How true is the, "based on true events," opener in the beginning of Zero Dark Thirty? Only top level CIA officials and NAVY SEAL's may know the answer to that query. Luckily for the purposes of this movie review the event accuracy of Zero Dark Thirty does not have to be dissected. The film, 100% accurate or 98.654% accurate is a smash hit. Actress Jessica Chastain and actor Jason Clarke have breakout performances respectively. Going into this film and from the way it was marketed many viewers were expecting a bevy of choppy shoot-'em-up military scenes, but what truly makes Zero Dark Thirty a superb film is the way Chastain relentlessly goes after her goal of finding Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden. In a film in which the majority of people know the ending, the story-line has to be strong and that is another area where Zero Dark Thirty delivered. The trials, tribulations, hardships, and multiple dead ends are well displayed as the CIA does everything is can, even bending moral boundaries, to track down enemy's of the United States and her allies; most notably Bin Laden. The main source of controversy surrounding ZeroDark Thirty was it's display of torture carried out by U.S. officials against detainees. The accuracy of these displays as they relate to what actually happened can always be called into question, but that just creates more intrigue for the viewer. You may find yourself wondering if you are witnessing an accurate portrayal of the torture techniques that the U.S. carried out in Iraq and Afghanistan or if those tactics are being exaggerated for the big screen. It's up to the viewer to decided where they feel the truth lies.
The good: The brilliance of Zero Dark Thirty is so high that it would not be a stretch to say that the film nearly sums up a decade of blood, sweat, tears, and lost lives that went into the locating and eventual killing of Osama Bin Laden.
The bad: The only negatives depend on the individuals view of torture, and how much time one is willing to spend researching the accuracy of the film, if that is what they are looking for.
21 Jump Street is an exceptional comedy that is based off of the late 80’s to early 90’s television drama of the same name. The plot is simple; two youthful appearing police officers that proved to be ineffective in the field are assigned an undercover operation at a local high school with the objective of finding the supplier(s) of a new designer drug. What makes the movie work so well is that it is anchored by up and coming starts Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum. The two put their past differences aside to become friends in order to pass the police academy together. This unlikely alliance works but when the two are thrust back into high school for the undercover operation, their friendship endures its toughest obstacles yet. From day one of being placed back into a high school setting, Tatum and Hill have to deal with teenage pressures and anxiety’s that they both believed they had left behind as adults. An interesting subplot that Jump Street has is that it both parodies and over exaggerates the amount of, “change,” that has taken place in the high school setting since they had graduated just 7 years earlier. The movie shows it going from the stereotypical dumb jocks and hot girls rule the school to a setting where environmental consciousness, tolerance, and the showing of intelligence is cool. While these chances are in reality happening, at a much slower rate than shown in the film, it nonetheless takes a noticeable amount of time poking fun at these changes. Hill and Tatum are the types of actors that even before you know what the movie will be about, you can basically predict the type of roll that they will play. That being said, they both do a wonderful job in their roles and they are definitely funny. 21 Jump Street ends up being a smart and semi-serious comedy with fresh jokes and well flowing dialogue. It equally entertains both the teenage and adult crowd, and that is what makes it a success.
The good: You never know what you are going to get out of a blockbuster comedy now-a-days and 21 Jump Street proves itself to be strong and hilarious from beginning to end.
The bad: Jump Street does not contain the amount of, “raunchy,” comedy that most people expect when seeing it for the first time.
Act of Valor is a war film that comes onto the big screen during a time of a barrage of post 9/11, "War on Terror," movies and documentaries. Even so it is a film like no other before it due to the fact that it stars active duty U.S. Navy SEALs. Act of Valor is a mix of a big screen war flick, a documentary, a Navy SEALs recruitment video, and a daytime TV drama. Act of Valor contains heavy amounts of old school American nationalism, the kind that can cause some viewers to re-evaluate priorities in their lives and build a real appreciation for the armed forces of America. Due to the strong pro-America sentiment, Act of Valor is true American war film but at the same time it is put together in a way that also aims to positively resonate with non-American viewers. All that being said, Act of Valor serves more as an experience rather than a gritty and superbly scripted war film such as Saving Private Ryan. Since it is a movie the SEALs have to act, and to their credit they do their best but in the end the majority of the scenes in-between battles feel like you are watching a daytime soap opera where men deliver emotionless lines. The script has your usual and expected war movie clichés, but the storyline does have a realistic enough modern day terroristic believability factor which keeps viewers engaged from beginning to end. Act of Valor was just good enough to crack open the door to the possibility of future war movies in which real U.S. Military personnel are casted for roles where they respond to everyday war scenarios.
The good:Act of Valorwill make you proud to be an American.
The bad: When the SEALs have to deliver lines, with only one exception.
In 2008,Cloverfieldproved that with state of the art special effects and decent acting, a, "found-footage," film could in fact be quite successful. 2012's Chronicle proved to be just that and more with both state of the art special effects and great acting. The acting in this film has to be the greatest surprise given the fact that it features a young no name cast. They are your typical 20 somethings playing High School students but that tends to slip the eye of the average audience member. The only unanswered questions Chronicle leaves surround how exactly did these students obtain their powers. A scene is shown in which they get their powers, but it can be described as hazy at best. Once their powers are gotten, they begin to uncover and push the limits of their super-human abilities. Given the plot set-up, each character including the main character, Andrew, uses their powers in a way that reflects their up-bringing and in Andrew's case, a tragically chaotic home life. Being someone who has seen many superhero shows and movies, an overlooked aspect that this film does a great job with is showing early on that these teens are not immune to pain or injury. This makes the film more legitimate because as powerful as these teenagers are, they still have an internal fear of death or harm; all be it much smaller than an average person. Even though teens with superpowers is the overwhelming story of this film, it does contain well scripted sub-plots that indiscriminately delve into child abuse, cancer, depression, teenage friendship, and the classic battle within that if you have superpowers, do you use them for good, evil, or neither. Chronicle far exceeded the expectations of many critics including myself, who personally thought it would just be a shallow film involving teens who could move large objects around with telekinetic abilities.
The good: Given the set-up for each character, especially the main character Andrew, Chronicle is a completely believable account of what could happen if High School teenagers somehow obtained, "superman," like abilities.
The bad: A few unanswered questions are left involving the acquisition of their powers, and I have a strong feeling that the C.I.A. and or F.B.I. would be knocking at their doors long before they reached the level of powers that they did.
The Devil Inside was highly billed as the first exorcism type horror film to combine the aspects of both, "science," and, "religion," to help solve the mysteries of demonic possession that supposedly lie between the two. The back story to the film is not so bad, a young mother kills three people (presumably clergy) during an exorcism and ends up later being transferred to a mental hospital located within the walls of the Vatican City. It seems a little odd that the U.S. would extradite a murderer to be placed in a mental hospital in a country of which the person has no origin in, but if you let that one pass you have a decent back story. Sadly for movie-goers, that is about all the film has going for it. The film tries too hard to combine science and religion, which is similar to trying to combine oil and water; no matter how vigorously you stir the two, they will eventually settle and separate. While this film was marketed to be extremely terrifying, it was not at all, in fact that scariest part of this film was the breaking out of the phrase, "multiple demonic possession," that is the only thing you will probably remember from The Devil Inside; which also decides to give away its only plot twist in the name of the movie! This movie is just another over-hyped horror film that tried to put a different spin on the overused horror sub-genre known as exorcism.
The good: "Multiple demonic possession," you might find yourself using that phrase to describe people you think are crazy after seeing this film. The bad: The movie fails at basically every premise that it is marketed on, and it is too short. Rating: 1.4 out of 10
Paranormal Activity 3serves as the end to the trilogy that changed horror. The film continues the paranormal theme of real time horror scenes with no music. Since the first two films focused on the adult sisters Katie and Kristie respectively, the third film provides us with their childhood background which fills the audience in on how/why they ended up dealing with paranormal events as adults. To do so the third film takes place in 1988. The plot of the movie does a decent job of maneuvering around the technological lacks of that time when it comes to videotaping, as the mother of Katie and Kristi just happens to be with a man (Dennis) who makes wedding videos as a job. This makes him a camera expert if you will, and that seemingly drives his desire to catch the paranormal events taking place in their house on camera.Paranormal Activity 3did not seem to have as many scary moments as the first two movies, it instead focused more on having a stronger plot. This movie will definitely make you think twice if you ever encounter a young child that has an imaginary friend. The ending plot twist is what really solidifies this film as a solid horror movie; it is a twist that you just do not see coming.
The good: The real time horror thatParanormal Activity 3contains, while somewhat expected, is still almost guaranteed to scare even the toughest horror movie enthusiast. The ending plot twist is just magnificent.
The bad: It is hard to understand how Katie and Kristi, who are children in this film, seemingly forget these life changing events.
Drive is a film that you have to pay real close attention to. It contains a large amount of subtle emotion that is hard to understand due to its intentional lack of dialogue. Drive is a slow moving film in both its action and non action sequences. It ends up working out well because it is easy to figure out that both the slow moving action and dialogue reduction was intended by its director. In the age of giant explosions and lots of yelling, Drive is a complete success on its story alone. Even though the nameless driver seems to lack basic social skills, this actually ends up helping because it puts lots of words aside so that only his feelings are showing. The feelings that do show are that he is seemingly quick to fall in love with his neighbor, a single mother whose husband is in jail, and her young son. This quick attachment is made possible because of the lonely live that the driver has carved out for himself as both a movie stunt driver and a wheelman for heists. While Drive is slow to get started, it surely provides a breath of fresh air into the action movie genre.
The good: The focus ofDriveis delivering a strong storyline while setting aside constant action and dialogue; luckily Drivedoes exceptionaly well.
The bad: Ryan Gosling's lack of lines can be quite annoying to some.
This post was written on September 15th, and I have yet to see any information about a 3rd instillation of the modern hills have eyes movies. I understand that this is probably not the most popular of movies that people would like to see a sequel to. This is most likely due to how bad the second film was. The dialogue in The Hills Have Eyes 2 was so terrible that I felt that the, "jokes," were written by a high school freshman boy. None the less the premise for the modern hills have eyes movies are undoubtedly scary. Being stranded out in the middle of the desert with scores cannibalistic mutants and no way of communicating with anyone is a near perfect setting for a gory scary movie. As terrible as the second film was it left a cliffhanger from which a third film can built upon. It is not everyday that an entire national guard unit goes missing while on a training exercise in America. If a third film is to be made I hope an elite unit is sent into the mines to both kill as many mutants as possible and to obtain, "samples," for the government. With a stronger plot and less gore porn a third hills have eyes film would be decent, I would certainly go see it, would you?
Previews for Contagion looked very attractive due to its subject matter and a veteran cast anchored by Laurence Fishburne and Matt Damon. The movie itself was quite solid with exceptional acting and an undoubtably believable script. The film focuses on many different angles of how peoples lives are changed as a deadly pandemic spreads worldwide. While these angles can be somewhat confusing at times, the stories that they tell are intriguing. The film delivered well on showing the emotions and decision making of human beings when they are put into survival mode. All in all this was a strong film that focuses on strong dialogue and character development rather than explosions and gore.
The good: This film is solid all around and it gives a completely believable account of the types of occurrences that would happen if a pandemic were to break out in our modern world.
The bad: The movie, although believable, is overly predictable and lacks any sort of twist. It is as straight forward of a film as you will ever see.
I had high hopes for Transformers 3. I hoped Michael Bay would reduce the amount of pointless explosions and mindless dialogue. While that was done to a degree, the third and hopefully final installment of Transformers did not live up to my expectations. Yes, it was better than the second film, a feat not too challenging, but it was not better or as good as the first film. A major issue that I have with this film was its length; it seemed to drag on for way too long and I began to become restless. While the visuals were undeniably astonishing, the storyline was just too dry. The film seemed to try and go in a Terminator like direction but failed because even the killing of people in a Transformer's movie just cannot be taken seriously. Transformers 3 went all out with its casting, including the likes of Buzz Aldrin and Bill O’Rielly. Not to mention Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, who makes Megan Fox look ordinary. While those aspects added more spice to the film, especially Huntington-Whiteley, in the end Transformers 3 will be remembered as a mediocre ending to a seemingly mediocre blockbuster trilogy.
The good: The action and visuals of Transformers 3 are second to none.
The bad: You will most likely get to the point where you just want the movie to end, and there will still be a good 30 minutes left of it.
I saw the first Quarantine film in theaters and enjoyed very much. Its POV style gave it more of an intimate and scarier feel. That being said I was disappointed to find out that its sequel, Quarantine 2, was a straight to DVD movie. I put this disappointment aside as best as I could and watched Quarantine 2 online. It was not as bad as I thought it would be and in fact I think that John Pogue did a decent job of tying the storyline of the first film into this sequel. Still, this film is nowhere near as chilling as the first one and with a few edits here and there I would not be surprised if it ended up being shown on FX at around 10 at night. As for the acting, it was mediocre but not laughable, giving it some situational believability.
The good: This movie has a solid ending, something I consider a major plus.
The bad: This is not the type of scary movie you watch with a significant other, rather one you watch when you are bored and have nothing to do.
This post was written on June 26, 2011, and there has yet to be any consensus as to if or when a sequel to 28 Weeks Later will be made. If a sequel is made, my first hope is that it will be called 28 Months later. As you know at the end of 28 Weeks Later the Rage Virus spreads to France. It is unclear as to how since Great Britain is an island and it was heavily quarantined. I assume that a sequel will focus on France but I do not want it to have the same story line as 28 Weeks Later, only in France this time. Maybe they could have the virus spread to America, that would be quite interesting. Either way they need to continue with the two kids as main characters. The boy character has a dormant form of the virus so the sequel needs to show how that could eventually lead to the eradication of the virus. Both 28 Days Later and 28Weeks Later are classic movies. 28 Weeks Later was not as strong as its prequel because it was a larger adaptation but it was still a great film. I loved both films, and I look forward to 28 Months later.
This post was written on June 22nd, and Transformers 3 will be released on the 29th. When I went to see the first Transformers back in 2007 I honestly did not know what to expect. I had not seen any trailers for the film and knew very little about the popular 80’s cartoon that it was based off of. That being said I was then blown away by the special effects and action that the film had, and of course the beauty of Megan Fox; all be it somewhat digitally enhanced. I enjoyed the first film but then came the second one. Transformers 2 was a complete overload of everything that made the first film good. All that comes to mind about the second film for me is a funny Robot Chicken skit in which, “EXPLOSIONS! BY MICHAEL BAY!” is continuously repeated. Hopefully Bay knows that the second film was a let down, not box office wise, but in the context of what a good film should be. I have high hopes for Transformers 3 and Megan Fox’s replacement, who looks pretty damn sexy. Transformers 3 will no doubt be a huge summer blockbuster; I just hope it is like the first one.
After X-Men Origins: Wolverine, did not live up to expectations, the X-Men franchise looked to have lost some of its luster. But, X-Men: First Class, is a breath of fresh life into the big-screen adaptations of the famous Marvel comic. In fact, it might be the best of the X-Men films. It contains a perfect balance between action and storyline. Its storyline does a great job of meshing into actual history, making the story all the more believable even though it is a science-fiction film. It feels so much better to see the origins of these characters, rather than be thrown into their story with no background. I highly recommend this film; it is an amazing summer blockbuster.
The good: Matthew Vaughn was able to direct and help write arguably the best of the X-Men film with only ten seconds of the X-Men poster-child (more like poster-man), Hugh Jackman.
The bad: As amazing as this film is, Jackman’s ten-second cameo might be the best part of it.
In film, it is very rare for a sequel to be better than the original. If The Hangover is Star Wars, A New Hope, then The Hangover 2 is definitely not The Empire Strikes Back. TheHangover 2 serves more as a comedy cash cow than a sequel meant to continue a story. The, “jokes,” are cruder and more spaced out than in the original, and of course they take advantage of the fact that there are many transsexuals in Thailand. Hopefully Todd Philips did not pick Thailand as the location for the second film so that he and his writers could sneak in a few, “tranny,” jokes. The Hangover 2 lacks the element of surprise and believability that the first installment had. You are left with more questions than answers about how events in the film transpired. With all that being said, this movie is still quite funny, better than your average comedy but still no where near as good as the original.
The good: The Wolfpack is back and it’s almost a guarantee that their exploits will make you laugh; a lot.
The bad: This film is not as original as the first one and you might find yourself feeling déjà-vu while watching it.
