

Ender's Game (2013)

Written by guest blogger contributor Bryan R.

Ender's Game: An epic, thought-provoking tale about a young boy ostracized by his peers who attempts to overcome the odds with cunning and tenacity, is converted into a fast-paced, eye-opening spectacle about a teen-age boy ostracized by his peers who attempts to overcome the odds with cunning and tenacity. (yes I meant to repeat myself)

This one is hard. I've read the book by Orson Scott Card, so this review will be somewhat bias. So much of the book is describing what is inside Ender's head, while most of the movie is depicting what is inside Ender's heart.

The book is a quick read, but not because of it's length; you just can't put it down. Despite the films accuracy, there is so much in the book that was cut out from the film for speed's sake that if you watch this after reading the book it will feel rushed. That being said, if you read the book after watching the movie, it might have a lingering visual of Ender that conflicts with the novel.

Things that were good: Cinematography, directing, screen play (as good/accurate as it could be in 2 hrs), costume, set design.

So many things were done right with the visuals; AMAZING! From the combat suits to the life-like, computer-animated aliens; there really is a feeling of present meets future while not distracting you from the story.  The training room scenes leave you wanting to see more, while the swarm of alien ships during battle scenes displays the immensity of their situation while depicting a bug-like behavior.

If I were to nit-pick about anything visually, it would be the lack of dimensions during the final battle. Despite the constant reminders throughout the story that space has no definite up or down, the director still chose to display it two dimensionally: left to right. Also, the space ships were designed with the traditional form, in my opinion, an artistic design slip.

Harrison Ford who plays Colonel Graff, does a good job of portraying the stress of the decisions a military leader has to make. He does look a little out of the age bracket for a Colonel though.

It's unfortunate, but the worst thing about this movie was the casting of Ender Wiggin, played by Asa Butterfield. First of all, one of the most fascinating aspects about the original story was how mentally advanced the children were. The book starts off with Ender showing his genius at age 6. The film, however, portrays Ender somewhere between 12-14, which is awkwardly noticeable when Butterfield stands next to Ford. Putting his age aside, Butterfield's acting lacks a passion to counter his fury. The times when he is enraged are well played, but when it came to suffering and compassion, he lacks energy. It also seems like some of his words get lost in his mouth. Other than that he was excellent.

Ender's Game Trailer

Pacific Rim (2013)

Pacific Rim is Robocop meets Godzilla, on steroids. The digital effects are incredible. The visuals really display the enormity of the robots and aliens well. It's simply remarkable to watch. It is however a little busy on the eyes. Not as busy as a Michael Bay film, but if you're not an action fan in general, you might not appreciate the sequences as much.

This is essentially a digital film with some really bad human actors. The casting and acting is all wrong. COMPLETELY wrong! Charlie Hunnam, who plays Raleigh Becket, and Rinko Kikuchi, who plays Mako Mori, are downright embarrassing. It's painfully clear there was no budget left for decent actors. It is exacerbated by a sloppy script and a lack of directing effort (on the human aspects) by Guillermo del Toro.

The character development lacks attention and focuses on the wrong people. It focuses on Raleigh and Mako when it should focus on the father-son duo, Herc and Chuck Hansen, played by Max Martini and Robert Kazinsky respectively. Kazinsky, pulling the best performance of the entire movie, clearly should have been the star.

The Russian and Chinese pilots are fun and quirky. There isn't enough time paid to them and not enough pilots either. It would have been fun to see all of them training together and getting to know each other. Instead, you're forced to follow around aimless Raleigh.

Idris Elba, as "Marshall" Stacker Pentecost, is underutilized in his ability and his character. The trailers misrepresent his role in the action.

I would recommend watching this one but only for the amazing digital effects.

Side note: One thing that bothers me; I found it quite odd that there are hardly any marine animals. There are a few fish, that's it. A little weird considering the robots and aliens are walking through the ocean like it's a swimming pool.

Pacific Rim Trailer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5guMumPFBag

The Heat (2013)

Ugh. I almost didn't want to review this one, so it will be short. No matter how hard I wished for it to be good, it isn't. The comedy is incredibly forced and awkward. The first three quarters of the movie are dull; with the exception of Melissa McCarthy, but not in a good way. She is over-the-top crude and simply not funny. Sandra Bullock lacks energy. She's tired and seems bored. Her usual confidence that emanates through all of her other characters is gone in this one.

The last quarter of the movie picks up. However; just when the chemistry between McCarthy and Bullock finally solidify, it's over.

Very shaky film. Not worth a recommendation.

The Heat trailer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5m7Ml76zoA

Cloud Atlas (2012)

Frustrating and fascinating. It's a complicated weave of interconnecting stories. Strangely enough, each story is like a teaser to a greater movie. You want to watch each one as a movie on it's own, or at least one at a time. Cloud Atlas will give you temporary A.D.D. The most frustrating part is the complicated buildup to what amounts to a typical regurgitated lesson.

You really want to like this film. There are several interesting aspects: futuristic visuals, abstract concepts, dynamic characters and acting, great makeup and costume. However, you sometimes find yourself getting distracted by trying to figure out which actor is behind the new makeup in each story. The rest of it gets lost in the traffic jam.

It irritates me that I like this film. Take that however you may.

Hugh Grant was absolutely spectacular. Hands down the best performance(s) of his...EVER!

Performance distinction goes to Hugh Grant: highly underrated.

Cloud Atlas Trailer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDEEr_bwcHA

One for the Money (2012)

Katheirne Heigl haters need not read on. I don't understand where the Heigl hate came from but WHATEVER! I have yet to see a Katherine Heigl movie I don't like. One for the Money is no exception. It certainly doesn't win any awards for creativity, ingenuity, or well, anything. It's simply entertaining. It feels nostalgic; not that it has any reference to past eras, it's just one of those feelgood, fun movies you can watch multiple times.

Katherine Heigl plays Stephanie Plum, an unemployed, divorced, 30 something. She's desperate to find work, especially with her family bluntly announcing their expectations and disappointment of her. She asks her cousin Vinny, yes her cousin Vinny, for a job as a bail bondsman.

Heigl as a Jersey girl doesn't captivate you, but she still does a decent job. Her accent is mild and slips out sometimes but it's acceptable.

This movie is cute, funny, and has lovable characters. Debbie Reynolds as Grandmother Mazur is perfectly quirky, Ranger is subtly humorous, and Sherri Shepherd as Lula is charming.

I've already watched this one four times!

Scene spotlight: Stephanie Plum interviewing John Cho.

One for the Money trailer...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7Rqrts4jPM

The Host ( 2013)

Okay, it's a Stephanie Meyer story. Let me finish! I cringe when I think of Twilight, so I won't blame you if you refuse to watch this one. Had I known prior to watching it that it was a Stephanie Meyer story, I would have passed. Darn you Netflix! However, I'm glad I didn't know. This is not to say that this movie is some marvelous piece, but it was palatable. The Host is definitely better than Twilight. The acting is better, the story is better, and the actors are decently attractive. Beyond mere comparisons to Twilight, The Host is mildly entertaining and has a framework that piques curiosity.

Essentially, earth is caught in an alien invasion. The aliens survive by being transplanted into a host body, not unlike Stargate's Goa'uld. Except these aliens look like Christmas tree ornaments rather than ugly snake-like creatures.

Unfortunately, instead of focusing on the interesting aspects of the alien invasion, this movie gets lost in love; another Stephanie Meyer tweeny bopper love triangle. The details are washed out because of this love triangle. I wish Steven Spielberg would have taken this movie and mangled and twisted it into something spectacular. Sigh...I digress.

The movie moves a little slow. A good one to watch in the background while you're doing something else; cooking, cleaning, exercising, etc.

I reluctantly recommend it.

**A couple of recognizable names, Diane Kruger and William Hurt; both doing a good job.

The Host trailer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRKjf8b4f2E

The 4400 Season 1 (2004)

Intriguing story. A group of seemingly random people disappear at different times over the course of several decades. One day, 4400 of them, reappear together on a lake. They all look exactly the same as they did when they disappeared. As they attempt to adjust, we start to see that some of them have unique abilities.

The acting takes a little getting used to. It's a tad on the cheesy side, but you get over it fairly quickly. I'm not sure if the actors get better with each episode or if you're just too engrossed in the story to notice it anymore.

There are literally jaw dropping moments in almost every episode. Episode 3 has a particularly scary concept involving a serial killer reappearing, with the 4400, after 20 years.

Episode 4 introduces a new character that looks incredibly similar to the lead 4400 detective, Tom Baldwin. It's confusing because you initially think it's Tom when it's actually Warren Lytell, an investigator from D.C. It's crazy to have two people in the same show who look almost identical to not be related in some way. Tom Baldwin is played by Joel Gretsch and Warren Lytell is played by Mark Valley. Do a google image search on both of them and you will see what I mean.

Season 1 is short; only 5 episodes. If you like mysterious scifi, alien abductions, X-Men type powers, etc. you will find this entertaining.

Star Trek: Into Darkness (2013)

Entertaining and fast. Light years better than the last movie. It is funny, witty, exciting, and visually spectacular!

Many aspects are predictable, even for a first time viewer. It's a great movie for people who are not familiar with anything Star Trek; even though there isn't much explanation on what Starfleet or the Federation is, you can still infer it quite simply.

Kirk and Spock's relationship takes center stage and the whole movie is a bit sappy. Spock's moments with Kirk and Uhura are quick and funny. Chris Pine, as Captain Kirk, really does look like a young William Shatner! Scotty is heartwarming and provides much needed comic relief.

I love me some Sherlock, but Benedict Cumberbatch as Khan is so overpowering; his presence overshadows anyone he is in scene with. That doesn't happen in 'Sherlock' even though Sherlock is eccentric and bold. He either overacted this role or the cast couldn't meet his energy. He has an almost old school Batman villain thing going on. On the flip side, had Cumberbatch toned it down to match the cast, I would probably be complaining that he was too bland.

One blaring disappointment is the lack of aliens. You're not expecting Total Recall volume, but for instance, there is only one Klingon in the entire movie, the rest are covered with masks. Although, the aliens that are shown have amazing make-up and costume. This movie is visually amazing. The visuals alone are worth watching this movie.

On a scale of 1-10 Star Trek: Into Darkness is 8.5

Scene Spotlight: The visuals and make-up on the red planet Nibiru and the Nibirians.

World War Z (2013)

I was excited to see Brad Pitt in an epic, apocalyptic movie. His character isn't utilized to his optimal abilities but this isn't a Tom Cruise saves everyone and everything role. In fact, Brad Pitt's character, Gerry Lane, not being a superman makes World War Z even that much scarier. Although I do wish he kicked just a little more ass.

Zombie movies and shows are in right now and it's easy to imagine what you would do if you were to ever find yourself facing a zombie apocalypse. You imagine what kind of weapon you would use, what vehicle to drive, how you would generally survive and kill zombies, etc. There is never a fear of zombies outrunning, overpowering, or sneaking up on you. You think to yourself, 'Hell yeah I could kill some zombies!' Then you watch World War Z. These are the scariest zombies ever.

The first half of the movie is fast, exciting, and scary. It's a great buildup for a solid, hefty story. However, the second half of the movie is rushed and disorganized. There are way too many unanswered questions.

There are times when the writing and directing creates a quick and believable bond between characters; like with Tommy and Gerry's family. Then there are times when you wonder if you missed something because all of a sudden there is a strong relationship and you don't know where it came from, (the Israeli soldier and Gerry).

Finally, the ending isn't really a proper ending but it's not a great opening to a sequel either. It leaves you unsatisfied and again with more questions. The pace of the movie is an attempt to distract you from the almost non-existent story. I incorrectly expected substance because Brad Pitt is in it.

On a positive note, World War Z is almost nonstop action and the zombies are incredibly scary.

On a scale of 1-10, World War Z is 6.5

Spoilers: Unanswered questions and curiosities.

If Israel knew, why not warn others? If they wanted to keep it a secret, why didn't any other country notice they were frantically finishing the wall? Then, the explanation for why they finished the wall was incredibly weak and grossly unbelievable; because a letter said "undead." C'mon! Finally, why didn't they know noise attracts the zombies and why didn't they have more defenses outside of the wall? For people that were prepared, they were not.

When Gerry prepares to leave the apartment, he resourcefully protects his arm with duct tape and a magazine. Why doesn't he do the same for his kids and wife? Why did he tape the knife to the end of his gun? Why not tape it to the end of a broom stick and give the gun to his wife? Two weapons better than one, no?

When Terry thought Gerry was dead (by the way, they should have changed one of their names. They're too similar sounding especially in such a fast paced movie), he couldn't stop Gerry's family from being taken off the ship. They do absolutely nothing with that story line. Why bother making such a fuss over their safety? That and the plane crash was a waste of time. On the contrary, there isn't enough time in the research facility. That group of people had great chemistry but there is zero development.

So now everyone is sick. What? Eventually people will either die from whatever bacteria is being injected into them or their bodies will become immune and the zombies will want to eat them again. I suppose the idea is to temporarily distract the zombies so they can kill them all. They will attempt to kill the virus in the sequel I suppose.

The Perfect Host (2010)

What a delightfully weird and creepy movie. Definitely a bit eclectic and not for the mainstream viewer.

David Hyde Pierce as Warrick Wilson is out of his mold. He's like Buffalo Bill of Silence of the Lambs meets Dr Cavanaugh of Boxing Helena; of course with his own charm and vulnerability tying it together.

The Perfect Host has a low budget feel to it but it truly adds more fullness because of it. It's easy to see this movie being performed as a play. It takes place mostly in one place and the characters are all very individual (ironically).

There are no big bang effects or crafty lines, just a quirky and entertaining story and performances that deliver it well.

On a scale of 1-10, The Perfect Host is 7.5.

The Walking Dead Season 3 (2012-2013)

With the exception of episode 13, Arrow on the Doorpost, season 3 was far and away better than the first 2 seasons!

Let me first start by mentioning one character, Michonne. She is one Samurai katana-wielding bad-ass. Her lack of verbalization is a little frustrating in the beginning. Her minimal dialogue causes her to overact her facial expressions, but she opens up as the season progresses and she becomes a calmer zombie slicing machine. If I had to pick one person in this entire series to latch onto in a real life zombie apocalypse, no question about it, Michonne.

My second pick, someone that you grow to love, Daryl. In this season he solidifies his place as your favorite character, and he's pretty darn good with that crossbow too!

While watching the episodes, it feels like there are two seasons in one. Season 3 could have easily ended half way through, so if you're watching it without breaks, it tends to seem as though the season is stretching and dragging on a bit. It wasn't until I was done with the whole season that I found out that they aired the season in two parts. There was a 2 1/2 month break between the airing of episodes 8 and 9. It makes more sense that way. A brilliant move by the creators and producers to split up the airing in that manner. Unfortunately, there's no break on streaming services. It seems a lack of foresight prevented a simple title insertion, Part 1 & Part 2, to give a better contextual and psychological break.

You'll get a little irritated by the road some of the characters take. Rick and Glenn develop strangely this season. They're whiny and weak, and even while they're on their selfish, dramatic, unstable, and sometimes psychologically disturbed roads, ALL the men STILL make ALL the decisions. The male-female dynamic is still very archaic and illogical. I'm hoping the introduction of Michonne and the development of Maggie and Carol will turn this misogynistic show toward the 21st century.

Mild spoilers...

Beyond gender issues, season 3 kept replacing it's black men. It's as if they can't have more than one at a time, but they have to at least have one. It's odd and blatant. They still, however, make more of an effort to reflect actual american demographics than most shows.

Without giving away too much, I'm surprised at how many of the core group they killed off this season. Honestly, one particular kill-off was a relief (episode 4). Now if only they would get rid of that annoying kid.

In season 3, the action is intense, the effects a lot more gory, and overall has a better energy to it.

On a scale of 1-10, The Walking Dead Season 3 is 8.0

Breaking is down into 2 parts, episode 1-8 ranks a 8.5, while episodes 9-16 ranks 7.5.

P.S. Poor Milton, the goofy Val Kilmer lookalike, he was creepily likable. He would've been an interesting and fun addition to the core group.

Oblivion (2013)

After a long break from routine, I'm slowly wading back into the calmer waters. What might the calmer waters include? MOVIES! WOOHOO! Now that I have been introduced to Ultraviolet, the movie cloud, I'm even more excited!

The first movie I watched on my shared Ultraviolet library was Oblivion with Tom Cruise. Although other actors are in it, Tom Cruise commands the entire movie...like a movie hog. The only other well-known actor is Morgan Freeman and trailing far behind is the guy who plays "Jaime Lannister" from Game of Thrones. I'm not at all saying that a movie needs to have well-known actors to be good. This is just clearly the Tom Cruise show. Quite frankly I can't tell if he saved the movie or ruined it with his persona.

Oblivion is a strange one. Intriguing story but lacking in it's delivery. Every moment is just one step away from being great. In the end, it feels like you woke up and you're trying to tell someone your dream really quickly before you forget. This movie feels like they took a rushed synopsis of a dream instead of using it as a foundation to expound upon. Even if they had done that, the concept would be better suited for a tv show.

Worth a watch if you like Tom Cruise, but otherwise you're not missing much if you skip it.

On a scale of 1-10, Oblivion is 6.5

Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters (2013)

Fantastically disgusting! Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters is a fun, gross, action-packed, ride. You won't find much substance but I doubt anyone would approach it expecting any.

I hate to keep doggin on Jeremy Renner but he's not a good actor. He's bland in almost every role he's been in and this movie is no exception. Further, he looks far too old to be Gretel's brother.

The one thing this movie lacks is humor. There's a lot of room for humor in Renner's role which is why his character is even more disappointing. I would've loved to see a comedic action star like Jensen Ackles, Ryan Reynolds or even Justin Timberlake for goodness sake!

Famke Janssen as the main dark witch is the best evil villainess that you absolutely love to hate. She's far better in this movie than the X-Men series.

The special effects are pretty crazy and overall has a Van Helsing feel. It's worth a rental and worth watching the sequel if there is one (hopefully with Hansel recast).

On a scale of 1-10 Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters is 7.5

The Bourne Legacy (2012)

The Bourne Legacy is a movie you really REALLY want to like, unfortunately Jeremy Renner fizzles relative to Matt Damon. Granted, the Bourne character is an awful large role to follow but Renner's Aaron Cross is like a beautiful vision with absolutely zero flavor.

The movie is weak, like a contractually required sequel. With that being said, the story is still entertaining.

Spoiler:
The best part of the movie is the fact that Cross is naturally dumb and without his "smart" pills, he will theoretically be too stupid to get out of the trouble he's in. The unfortunate part of it all is that if you blink, you will miss that explanation. Renner mumbles his way through that ever important piece and even if you don't leave the room, you may miss it.

Had this been a stand alone film you might not be so disappointed, but knowing it's part of the Bourne franchise, you expect a lot more that it delivers. You're better off re-watching one of the other real Bourne movies. Although you may want to watch it for Edward Norton; his best performance in years.

On a scale of 1-10, The Bourne Legacy is 5.5

Performance distinction for Edward Norton as Col. Eric Byer: underrated.

The Walking Dead: Season 2 (2011-2012)

The pace of season 2 is just as slow as the first. There's still the same amount of talking and extended scenery shots. There are scenes three minutes long of zombies walking...just walking.

Just as in season 1, there are many times when you wonder "Why don't they do this?" or "Why aren't they doing that?" and "Why the damn hell did they not have multiple rendezvous points?" They all have miraculously good aim for average citizens and yet for every other instance they are stupendously ill prepared. And why oh why haven't they learned to watch their children?!?!?

All the women still look to the men to make the decisions. The one semi-strong female character, Andrea, develops into a more independent person as the season progresses but not only did she get there almost directly because of the men but is rescued by men...again. This show must be written by a group of lackluster men who seek a vicarious release of control that they are otherwise lacking in real life; because this type of groveling toward them is so outrageously fiction. It's like the show was based on a comic book series aimed at adolescent young boys. Oh wait.

There's an incredible amount of religious references and symbology throughout both seasons. The Walking Dead is not a simple gory and grotesque zombie show. It surprisingly has a lot of room for philosophical reflection.  It's full of avenues for analyses for the not so brain dead folk.

The group's chemistry is growing and the characters stick to you like gorilla glue. Just when you think there's any resemblance of stability, there's the finale. The Walking Dead does an irritatingly good job at keeping your curiosity hooked. Maybe it's the adolescent young boy within me, because I can't help but want to watch season 3. SIGH.

Note:
-There was a disconnect between episode 9 and 10. I literally had to check back to make sure I didn't skip an episode.

On a scale of 1-10, The Walking Dead: Season 2 is 7.5

The Walking Dead: Season 1 (2010)

I've heard so many references to this show that I finally decided to take the plunge. The Walking Dead is obviously about zombies. Much of the show moves as slow as a typical zombie. The pilot episode's first 25 minutes is a lesson in patience. That being said, the characters create instant attachment; paradoxically, they are also incredibly unremarkable. Their humanism really shines through the entire time. I suppose that's the point.

There's much more relationship drama than you expect and it's also not as scary as you would think a zombie show would be. Although, I did watch all of season 1 in one sitting and had zombie dreams that night! There are definitely gory parts to it. The reason season 1 can be watched in one day is because there are only 6 episodes. I will confess that I fast forwarded past the very slow and long scenery shots. The substance of the entire season is, generously, half it's length in time. There's a lot of talking...and talking...and talking. As much as I appreciate character development, the droning on and on about feelings is excessive.

The lead character, Rick Grimes played by Andrew Lincoln, is very likable and fits well into his definition.

If there's a blaring omission, it's strong female characters. The Walking Dead feels like a throw back to the 50s and 60s. All the leaders are men, all the problem solvers are men, all the women are the ones who need saving, or need to be calmed down. It's all quite typical. The first strong female character doesn't get mentioned until the finale and unfortunately is only available via video of her dying brain. Where's Marg Helgenberger or Jada Pinkett when you need them?!

The Walking Dead feels like Lost meets Mad Men meets zombies...Lost: Mad Zombies (I've never seen Mad Men, I'm just referencing the era).

On a seemingly positive note, the desire to watch the next season is uncomfortably present.

On a scale of 1-10, The Walking Dead: Season 1 is 7.0

G.I. Joe: Retaliation (2013)

A perfectly simple and entertaining action movie. A great excuse to show off some really good fight scenes with very likable characters. Don't expect much of a story. If you're looking for drama, look elsewhere. Most of the drama happens in a split second. A few of the story lines happen so quickly, it's like watching the trailer. It's an hour and fifty minutes long but it flies!

The directing is superb! There's enough action to mesmerize you but not enough to make your eyes go buggy like a Michael Bay movie. The action is clear and you never feel like you've missed anything.

Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson is charming and lovely as always. He demands chemistry which is probably why Channing Tatum is surprisingly decent. Bruce Willis is meh. All the other characters are played by lesser known actors and they do a pretty good job. The one nerve being pinched in the casting is Lady Jaye, played by Adrianne Palicki. She is a good actress but doesn't seem to fill the Lady Jaye role properly. Physically she's not muscular enough. She's painfully thin which is most obvious in the Angelina Jolie-esque scene with the red dress. She embodies a Victoria's Secret model more than the rugged, raspy voiced, Lady Jaye. I suppose if you've never heard of G.I. Joe before this movie (shame on you) then that won't bother you as much.

Spoiler:
Jonathan Pryce as the President and Zartan/the President is crazy. As the real President, his acting seems to suck just a bit, but as Zartan pretending to be the President, his acting is markedly better. There's such a clear distinction between the two, you're convinced it's two different actors.

The dynamic between Jinx, Storm Shadow, and Snake Eyes is so entertaining, I would watch a movie just about those three!

G.I. Joe: Retaliation is great entertainment. It's fun, fast, and just plain kick ass!

On a scale of 1-10, G.I. Joe: Retaliation is 8.0
                             With distinction: underrated

Scene Spotlight: #1 Mountain fight scene. #2 Motorcyle breaking.


http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1583421/?ref_=rvi_tt

The Intouchables (2011)

The Intouchables is a wonderfully endearing, calm, heartwarming, and funny movie! Against the wishes of all of his friends and family, an affluent quadriplegic hires an ex-con from the projects as his aide.

The stereotypes and racial messages are hokey and a bit crude but overall this soft drama is packed with enough humor to tone down the harsh simplicity of it's framework.

Francois Cluzet as Philippe is elegant. His pain, tears, and happiness transmit so easily. There is not a single moment of disconnect (except when you're wondering if he's related to Dustin Hoffman somehow...haha). The chemistry he has with Driss, played by Omar Sy, is quickly established and flows smoothly. Driss has a very loud personality and teeters on obnoxious but reigns it in just enough not to be.

The Intouchables is a French movie with English subtitles. There are a couple of French references that may not be understood immediately but the context fills you in quickly.

On a scale of 1-10, The Intouchables: 8.5
                              with distinction: underrated

Performance distinction for Francois Cluzet: underrated.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1675434/?ref_=sr_1

Magic Mike (2012)

Do not read any further if you don't want to hear anything negative. To put it in the most realistic terms; Magic Mike SUCKS. Holy geez is this a bad movie. I don't even know where to begin. Everything is bad; the writing, the directing, the acting, the dancing, the choreography, the minimal stripping, and most blatant, the lack of attractive strippers.

I can hardly come up with even a one sentence synopsis. Magic Mike is a movie about a guy. That's about it. It's bland and boring. It's so weak, I cringe at even calling it a movie. It's a dry attempt at Boogie Nights meets Coyote Ugly, but instead it comes out Boogie Ugly. Normally I try to hold back on including spoilers, but this movie is already rancid.

Channing Tatum is Magic Mike. He is a sub par actor. So many scenes are painful to watch, but you watch anyway hoping his dancing will be worth it. If you have never seen him in Step Up (2006), you might not be so disappointed. Either way you expect so much more than he delivers.

Alex Pettyfer as Adam is such a drag. His pretty face could not save the day.

Matthew McConaughy as Dallas, the club owner, is annoying from the moment he opens his mouth. The lighting makes him look sullen and sick so you wonder if his character is supposed to be cracked out, but nothing in the story line indicates he's a meth head so I chalk it up to bad lighting.

Joe Manganiello as one of the strippers doesn't know how to dance, let alone strip. Same goes for Kevin Nash as Tarzan. When you first see him, you wonder if he's the bouncer because you don't expect a guy looking like that to be a stripper.

Cody Horn as Brooke, Adam's sister, is straight out of a scripted "reality" show.

Olivia Munn as Joanna is the only bright spot in this disaster of a movie. She's like the professional actress that agreed to help out her little cousin's student film.

The apex of the drama is underwhelming. You're constantly waiting for something major to happen, but it never does. Most of it is a build up to a "That's it?" reaction. Case in point, toward the end, Dallas somewhat challenges Mike to come up with "fresh" material. Mike goes on stage with what is supposed to look like combat gear but looks more like a corset and breaks out some hip hop moves. That's it. No really, that's it.

Sometimes we approach movies knowing that the writing will probably be cheesy, the acting corny, and the overall story predictable; but we watch it anyway hoping that the choreography of the dance, cheers, drum lines, stepping, stomping, or even playing cups while singing will be satisfaction enough to deal with the former. Do not approach Magic Mike this way. You will be disappointed. At best, Magic Mike is a high budget porn without the porn.

On a scale of 1-10, Magic Mike is 2.0
                              with distinction: highly overrated.


http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1915581/?ref_=rvi_tt

Dangerous Companions (2005)

A wonderfully heartfelt and simply happy documentary that I highly recommend. Dangerous Companions is an incredible story about a man named Kevin Richardson who trains and cares for the wild animals at a game reserve near Johannesburg, South Africa. It is a rosy depiction of his life and relationship with the animals at the reserve.

They do a very good job at introducing the animals. You get to know the personalities of each animal pretty well. After a particular segment of one of the animals, you think that one is your favorite until you see another. You end up loving all of them and all their quirky traits.

The narrator Nick Boraine is clear, concise, and has a soothing yet energetic voice. The writing is perfect. The story is very easy to follow. You are never confused about which animal goes where and who or what or why. It's simple and effective.

There are a few sad moments but overall it's uplifting and surprisingly filled with many funny parts.

Dangerous Companions: 8.5
                 with distinction: highly underrated.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2462542/?ref_=rvi_tt

Flypaper (2011)

Mildly funny, decently entertaining. Flypaper is a campy heist movie blended with frail and desperate extractions from 'Clue' (1985).

Patrick Dempsey tries really really hard but falls flat. He doesn't pull off the neurotic type well at all. He has his moments...or...a moment rather. It would've been much better had he channeled his best performance as Ronald Miller from 'Can't Buy Me Love' (1987) instead of his more popular role, Dr. McDreamy from 'Grey's Anatomy.'

Ashley Judd is insignificant because the character is so bland there's not much anyone can do with it. It's so bland I can't think of anything else to say!

There are recognizable faces, Mekhi Phifer, Jeffrey Tambor, Oscar winner Octavia Spencer, and Curtis Armstrong otherwise affectionately known as "Booger" from the 'Revenge of the Nerds' franchise. Sadly, the recognizable cast adds to the predictability of it all.

The stereotypes are heavy and unimaginative. The movie is rushed which contributes to the lack of chemistry among the entire cast. It was almost hilarious; unfortunately it's just a nice little flick to watch while you're you're doing something else, like making dinner or writing emails, etc.

On a scale of 1-10, Flypaper: 6.0


http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1541160/

Family Weekend (2013)

Family Weekend is not quite what you think it will be. Yes it's simple. A teenage kid gets mad that her family isn't "normal" and then, like most teens, holds her parents hostage until they all love each other again. The premise is essentially a copy and paste from the 1996 Jamie Lee Curtis movie House Arrest, which is also very good by the way, with less action and energy and just a little more thought and intellect. I mistakenly assumed that it would be a PG movie like House Arrest, but Family Weekend is actually rated R. The R rating comes mainly from subject matter rather than vulgarity or violence.

There are so many quirky roles in this movie it's hard to know which ones to point out. Matthew Modine as "the dad" most definitely doesn't look like his usual clean and pretty self, but it's worth it because he gives a terrific performance that remarkably doesn't overburden the rest of the cast.

It's uncomfortable watching Joey King (portraying a 9 year old) pretend to be a hooker, especially when you realize she's Ramona Quimby from Ramona and Beezus! Her character is obsessed with acting so the concept gets a pass and in the end you realize what a good and fun performance it is.

Eddie Hassell as big brother Jackson is the most distracting. His performance is noticeably inferior compared to the entire cast. You do get used to him midway through, you just have to bear the embarrassment for the first half.

Kristin Chenoweth as "the mom" was good but I really wish Julie Bowen from Modern Family played this part. It's difficult to blend an uptight, career driven individual with comedy. Chenoweth did have funny parts, but Bowen is a better comedic actress and could have delivered more laughs.

There are so many lovable, relatable, and unique characters. Usually a cast with so much definition ends up feeling crowded and many times you feel like you didn't get enough; not in this case. There is no overwhelming ego hogging up the energy and if there was, then the director and editor did an amazing job covering it up.

On a scale of 1-10, Family Weekend is 8.0
                              with distinction: underrated.

Scene spotlights: Joey King, as Lucinda, at the dinner table and in the end outside of her house.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1821426/

Exam (2009)

Another one for the Netflix obsessed! Exam is about an exam, obviously; but the movie is more like a riddle. You find yourself speaking out loud giving your ideas on what should be done. It's probably a lot more fun to watch this movie with someone so that you can express your ideas, but honestly you would end up talking to yourself if you were watching it alone.

With the exception of the one character without a British accent, the acting is pretty decent. No one stands out yet everyone is noticeable.

Mild spoiler ahead...

If there is one thing this movie is missing, it's the lack of definition about the current state of the world. They gloss over the desperation and desire for the available position. There is room for more clarity on the subject through dialogue but even a simple paragraph in the introduction of the movie would be sufficient. Other than that, this movie is fun and not at all scary and barely suspenseful.

It's sometimes difficult to watch movies without many scenery changes. 'Exam' does leave a few unfulfilled wishes but only in the sense that the overarching story leads you to daydream about the possible world the candidates live in.

One thing I would highly recommend is to play along with the movie. Guess who will be the first and who will be the last. It's a terrific ride.

Exam is another hidden gem in the Netflix library!

On a scale of 1-10; Exam is 7.0


http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1258197/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

Looper (2012)

Looper is a futuristic take on the life of a hired gun. There is one thing that stands out; Joseph Gordon-Levitt. Oh my goodness, this kid is GOOD. He plays a younger version of Bruce Willis's character and he is so accurate with his mannerisms and facial expressions that his performance is actually a bit distracting in the beginning.

Oddly enough, Joseph Gordon-Levitt does a better job at playing a Bruce Willis character than Bruce Willis. However, the screenplay or directing doesn't give Bruce Willis the proper foundation to work with. The movie focuses too much on showing minor details than it does on solid character development and the minor details it does show aren't the ones you want to see. It leaves you with a feeling of wanting more; not in a good way. You watch it wanting it to be better than it is.

The story itself is entertaining and exciting and the time travel concept is always fun. A television show would be a better platform to showcase the nuances of this futuristic world.

Watch it to be entertained and you will be. It's definitely worth watching simply for Joseph Gordon-Levitt's performance.

On a scale of 1-10, Looper: 7.0

Performance distinction for Joseph Gordon-Levitt: underrated.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1276104/

Jack Reacher (2012)

Not bad. The trailers and media promote Jack Reacher as being some kind of anti-law anti-hero with a vendetta. That's off-the-mark. Reacher is a badass detective with above average abilities...in everything.

This movie is like The Firm (1993) meets Punisher (2004). Tom Cruise as Jack Reacher is very much like Thomas Jane as Punisher, without the vendetta, and the story is like The Firm because of it's suspense, crime, and investigative aspects.

Maybe it's Tom Cruise's character or the way he delivers him, but the movie has an old school comic book hero feel to it, hence The Punisher. The main villain is cheesy to boot.

It's a little low on the action considering it's a Tom Cruise movie, but there is still enough to not be completely disappointed.

There are a lot of unnecessary looks and stares and slow scenic movements like they're putting onto film a Stephen King chapter of descriptive scenery. We see it, we get it, move on.

Surprisingly Tom Cruise is funny! It's my favorite aspect of the entire movie. Oh and bonus...Robert Duvall is in it too.

Overall, it's decently entertaining.

On a scale of 1-10, Jack Reacher: 7.0

Small Apartments (2012)

I have never been so uninspired to speak. Small Apartments...sigh. It's forcefully eclectic. Every character is unconvincingly condensed. Apparently it was adapted from a Chris Millis novel. Sometimes you watch a movie and get a feeling that the book is probably good even if the movie is not. No, not this time.

Here is my honest superficial reason for watching this movie: James Marsden. Second reason? Rebel Wilson. Her humor is quirky and I've been waiting for it to shine with the right cast. Unfortunately not only is she hardly in this movie, her character wasn't funny.

The biggest problem this movie is that it doesn't feel like anything happens even though you watch it happen. It tries so hard to bring everything together, but it just doesn't work. It's not drama, it's not comedy, it's not action. It's nothing.

On a scale of 1-10 Small Apartments: 4.5

Scene Spotlight: Rosie Perez

Let me just reiterate...a "Scene Spotlight" doesn't necessarily mean it's good.

Seven Psychopaths (2012)

Thoroughly entertaining! Seven Psychopaths is essentially about Marty (Colin Farrell) trying to write a screenplay of the same name. It is helariously funny at times. Not surprisingly, there's lots of blood and dead bodies...LOTS. Some parts were sad and if you're in the right mood, you will conclude that this, seemingly superficial movie, actually has a deeper message. The great part about it is that if you don't want to analyze it that far, you don't have to. You can just take what they're showing and be entertained.

The fast pace from the beginning doesn't sustain throughout the movie. Few times I found myself sighing at the lack of progress, but there's just enough humor to hold you over till the end.

The biggest downer of this movie is Colin Farrell. His Irish accent is at times indistinguishable, but that isn't even comparable to his lack of connection to the audience and his co-stars.

Christopher Walken as Hans is so incredibly funny and heartfelt. I can't even describe what a terrific performance it is. Walken alone is worth watching!

Throughout the movie, there are many stories within the story, so you do have to pay attention. There were also a couple of interesting twists. The movie took a semi-hard turn about half way and there was a slight disconnect between the two halves, but overall it makes sense and pretty much comes together at the end.

On a scale of 1-10, Seven Psychopaths: 8.5

Perfomance distinction for Christopher Walken as Hans: highly underrated.

Scene Spotlight: Every scene with Christopher Walken.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1931533/?ref_=ttexrv_exrv_tt

Young Adult (2011)

Slow...slow...slow. It takes almost 20 minutes to introduce another significant character other than Charlize Theron's character Mavis. For the first 15 minutes you really just want to scrub her down and hose her off. It's like a presentation of grossness. She's definitely a good actress, which is why I question why it took so long for the prep of her character. The most obvious reason I can think of would be that it was used as a time-filler for a good, yet paper thin, story. A story which is essentially about a disheveled, alcoholic, big city girl going back to her childhood town on a delusional whim.

Patton Oswald as Matt is terrific. Charlize and Patton together is even better. Their chemistry is the only thing that saves this movie. Charlize's ability to force the realism and comfortability in her character is superior, by far, to any other actor in this movie. She almost overtakes Patton a few times with her presence but he holds his own and they make a surprisingly remarkable duo.

Matt's sister, Sarah, is a funny quirky character that should have been expounded upon. She has a very "Fargo" feel about her.

Most of the time, you feel completely embarrassed for Mavis. You wonder why so many people let her behavior escalate so far; but I suppose there would be no point to the movie otherwise. Buddy, played by Patrick Wilson is Mavis's high school sweetheart, and he has got to be the most perplexingly oblivious person. When he finally admits his stance, it doesn't match up to his previous behavior, or non-behavior I guess would be more accurate. It's like they want you to forget pretty much everything they show you about him up until that point and see him completely differently toward the end. It's just plain odd.

The title of the movie is more representative of Mavis's career. The tagline of "'Everyone gets old. Not everyone grows up.'" and the image of Charlize on the cover does not match up with the story. Mavis isn't having a hard time growing up per se, she has serious mental and emotional problems. It's almost an insult to young people to say only the young experience these issues. I get that she doesn't want to let go of the past, but to say it's because she doesn't want to grow up makes me cringe.

Practically speaking, how the heck is Mavis so thin with such great complexion? Whatever! Anyway, I didn't mind watching this movie, but don't expect any kind of mind blowing revelation or even a slight bulge in the plot. In fact, the ending was kind of a "that's it?" producing moment; but if you want to see another great performance by Charlize Theron and don't mind slow-paced movies, you'll be decently satisfied.

On a scale of 1-10, Young Adult: 6.0

Peformance distinction for Charlize Theron as Mavis: underrated.

Scene Spotlight: Mavis picking up Matt's figurine.

God Bless America (2011)

God Bless America starts off with a bang! Let me just put out the obvious...this movie is suited for slightly irritated liberals with above average intelligence. Everyone else will either be too offended or won't understand it completely. It's an uncomfortable ripping of American mainstream life. As you watch "reality TV" depicted in this movie, you're automatically inclined to think it's in parody form; yet you realize it's a completely accurate portrayal of what's going on in modern society. Within the first seven minutes you depressingly discern that American entertainment reality has become a parody of itself.

Frank, played by Joel Murray, is frustrated with his life and society in general. He successfully shares his frustration to the point where you want to punch a lot of people in the face; including his daughter. Frank takes a more drastic approach but you can't help but agree with a lot of what he says.

The first 30 minutes of the movie moves a little slow, but it's fascinating. Tara Lynn Barr as Roxy is simply awesome and she puts a needed amount of ferocious psychotic energy into this otherwise mellow movie. She's so blunt, completely neurotic, and reminds you a little of Wednesday Addams. Roxy and Frank's relationship is effortless because Murray and Barr balance each other well.

This movie is extremely negative but highly amusing in a matter-of-fact shocking manner. It sometimes comes off as a complaint riddled mess, but that's where the above average intelligence comes in to decipher it as a whole; which then leads to a kind of arrogance and anger that leaves you with a disturbingly fun vicarious satisfaction.

On a minor note, the blood sometimes looks like orange paint but it's easily forgiven because again, you have to look at the big picture. There are many social and political layers. If you focus on the impossibilities of the minor details, it will distract you from the story. In addition, if you find yourself asking how they're not caught at certain times, turn it off, you're too fucking stupid for this movie.

Don't get in a huff pickle! That last line, while true, is an ode to the movie.

On a scale of 1-10, God Bless America: 8.5
         with distinction: underrated.

Scene Spotlight: Frank, Roxy, and Fuller.

The Raven (2012)

The Raven is a dark twisted story, inspired by the obvious; Edgar Allan Poe and his writings. It's better than I expected; although, that's not saying too much because I didn't even want to watch this movie. It is also gorier and funnier than I expected. That's already an interesting combination, but then add suspense and a little bit of love and sadness. It's a strange cocktail of a story.

John Cusack, as Poe, is not very good. Alice Eve as Emily Hamilton, Poe's love interest, is even more painful. Their chemistry is lackluster. They both try too hard to encompass the dialect and inflection of the era. A lot of the specifics of what they say is lost, but you get the gist of it, so it's not unbearable. Cusack's performance warms up about 25 minutes in. It's still not good, but you get comfortable and attached with his character. The movie gets better around this time mainly because Cusack's and Eve's screen time together is reduced.

Luke Evans as Detective Fields is so good and has such a powerful presence, at times he feels like the lead. It would've been a much better movie had they shifted it that way.

The clues at each crime scene play out like a 19th century CSI. It's fun to follow along, even though it's simple and predictable.

On a scale of 1-10, I give The Raven: 7.0

Scene Spotlight: None.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1486192/

What to Expect When You're Expecting (2012)

What to Expect When You're Expecting is inspired by the pregnancy guide of the same name. It follows along the relationships of five different couples and their experiences of becoming parents. There are many familiar faces in this movie. Most notably Cameron Diaz (Jules), Jennifer Lopez(Holly), and Elizabeth Banks (Wendy). All of the familiar faces, leaves this movie feeling crowded; or maybe there are just too many relationships to watch. You want to see more of Wendy's story and less of Holly's and Jules'.

When it comes down to it, this movie wasn't very much about teaching anyone what to expect. Wendy comes closest to the concept of the book, but she simply has too many other characters to share screen time with. Prior to watching it, you're anticipating the movie will be a funny and somewhat accurate portrayal of pregnancy and its symptoms; instead, you get the typical story of relationship problems surrounded by a lot bulging bellies.

There were a couple of tear welling moments and a few LOL ones too. Craig, played by Thomas Lennon, is probably the funniest character of the ensemble, next to Wendy.

The casting of Ben Falcone as Gary is really distracting. He looks too old to be Dennis Quaid's son.

Cameron Diaz looks terrible, none of her scenes are funny, and she isn't likeable.

The "dude's" Saturday meet-up is entertaining and the actors play very well off each other. The kid Jordan, played by Reginald and Resan Womack, is hilarious.

In the end, they should've focused the story around Wendy and her symptoms and completely cut out Jules and Holly.

In addition, this movie must have been focused for the female audience because there were *ahem* multiple actors that were pleasing to the eye. Just something minor I noticed. ;)

On a scale of 1-10, What to Expect When You're Expecting: 7.0

Scene Spotlight: 1. Wendy, Janice, and the cell phone. 2. The dude's group introduction.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1586265/?ref_=sr_1

The Joneses (2009)

The Joneses is a fun concept, with decent delivery, and is simplistically thought provoking. There's something abnormal about the Jones family. From the beginning, you notice their conversations are just slightly different than the average family's and it's fairly obvious that they are "planted." The movie leaves you guessing for about twenty minutes before you're given a solid answer to why they're there. After the amusement settles in, the conspiracy theorist in you begins to wonder how many "Joneses" you have known in your lifetime.

David Duchovny's character, Steve Jones, is funny and witty. It's by far Duchovny's best performance, yet the character isn't as powerful as it could be. The scenes that should be hysterical are just simply funny.

The movie squeaks out a little bit of the cheese factor; mostly because of the angles/directing, but partly because of Demi Moore's performance as Kate Jones. Both Demi Moore and Ben Hollingsworth, who plays Mick Jones, are acting in a staged play while everyone else is acting in a motion picture. Kate's budding relationships with Billy and "the girls" falls flat; and although her relationship with Steve develops well in the beginning, it fizzles towards the end and it's not believable.

The most troubling aspect of the entire storyline are the children. They're supposed to be "professionals" and yet they make multiple rookie mistakes. It makes you wonder how old they're actually supposed to be.

The weakest part of the story, and possibly the most unnecessary, is the house party while the Kate and Steve are out to dinner. What teenager in their right mind throws a party while their parents are out to dinner? It's impractical considering the very short time frame. On top of that, everyone is cleared out and the entire house is cleaned before the parents come home? But, it's a movie and you're willing to forgive such a ridiculous notion if there's a bigger purpose behind it. Unfortunately there isn't. The story tries too hard to give both children equal drama when it isn't necessary. It would've played out much better had they focused on developing Amber Heard's character, Jenn Jones and glossed over Mick's story instead.

There are two powerful performances in this movie. Gary Cole as Larry Symonds, the Jones's neighbor, evokes so much sympathy and sadness, it's depressing. Glenn Headly as Summer Symonds, Larry's wife, evokes sadness as well, yet in much more of a funny, kooky, and unstable manner.

The humor drops off drastically half way through the movie. It quickly turns from a comedy into a drama. Unfortunately, the latter half is rushed and therefore hollow.

I have pointed out many imperfections of this movie but strangely enough, it's fun and worth watching. Overall it could've been better, but it's amusing and entertaining none-the-less.

On a scale of 1-10, The Joneses: 7.5

Scene Spotlight: The music during the pinnacle of drama (as Summer begins to pick up the papers).

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1285309/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

Sherlock (TV Series-BBC) Season 2 (2012)

I want to be Sherlocked! Season two of the BBC's Sherlock series is a maddening rollercoaster ride.

Three episodes is not nearly enough per season. The first episode bring you back in from season one and the third episode walks you out. There is only one lone episode for you to get comfortable. It leaves you wanting at least three more episodes in-between. Its a rather contradicting feeling because its so good you desperately want more, but yet you leave pouting and unfulfilled.

The problem with having only three episodes per season is the lack of foundational development. Watson's relationship with Mycroft takes a huge leap from season one without explanation. It isn't difficult to figure out, but it is a direct consequence of limited time. They do however remedy most of it with superior writing and directing. The show effortlessly moves at rate that allows you to understand their passage of time.

All three episodes were so vastly different but the entire season had an overarching theme; that Sherlock Holmes is vulnerable. Benedict Cumberbatch's portrayal of Holmes is much more somber than in season one. No where is it more apparent than in episode three. Cumberbatch humbly and appropriately gives way to Andrew Scott who plays Jim Moriarty. Moriarty is the most fantastic villain. You hate him so much, you want to squeeze and twist his stupid face off and then pull out his vocal chords! He is brilliant!

Although season two doesn't allow for savoring, its simply remarkable to watch the supreme level of excellence by the entire cast and crew.

On a scale of 1-10, Sherlock Season Two: 9.0

Performance distinction for Benedict Cumberbatch: underrated.

Scene Spotlight: Sherlock and Moriarty on the roof.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1475582/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

Hachi: A Dog's Tale (2009)

An absolute must for any dog lover. Another must? A box of tissue! Based on a true story of the unbreakable bond between a man and his dog. Hachi is the American remake of the Japanese movie, Hachi-ko (1987).

Richard Gere is grossly underrated and pulls you in from the moment he enters the scene. He plays Parker Wilson, a Professor at the local college who takes the train to and from work. Joan Allen is Cate Wilson, Parker's wife, who is the closest thing you're going to get to an antagonist in this film. Jason Alexander plays Carl, the train station controller. Its nostalgic to see Gere and Alexander together again on screen.

Hachi is a simplistic story so don't expect any action. Its slow moving throughout the entire movie. Parts of it are reminiscent of Benji (1974). Toward the end of the movie, there is very little dialogue. The relationship development takes a while but its necessary and worth it. The emotional connection is incredibly deep, hence the tissue. Its heartwarming and heartbreaking with bits of humor sprinkled around.

The camera views from the dog's perspective is a bit strange, but its not that often. This story is so touching, you're willing to ignore how a shiba inu turned into an akita. There's nothing more to say except, watch this movie!

On a scale of 1-10, I give Hachi: A Dog's Tale...a 9.0
                 with distinction: underrated.

Performance distinction for Richard Gere: Highly underrated.

Scene Spotlight: Cate with Hachi at the train station.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1028532/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

Hunger Games (2012)

Its hard not to compare The Hunger Games to Battle Royale (2000). Its not as if there are movies that exist that don't overlap in theme or basic storyline; but so many aspects of Hunger Games mirrored that of Battle Royale. However, Battle Royale is a Japanese cult classic so its likely you haven't seen it (although I highly recommend it).

In Hunger Games, a group of teenagers (tributes) are pitted against each other in a televised fight to the death battle. The largest difference between Hunger Games and Battle Royale has to be the gore factor. Hunger Games minimizes the blood and hardly shows any real view of children dying. If there is one thing Hunger Games succeeds in doing is earning their PG-13 rating. Although, it is still a movie about children killing each other, so why bother diluting it?

Jennifer Lawrence as the Katniss Everdeen is a perfect match. She is highly relatable as Katniss; even during her contemptuous moments, you're rooting for her the whole way.

Woody Harrelson as Haymitch and Elizabeth Banks as Effie are the two outstanding performances.

There's a slight uproar about the character, Rue, being played by Amandla Stenberg, instead of a white actress, as she is represented in the books. It makes no difference. There's nothing in the movie that requires the character to be any particular ethnicity.

Lenny Kravitz as Cinna is the only person noticeably attempting to act. His persona comes off as lazy rather than cool.

Donald Sutherland as President Snow is surprising. He's usually good at being bad, but he seems like he's sickly or dying, and not nearly as psychotically masterful for being "President" of such an awful system.

Its a rather long film, at 2 hours 36 minutes, and much more boring than it should be. It takes over an hour before the kids enter the domed arena to fight. Prior to entering the arena, the tributes are trained and given a make-over to make for better television. During this time, everything is dragging on and you begin to ask, 'When are they going to start fighting already?' During training, hardly any special skills are shown and during fighting, hardly any special skills used. The tributes are not 'X-Men,' but even Katniss hardly uses her signature weapon in any fantastic way. This does however lend credence to the realism of the tributes and normally that will be appreciated, but the movie is very outlandish. It would've been better served had the tributes shown more skills. In other words, none of the tributes are "BA" (BA means badass for all you non-gamers out there). The tribute closest to "BA" status is Clove. She's a skilled knife thrower. The confusion comes in when a situation calls for her to put her skill to use and she doesn't use it! Glimmer attempts to use a bow, then Cato attempts to use the bow. Why doesn't Clove just throw a knife?

Most of the special effects are decent. Katniss's dress and the control room for the arena are fairly impressive, but parts of the movie contains shockingly low special effects, e.g., when the tributes are introduced to the audience. The finale incorporates good effects but the finale itself is anti-climactic.

The general story is good, the characters are good, the acting is good, and even the directing is passable. The screenplay needs to be burned. The one thing this movie leaves you with is a desire to read the book. It seems as though there might be a wonderful gem behind this flimsy portrayal. If there's one thing to take away from this movie is that the tween fangirls tastes are improving. In other words, thank goodness Twilight is over!

On a scale of 1-10 The Hunger Games is...a 6.5
                  with distinction: slightly overrated.

Scene Spotlight: None.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1392170/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

Extract (2009)

This is a movie I can watch multiple times! The cast is great! Its simply, cozy. Extract revolves around the owner of an extract company named Joel, played by Jason Bateman. Bateman is his usual sad sappy underdog. Everything in his life seems to be going wrong and you just want to give him a hug. Joel is not a departure from most of Bateman's other roles, but he's good at it and I'm not tired of it yet.

J.K. Simmons plays Brian. Its not clear if he's a minority business partner or a type of general manager; regardless, its of little significance. Recognizing J.K. Simmons from such serious roles in OZ and Law & Order, its hilarious to hear him call everyone "dinkus." Watching him make fun of people makes you feel so sentimental. It sounds strange and I suppose that connection is only there if you're familiar with his much more serious roles.

I'm not a big Mila Kunis fan. I just really want her to clear her throat. I know that may seem silly or superficial but its slightly irritating to listen to raspy voices for too long. The good thing is, she's not the main character. I don't want this to sound like she isn't good in the movie, because she is! In fact, she's perfect.

Ben Affleck as Dean the Bartender, Dustin Milligan as Brad the Gigolo, Clifton Collins Jr as Step, Kristin Wiig as Suzie, T.J. Miller as Rory, David Koechner as Nathan; there are so many dynamic roles and they are all played superbly. The weakest link in all of the acting is Gene Simmons as Joe Adler. He barely pulls it off. He just doesn't have the hutzpah required for such a sleazy part. It was a missed opportunity for an eccentric outlandish character; however, its not distracting.

Extract is written and directed by Mike Judge from Beavis and Butthead fame; so naturally there's sex, drugs, more drugs, and little bit of rock n roll. Throughout most of the film, it isn't a noticeable Mike Judge story; but I would consider Brad the Gigolo to be his signature. The movie, the cast, the story...everything about it is surprisingly comfortable.

On a scale of 1-10, I give Extract an 8.0
                 with distinction: underrated.

Scene Spotlight: Suzie and Brad the Gigolo poolside conversation.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1225822/