THE ADVENTURES OF TINTIN (2011)

Growing up I vaguely remember the story of Tintin and his dog Snowy, not to mention his friend Capatain Haddock. I remember this because it was a cartoon and back in the day before there was too much to watch the selections were limited. As a cartoon, Tintin always seemed a little dry but nonetheless I found myself watching it from time to time. Then - nothing. At least not for fifteen years of my life.

Then, through my various interweb snoopings, a couple of years ago I discovered Steven Spielberg and Peter Jackson were teaming up to bring Tintin to the big screen. Retrospectively, it's surprising it took anybody this long to make a movie based on one of the most successful comic series of all time. But alas, along with writers Steven Moffat and Edgar Wright (Scott Pilgrim vs. the World) this amazingly talented super team has brought us The Adventures of Tintin, which also happens to be Spielberg's first 3D movie. As Scorcese did with Hugo, I'm happy to say he's done it right.

In this case, The Adventures of Tintin turns out to be more of a single adventure - one surrounding an old ship called the Unicorn. The ship itself belonged to a relative of Captain Haddock, who's played by the motion capture master himself - Andy Serkis. Tintin is played by Jamie Bell and other notable 'performances' come from Thomson and Thompson, who are voiced by Nick Frost and Simon Pegg respectively.

Tintin works for a lot of reasons. The biggest and most important reason it works is why any good film succeeds - the story. I'm not certain if the story is wholly based on previously written written material, although I wouldn't be surprised as even my foggy memory shook loose a few familiar moments from the cartoon. Other reasons Tintin is so wonderful are in part due to the amazing special effects, the successfully utilized 3D and my thirst for adventure - or anybody's for that matter. Any criticisms lie within that of the uncanny valley. While I admire the detailed animation and often marvelled at it - my suspended disbelief was never broken per say, just jarred.

The Adventures of Tintin gets an open door as I suspected it would. It's kid friendly, it's adult friendly and it's PETA friendly. Seriously, a lesser dog would have been eaten by that hawk. With Oscar season upon us, Tintin is sure to score big in at least a couple of categories including Best Animated Feature. I imagine a sequel isn't far off either.

Read more...

FINAL DESTINATION 5 (2011)

I will say despite the Final Destination series' many faults - one thing it never fails at is it's countless ways to build up suspense and make you cringe. Even when it comes down to something as simple as the potential to step on a screw - you may find yourself on the edge of your seat. That is, until you witness the most ridiculous death you've ever seen. Then you find yourself asking 'Really?!' - that and 'Why did I come to Final Destination 5?'.

The biggest error in the Final Desination films is unfortunately also it's biggest gimmick and plot point. The fact that right before this big event happens the main character gets a disturbing vision of the future. Be it a plane crash, a highway pile-up or a bridge collapsing, for some reason a vision always precedes the actual events. By the time I found myself watching the fifth one I began to wonder less about who was going to die and more about where the hell these visions were coming from. This idea has increasingly become more of plot hole that just doesn't make any sense. This is forgivable enough if you have characters and story you care about - but when the film even lacks that, all bets are off when death comes knocking at the door.

The expert in this film (every horror movie usually has one) states in inexplicable detail how to beat death. Previous ways include using new life to rewrite your 'contact' and beating your near-death experience to earn a place amongst the living. In Final 5, the coroner explains you have to kill somebody else to take their life force. Once again - really?! Not only that, but he says it in passing and the kids eat it up like crack. At no point do they question it - they simply go along with it.

But these are all things consistent throughout the entire series. Something that's not is the one piece of originality Final 5 had going for it - it's a surprise prequel. Now, knowing this information won't ruin the film for you, I promise. However, that's the biggest problem in this film. If you didn't like the last three films, you'll generally still admit the first one was original in it's attitude and execution. So, the idea that this film could potentially bring back the original feel was an intriguing idea when I thought back upon it. As a prequel there's potential to answer a lot of questions and introduce a new way of thinking about this whole 'death as an antagonist' thing. However, in Final 5 it seemed more like an afterthought for the filmmakers rather than a springboard for a reason this film needed to exist. Also, the fact this film is called Final Destination 5 and not The Final Destination like it's predecessor speaks volumes about the lack of thought and foreplanning that went into this series.

Final Destination 5 gets a big ol' closed door. As I said with the last one, I truly hope this is the final destination. Unlike a horror franchise like Saw, Final Destination is sloppy gore that doesn't connect well. It's unimaginative and predictable at this point and it might be time to put this series to rest - especially with it coming full circle as it now has. Besides, when it comes to using common deaths such as falling as a 'freak' accident - you're clearly running out of ideas.

*Stills courtesy of Newline Cinema

Read more...

THE SMURFS (2011)

So, what do you get when you mix modern CGI with a classics children tail and the theory that if you can, maybe you should? You get a hunk of good intentions called The Smurfs. You also get somebody like Neil Patrick Harris to try and make it better. News flash folks, it's not NPH that does the writing - nor can his scrawny frame carry the weight of twenty years of childhood nostalgia and expectations. But then again - I'm not sure who could.

As more movies like The Smurfs continue to come out, a better idea comes to mind. Why not just leave well enough alone? Not only have the Smurfs told their numerous stories through the original show, but it's highly unlikely we need another 'wacky character caught in New York' story. Frankly, if you are going to make a Smurfs movie, why not keep it in the same environment that made the original so successful? Was there really no other story you could have told? Could there not have been more drug references? Did this have to be a kids movie when the generation it belongs to is now aged thirty or higher? I think if the studios wanted a film people would be raving about, they should have upped the ante here and made it more mature.

The basic story here is that The Smurfs are chased by Gargamel into a vortex that transports them to New York City. There the Smurfs meet Patrick (Harris) and Grace (Jayma Mays) who help them out by giving them a place to live until they can find their way back to the Smurf Village. Meanwhile, Gargamel is out to find them because, well, that's what he does. Also, he needs them so he can start up his own cosmetics company and take over the world - nope, I didn't make that up. But thankfully, the Smurfs will lend their helping hand to assist Patrick in coming up with a new ad campaign. One that'll undoubtedly represent his best wishes and intent - and not the interest of the people who are paying him (because his bosses are evil you see). Essentially, it's all a bunch of believe in yourself bullsmurf.

If there was any redeeming quality in this movie it was Hank Azaria who plays Gargamel. You could tell both him and Harris knew this movie was shit, so they decided to ad lib whatever they could get away with and have fun with The Smurfs. Yes, this movie is also kid friendly and colorful so I'm sure anybody under five may have a smurf of a time watching the film. Anybody with the brain of somebody a little more mature might giggle at some of the quips but will be bored by the unoriginal storyline.

I am giving The Smurfs a big BLUE closed door, because feeling blue can be a bad thing - despite the film's opening message. But let's be honest - there were very few people who knew this would make a good movie, even with the blue buzz around this thing. Although I've yet to see it, if you want a movie your child will cherish (especially if it's their first movie-going experience) I'd recommend Winnie the Pooh. From what I've heard, that's a movie to be proud of. New T-shirt idea: Go Pooh, Not Blue.

*Stills courtesy of Columbia Pictures

Read more...

CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGER (2011)

Finally, it arrives. After a small post-credits teaser following Iron Man three years ago, the last movie in the pre-Avengers line-up arrives. Other films in that line-up have included Iron Man 2, The Incredible Hulk and the disappointing Thor. While The Avengers (scheduled to kick off Summer in May 2012) looks epic, is Captain America good enough to rally the troops and build up enough excitement to make The Avengers the success Marvel is hoping for? You bet it is, despite some of the imperfections.

A couple years back after Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk it was the hot topic to be speaking about 2011 in the series. People were wondering who was going to play Thor and Captain America and how the films would turn out. We all know the mess Thor was, but I have to say I'm pleased with the casting choices for Cap. I've always been a fan of Chris Evans (Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, The Losers) so I'm glad to see him in a roll that seems to fit well. For a while, there was talk of The Office's John Krasinski getting the roll of the red, white and blue hero. I won't lie, I sort of rooted for him to take the lead at first. He's a charming guy and seems to have that 'rah! rah! sis boom bah!' American spirit that's needed for a roll like this. It only takes one viewing of Captain America though to recognize the movie would have been just ... weird with Krasinski in it.

In the opposing roll to Evans' hero, Hugo Weaving (Transformers, The Matrix) takes on yet another villain role as Red Skull - the Yin to Steve Rogers' Yang. Red Skull is said to be Hitler's right hand man, that is until he grows tired of Hitler's antics and decides to get really serious with the supernatural interest originally put in place by old Adolf himself. Red Skull uses a force he states was left by the Gods for man to find, also known as the cosmic cube (teased about in the Thor post-credits). His plans for the cube's energy are nothing less than that of taking over the world. Skull uses the energy to build tanks and guns, nothing completely unlike the futuristic weapons we would see in Iron Man. However, it seems the army is at its wit's end and doesn't know how to stop him. So, why not use Tony Stark's father, Howard Stark's (Dominic Cooper) genius and combine it with an experimental serum created by German scientist Dr. Abraham Erskine (played perfectly by Stanley Tucci). The result is Captain America.

While it seems a lot of comic book to movie translations fail (I really, really hated Thor), I don' t think anybody will be really disliking Captain America. While it lacks the certain finesse that made X-Men: First Class such a good film, it offers a lot to those who have experienced the older Captain America movies (via an awful Broadway costume) as well as those that dig the comics. You also get some great hints as to a potential plot for The Avengers movie (stay tuned post-credits as usual) as well as some wonderfully done action sequences (when they're piratically done) -despite a slight overdose of cheese. The only part that threw me off were some of the moments where it was clear there was too much CG to make anything look real. It was mostly purposeful, but I wanted the movie to have that nitty gritty forties feel we're used to seeing in movies from that era. Especially when Captain America is riding his bike out of a building as it explodes - reminded me a lot of Machete-type of effects, or something you would see in Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow. Thankfully, we're not subjected to it over and over. I will have to say, however, I was super impressed by the CG look of Steve Rogers' pre-buff mode.

Ultimately, Captain America: The First Avenger gets an open door. Unfortunately, it was one of the summer blockbusters I was looking most forward too and it didn't fully live up to expectations. I think a movie that takes place in that era had an opportunity to be something really special (and not only because the forties is my favorite decade). It could have channeled a number of feelings from that decade including film noir, but it didn't. As a popcorn flick and something to get you excited about next year's Avengers, it doesn't disappoint. The performances are fine and the running time sufficient. There's also a decent amount of humour mixed in with a love story that make this a borderline date movie. But I triple dog dare you not to get the theme for Team America stuck in your head at least once during Captain America. It's almost damn near impossible. America, f**k yeah!

*Stills courtesy of Paramount Pictures

Read more...

TRANSFORMERS: DARK OF THE MOON (2011)

This is my first Transformers review for my website and I can't express to you all how glad I am about that. We all know just how plain awful Revenge of the Fallen was, but we also know the first film in the series showed some promise (and not enough Megan Fox, winkity wink). As much as I think Megan Fox is a, well - fox, I also recognized immediately the poor thing couldn't act her way out of a student film. The replacement of her by the slightly superior Rosie Huntington-Whitely was the first step in making Transformers 3 a fresher film.

You'll find the effects are well done (as always) and the 3-D is still whatever (as it is in any movie really). The action however is much, much better and this could be for a number of reasons. The first may be that there is simply just more of it, and less of a love story between Sam (Shia LaBeouf) and his girl of the hour. There's also less of Sam's very annoying parents. We get it, they're the comic relief - we also had enough of them in the first one. You not only end up with more, but better action here. I didn't care much for the pyramid scene in Revenge of the Fallen and it's certainly trumped in Dark of the Moon by the battle in downtown Chicago. There's something insanely cool about the scene where that highrise was tipping over (or it may have just been my subconscious telling me to watch Inception again). This brings me to second reason the action is better - which is really just because it's so much more epic. If you don't think you'll enjoy a movie about a mechanical alien race, then you're there to see the special effects and action and this is the first Transformers where I felt satisfied.

As far as the story goes, I can honestly say you won't care. You may like the fact that Patrick Dempsey is in it (if you're a girl), or you may like the fact that there's less of that Sector 7 douche, John Turturro (if you're anybody else). It's the same old stuff and it's predictable for the most part. There's bad robots and there's good robots and there's girls and cars and explosions. Director Michael Bay may not be the finest filmmaker, but he did really seem to put more effort into Dark of the Moon and it shows by the time the credits roll. He took all of what worked in the first two and left out what didn't.

What's new in Transformers 3 is the Forest Gump-like history tie-ins they use to explain why it's called Dark of the Moon. It's actually quite impressive and reminded me a lot of what we saw in X-Men: First Class. Expect to see more of it (for a third time this year) in September's Apollo 18. Perhaps Hollywood is sponsoring the next Moon trip and wants to make sure it's numbers are good?

I'm giving Transformers: Dark of the Moon an open door. I hope it's the last one (my Transformers fan friend insists it almost has to be - due to original story restrictions). Plus, with Reel Steel coming out this winter we may have already had it with robot movies by the time the end of the world mosies along next December. But this movie is enjoyable at the very least, and you're rarely left wondering why LaBouef seems to be doing a better job quitting the franchise on national TV than actually promoting this thing.

*Stills courtesy of Paramount Pictures

Read more...

CARS 2 (2011)

Did I hate Cars 2? Nope. Did I like it? About as much (if not slightly more) than the first one. My friend Luke brings up an interesting point about this film. While it's obvious this film exists to cash in on merchandising opportunities, the reason the Cars movies work is because we all believe our cars to be personified. There's almost nobody out there that doesn't refer to their car or a vehicle (especially the ones we love) as 'he' or 'she'. So what's better than seeing a film like Cars 2 and thinking to yourself "Hey, I bet my minivan does think that way!"

Does that mean Cars 2 is without its flaws? No, not at all. But it is watchable if you can get past the idea that for some reason cars with no hands can somehow make buildings, write newspaper articles and dare I say - make babies? Best leave that story for a time when Disney runs out of enough ideas to make a film literally titled The Birds and the Bees. These flaws were present in the first one as well. If you accepted it then, you'll accept it with the sequel.

In Cars 2, two main characters stray from home - Lightning McQueen (Midnight in Paris's Owen Wilson) and Mater (Larry the Cable Guy). They leave Radiator Springs behind for the sites of the world in pursuit of first place at the World Grand Prix. Sure enough, in front of the big shots Mater embarrasses McQueen leaving McQueen to push Mater out of the way and move on to 'more important things'. That's when Mater runs into spies Finn McMissile (Michael Caine) and Holly Shiftwell (Emily Mortimer). The spies mistake Mater for one of the most gifted spies they've ever encountered. If Cars was McQueen's movie then Cars 2 is certainly Mater's.

Now, the Disney/Pixar execs will swear a couple of things when it comes to Cars 2 (Pixar's most unnecessary film to date). One is that this film was made solely for merchandising purposes (they'll say it was made to appease the fans' demands), and the other is that this is more of spy movie than a spoof of a spy movie. The merchandising is whatever - Cars 2 cost Disney $200 million to make. While it'll easily make that back in ticket sales, a movie made mainly for kids essentially sells out the second it's pitched anyways. If the studios thought kids would want to sport Black Swan gear, we would see the same - art or not. So for those of you hating on this film for that aspect of it, get over your high sense of self and tell me you didn't want an Optimus Prime action figure in the worst way when you were eight. As for the spy part of it, that's something I wanted to discuss.

It's the 21st century, a spy film made today will have some air of James Bond to it no matter what. It's what made Austin Powers successful, and it will make Cars 2 successful. The thing they have in common? They are both spoofs of spy movies in some ways. While Austin Powers is more candid about it, Cars 2 still borrows a lot from the spy genre and therefore becomes a spoof. But let me be clear, this isn't a bad thing. Here it's used as a tool to send Mater on a wacky adventure and provide some comic relief.

For the entertainment value alone, I am giving Cars 2 an open door. The day that I can't recommend a Pixar film will be a sad day indeed. This one came close though. But there are enough jokes, color and pretty things to look at that while the adult in us may struggle with it a bit, the kid in us (or car enthusiast in us) will love it.

*Stills courtesy of Disney/Pixar

Read more...

GREEN LANTERN (2011)

Two years ago if you asked me the difference between the Green Hornet and the Green Lantern, I would have been perplexed. Now that 2011 is well into its blockbuster season, I can definitely tell you - one makes for a better movie. While it ended up being just okay, The Green Hornet fell disappointingly short - at least compared to what I thought it could be. Green Lantern on the other hand, does a good job of coming a whole lot closer to getting it right.

Ryan Reynolds plays Hal Jordan/Green Lantern and Blake Lively (Accepted) plays his love interest. Following a creed introduced by his father a number when he was a child, Hal is fixated on the idea that in order to survive and succeed in the world you need to be fearless. As it turns out, in order to be chosen by the Green Lantern Corps. one must be fearless. Enter a purple alien and one hell of an adventure for Hal.

With Green Lantern, all the ‘right’ elements are introduced to the viewer. You have the character arc of a likable enough guy, the pretty girl, excellent special effects, an imposing villain and an established fan base. Where I believe Green Lantern goes wrong is how those elements are put together and executed; case in point – the story arc. At just under two hours I was left feeling like there was still something missing. The story seemed to move too quickly; there was a point in the film where Hal confronts the leaders of the Green Lantern Corps. Despite being about a jillion years older than the human species alone – the leaders listen to Hal’s ideas and seem to learn something from them. Apparently evolution of the mind stops after 10, 000 years or so.

The other thing I felt disappointed with was the lack of ad-lib humour (or humour in general) from Reynolds. Now, I don’t know if this was the doing of the producers making sure that the script was left as close to the original as possible, or if Reynolds was just being lame. But part of what I discussed felt missing was also due to the emptiness of Reynolds’ charisma. By the end of the movie you’re left feeling that anybody with abs of steel could have played this role as if un-owned by Reynolds. Looks like Captain America may be the only hope left this summer as a possible candidate for beating out the awesomeness of X-Men: First Class.

Despite all this though, as aforementioned, I still enjoyed Green Lantern and its efforts enough to give it an open door as an entertaining piece of cinema and a great popcorn movie. It’s unlikely you’ll leave the theatre hating this movie or feeling cheated out of your hard-earned dollar. It’s just as likely though that you won’t remember this as being the summer of Green Lantern.

*Stills courtesy of Warner Bros. Studios

Read more...

KUNG FU PANDA 2 (2011)

Kung Fu Panda Boo...

Kung Fu Panda (the first one) was at the very least an interesting enough concept. While I'm not the biggest fan of Jack Black as he seems to repeat the same shtick, the first movie entertained me enough that I would have at least recommended it when asked. Kung Fu Panda 2 on the other hand, is a movie that I feel didn't need to exist. In a year with a record-breaking amount of sequels, I can't help but feel that Dreamworks was only looking to cash in on the franchise cow that all movies seem to be on board for. It's no longer about just making one movie - but rather as many as possible. Chances are, when a studio is offered a film these days they'll ask themselves if a sequel is a possibility, even before the film is released. Later on this year we'll see Hugh Jackman in Real Steel, a film about robot counterparts who box. The studio that's produced Real Steel likes enough of what it's seen to already start talks about a sequel - that studio by the way also happens to be Dreamworks.

Panda 2 is a half origin story about Po (Black), a panda who in the first film learned he was the coveted Dragon Warrior. This story focuses on where he came from and the bad guy responsible for Po's separation from his parents - Shen (Gary Oldman). Shen wants to take over the world and was told once upon a time via a fortune teller that a panda would be responsible for his demise. Shen then had all the pandas killed off forcing Po's mother to abandon him in a box of radishes.

While Panda 2 does a nice job tying itself to the first one (as well as setting up a third film), as aforementioned it seems unnecessary. There's less of a journey for Po and Panda 2 seems to try less hard to please the viewer, as if implicating that because there was a first movie already there's no need to try anything new here or build upon Panda 1. We also get far less time with any characters other than Po than we did in the first movie. Call me asinine, but I wanted to learn a little bit more about the other members of the Furious Five - who include animals voiced by wasted talents such as Angelina Jolie, David Cross and Jackie Chan, to name a few.

Kung Fu Panda 2 gets a closed door. I wasn't out to hate the movie from the beginning and I'm still not. It just didn't do it for me as I was hoping to be a bit more surprised and just simply didn't feel anything. This time around if an individual came up to me to ask if I would recommend this film, I'm afraid the answer would have to be a plain and simple "no".

*Stills courtesy of Dreamworks Animation

Read more...

PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: ON STRANGER TIDES (2011)

A fountain of maggots? Hardly...

The day before Pirates 4 was released, I stumbled upon a review via a recommendation from Roger Ebert. The link on Ebert's Facebook page directed me to what Ebert calls "The most negative review of any movie [he has] ever read". It was a review by Ali Arikan titled 'A Fountain of Maggots: Rob Marshall's Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides'. Although I had yet to see the movie at that point - I couldn't help but take a gander. That's not something I normally do by the way, for fear of an influence over my own opinion. Well, not that it spoils anything (as there are literally no details present in his review), but Arikan rips Jack Sparrow a new one. He goes on to say he walked out of the theatre because Pirates 4 was that bad. If anything, this only fueled my want to see the movie more. Was it going to be 'walk out' bad? Or was it going to be - as I would guess - disappointing? As it turns out, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and when it came to Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, I actually liked it.

One argument Arikan brings up in his review is one I will definitely validate, much like Thor, Pirates 4 only exists to make money. Unlike Harry Potter, however, Pirates didn't necessarily need to have the sequel, either. So, why then did I like it? Because it was fun, less disappointing than something like Thor and I actually like the characters and the storyline based around the Fountain of Youth and eternal life - despite it being a tad tired by now.

The two most recognizable characters in Pirates 4 are (of course) Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) and Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush). Both do fine, as I would hope they've broken in these characters by now. In this chapter, they're joined by Angelica Malon (Penelope Cruz) and Blackbeard (Ian McShane) and as with Depp and Rush, both do just fine. The reason I bring the characters up here is because while watching this latest installment I finally realized why I hated the last two films - Dead Man's Chest and At World's End so much. There are a couple of reasons actually...

The first is because I realized I didn't really give two shits about the characters that the last two films seemed to center around - Elizabeth Swann (Keira Knightley) and Will Turner (Orlando Bloom). Both kind of annoyed me and Sparrow may have been the mascot of those movies but always played second fiddle to Liz and Will's romance. The second thing I realized is that the last two flicks seemed to lack that sense of wonder and romantic endeavor the first had. In the first, Curse of the Black Pearl, Barbossa and his thugs were seeking a new form of life - and their journey had a desperate magic about it that complimented the tale of Jack Sparrow. Aside from all the fun everybody seems to have on screen here we get the magic back, we get the banter between Barbossa and Sparrow and best of all - we get the adventure.

I am giving Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides an open door. It reminded me of the first film, which was a huge surprise to us all when it was released in 2003 (especially when Depp gained an Oscar nod for his performance). In fact, I am going to say the only good thing to happen between The Black Pearl and this film was the eradication of the Swann/Turner storyline and the introduction of the plot for Stranger Tides. While it seems most people may disagree with me on this review (namely Arikan), I'll end by saying I had a lot of fun with this one and was pleasantly surprised and I may have to Arikan for that, actually.

*Stills courtesy of Walt Disney Pictures

Read more...

PRIEST (2011)

Paul Bettany - the new poster child for the Vatican.

Being that today is Friday the 13th doesn't help a movie like Priest, which definitely could have used any help it could get. Priest however, is the first movie that I've seen this year where I'm unsure how to rate it. While Priest undoubtedly has some cool moments, I'm not sure what exactly it's trying to do. If anything, one could predict that the film is nothing more than a prologue for what Screen Gems is hoping will be a successful franchise. However, after seeing the first installment, I'm more than doubtful we're going to be seeing Priest 2 anytime soon.

Paul Bettany (Legion) plays Priest, an unnamed man who's set out to save his daughter from the vampires - who since the dawn of time have been terrorizing man and forced them into barridcaded cities run by the church. Previously, Priest was a warrior for the church who used him as a means of forcing all the vampires onto reservations. Once Priest was finished the job, the church then returned him to the status of a normal man - forced back into a regular, drab life (and feared by many).

In order to save his daughter, Priest teams up with law man Hicks (Cam Gigandet) and former fellow vampire hunter, Priestess (Maggie Q). The three of them head off across the post-apocalyptic desert in search of the man who's responsible for the kidnapping - Black Hat (Star Trek's Karl Urban). One can argue that with the names these characters carry (Priest, Black Hat) this whole plot may be lacking imagination, and you wouldn't be wrong. The names are actually a perfect indication of just what to expect in Priest.

When The Matrix was released in 1999 (followed by the sequels in 2003), it was clear the films had a religious undertone. In Priest, the religion is under-toned by The Matrix. There's actually very few action sequences in the film that won't remind you of a Wachowski way of things. There's even a scene that takes place on top of a moving train that's incredibly similar to the semi-trailer fight that took place in The Matrix Reloaded. It's not just The Matrix either, you'll find bits and pieces of almost every movie that relates to post-apocalyptic futures, religion, vampires, etc. within this film. Maybe that's the problem with Priest, just as the character names are unoriginal - so is the plot within reference to any original devices. Also, if the barricaded church city isn't a blatant rip-off of 1984, than there's a huge coincidence at hand.

When it comes down to it, Priest gets a closed door. Most people I spoke to after the movie really only had one thing to say about it - "It was alright...". Is something that's just alright worth the $10-14 you'll pay to see it in 3D? Not at all, really. In fact, when it comes to the 3D in Priest, it's a decision that should have been rethought (as is the case with many recent 3D flicks). There's far too many badly lit scenes in the film that being forced to use a pair of 3D glasses only makes it harder to see whats on the screen. Then again, in a film like Priest - maybe it doesn't matter as you ain't missing much anyway.

* Stills courtesy of Screen Gems

Read more...

RIO (2011)

Rio is brought to you by the number 420 - because it's about the only thing that will make this film less of a 'bird'en.

Jesse Eisenberg (correction - Academy Award nominee Jesse Eisenberg) makes a bad damn decision to be part of Rio - as does Academy Award winner Jamie Foxx, and Academy Award nominee Anne Hathaway. Rio proves to be another classic example of how a film can have the talent to back it up, but no originality to move it forward. Clearly these three actors were just too polite to walk away from this project after reading the this script, or they had their iPod on while reading the parts and couldn't hear the lines as come out of their talented mouths (Did that sound gay? Yeah, that probably sounded gay...).

Because you haven't heard the same story before (sarcasm abounds), I'll tell you a little but about Rio. Once upon a time there was a bird named Blu (Eisenberg) who fell off an exotic animal truck in Moose Lake, Minnisota. He was picked up by Linda (Leslie Mann) who raised him to be a cocky bird who never learned to fly. One day (out of the 'blue' perhaps?) Tulio (Rodrigo Santoro), a bird mater from South America, comes knocking telling Linda that Blu is the last male of his species. If there are to be any other birds of his feather, he'll have to mate with the last remaining female of his species - Jewl (Anne Hathaway).

So the trio heads down to Rio where after a failed Thanksgiving (you know, where Blu stuffs the bird?), Blu and Jewel escape only to be apprehended by a group of thugs looking to sell the rare birds on the black market. When the two escape from the cunning bad guy (and two cliché idiot sidekicks), they end up on the run and get into all sorts of wacky adventures while on the search for Blu's owner, Linda. Those adventures include two stereotypical (and racially-profiled) birds, voiced by Foxx and Geporge Lopez - as well as a decently entertaining bulldog named Luiz (Tracy Morgan). To top it all off, take a guess as to how in love Blu and Jewl fall... it just goes on and on, people.

I guess with Rio, I'd hoped that Hathaway had left alone Hoodwinked Too to avoid another animated disaster (this just in - I was wrong). Am I saying Rio would or could have never worked? No, I'm just saying it might have worked better under the supervision of Disney/Pixar director Brad Bird (seriously, no pun intended - he's just really good). At least Bird knows that physical humour every three seconds doesn't necessarily dictate good humour.

I am giving this clichéd mess of a film a big, fat closed door. For kids, sure - they may giggle a time or two. For adults - Rio will please you about as much as writer/director Carlos Saldanha's previous works did, such as Robots and Ice Age (both relatively unamazing, as well) - which also had big names be part of them as well. Come to think of it - are Saldanha films where big name actors (who have just won Oscars, especially) and their careers go to die? Maybe. Coming up next year - Jeremy Renner in Asparagus - a film about a young asparagus plant who's self-conscious about the way his pee smells (yes, that's based on a quote from Elf).

*Stills courtesy of Twentieth Century Fox Animation

Read more...

RANGO (2011)

Karma, karma, karma chameleon.

Johnny Depp is a weird guy - I mean that in the best of ways. We all know what he looks like when he's not in make-up as Jack Sparrow, Edward Scissorhands or The Mad Hatter. He seems very laid back and relaxed - yet he has this other side to him that allows him to pull off very unique and interesting performances. It's obvious why Tim Burton likes him and why Depp is today's go-to guy for the odd-ball characters that sometimes even land him an Oscar nomination. In something like Rango, it seems like Depp has once again successfully separated himself from the person he is off the screen and while you can recognize Rango's voice as Depp, it becomes very difficult to picture him saying the lines or if you've seen some of the behind-the-scenes footage - to see Depp acting the way he does while shooting.

Rango is about a pet lizard (a chameleon to be more exact) who has a passion for the theatre. Everything is just as he likes it until the car he's riding in the back of hits an armadillo in the middle of the desert and his glass tank flies out of his owner's car and he's left to fend for himself. That is until he finds the small town of Dirt - where apparently water shortage is an issue. Dirt is inhabited by all sorts of desert creatures - the most feared being a rattlesnake named Jake voiced by Bill Nighy (Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Hot Fuzz).

After saving the inhabitants of Dirt from a a vulture (or something like that), the mayor (Ned Beatty, Toy Story 3) makes Rango the town Sheriff. All is good for a while for Rango until he discovers a secret plot to control the town's water - in turn controlling the town's people.

In an age where animated movies tend to turn to pop culture references in order to relate to the audience (and get another laugh or two), Rango is extremely refreshing in its originality. Besides more or less playing on the western genre and using a perfectly-fitting Clint Eastwood reference, this film is a wholly unique piece of work with some of the most original tones and pacing I've seen in a long time - animated or otherwise. All the performances are top notch and you get some really funny moments. I'm inclined to say this is an animated films adults will enjoy more than perhaps the kids will - due to the quirky nature of the humour, the subtle jokes and the slower and more odd moments.

Rango gets an open door. I believe this is a film that will appreciate over time and find its way onto the shelves and into the hearts with other animated classics. If you don't like westerns on the other hand, this may not be entirely for you - even then, it's a stretch to say you wouldn't enjoy yourself. The animation with Rango is some of the best you're likely to see in a while. Pay close attention to the lighting, and the flavor this film has within it's vibrant style. Definitely one to enjoy while it's still on the big screen if you can.

*Stills courtesy of Paramount Pictures

Read more...

SANCTUM (2011)

Sank-dumb...

First off, this isn't a James Cameron film. That needs to be made clear to those of you saying "Oh, I'm on my way to see James Cameron's Sanctum" or "the new James Cameron flick". This needs to be stressed in a way most things don't, because if Sanctum were a real James Cameron picture you would undoubtedly see a nice Open Door logo to your left. No, this is indeed an Aliston Grierson film, who in the past has also directed... - well, nothing (that is to say nothing that's ever mattered).

Sanctum is about a group of people who get stuck in a cave underground somewhere in Papua New Guinea, just as a cyclone starts flooding that same cave. Think The Descent (2005) mixed with Hard Rain (1998) mixed with a bus load of bullshit. By the end of this thing I had seen more unoriginal and satirical material than one can find in all the nineteen Scary Movies combined.

Breaking it down, the film is about a father-son relationship that needs some work. The father, Frank, is played by Richard Roxburgh and the son, Josh, is played by Rhys Wakefield. There are other characters involved, of course, (including Fantastic Four's Ioan Gruffudd) but they don't really matter because in the end all you have is a group of flat, two-dimensional characters fighting their way through a predictable storyline that ends in just as a predictable fashion.

I am (obviously) giving Sanctum a closed door. While the 3D was fine and the cinematography pretty well done, there's nothing here we haven't seen before. It's the usual fight-for-your-life survival story with one character who panics, one guy who's the hero, one character who's a selfish butthole and another who knows everything. While parts of this film are enjoyable and some people may find this 'adventure' amusing, enjoyable or maybe even inspiring, for me it just came off as ... meh. No-name filmmaker? Yes. James Cameron? HELLZ NO!

*Stills courtesy of Relativity Media

Read more...

GULLIVER'S TRAVELS (2010)

Be honest, guys. Do I look fat to you?

Jack Black stars as Lemuel Gulliver in Gulliver's Travels - the big screen adaptation of a book I was supposed to read (but didn't) in my English 101 class. In this version, Gulliver accidentally ends up as a travel writer in an attempt to impress his co-worker, Darcy (Amanda Peet). She sends him off to the Bermuda Triangle and dang it, wouldn't you know it? He gets caught in a storm and ends up in the undiscovered midget land of Lilliput - and by midget I mean little people, like actual, tiny people.

The Lilliputians know not of our land (the rest of the world) as they stay away from a looming fog that surrounds their island. This allows Gulliver to use all means of popular culture to fabricate his own historic and heroic stories - usually in the form of Star Wars, Titanic and Avatar. I don't quite remember the chapter summaries or cliff notes from the literary version - but I'm pretty sure that wasn't in there. Also not present in the original novel by Johnathan Swift - the discovery of electricity by the local Lilliputians, giant robots and cell reception via iPhone absolutely everywhere. But lets face it - a modern day adaptation of a 280 year-old novel with Jack Black in the lead probably isn't going to take itself seriously. And thankfully, Gulliver's Travels does not.

There's a lot to be said for what director Rob Letterman (Monster's vs Aliens [2009]) has done here. The usual attempt may have been to do a faithful adaptation of the novel down to the last pantaloon, but Letterman recognized from the get-go that this film needed to be different and that at a certain point you can borrow all you want from the source material, but in the end it's about having fun. That's exactly what Gulliver's Travels is all about.

I am giving this film an open door. While some moments in the film veer on the edge of going too far (and ending up in the same crap-humour category as Vampires Suck), more often then not you have a smile on your face and can enjoy the witty, harmless and often hilarious dumb fun that comes with a film such as this. Speaking of dumb fun, Jason Segal also stars in this film - which should give you a bit of an idea of what I'm talking about.

*Stills courtesy of Twentieth Century Fox

Read more...

TRON LEGACY (2010)

So...you come here often?

Tron came out in 1982 to mixed reviews. I saw it for the first time earlier this year and while I can appreciate it for what it meant to audiences when it was released, frankly I found it a little dull. The storyline proposed an interesting way to view how computers worked from a first person point of view, but the look of the film (colors, not graphics) was uninteresting to look at.

Twenty-eight years later, we find ourselves in the midst of a sequel to draw in a new generation of Tron fans, and of course it comes to us in 3D. Tron Legacy starts off seven years after the end of Tron. Kevin Flynn (the Dude himself, Jeff Bridges) now has a son, Sam (of whom the older version is played by the relatively unknown Garrett Hedlund). Kevin has also taken his experiences from the first film and turned them into a video game called, unsurprisingly, Tron. However, one night Kevin disappears forever, leaving his legacy to his son, Sam.

Fast forward to 2010 and Sam has the usual 'grew up without parents' complex that wealthy troublemakers like Bruce Wayne also seem to have. Although he could take over the company his father acquired after the first film (Encom), he decides to instead frivolously break into Encom on a regular basis and leak the company's software for free - as his father originally intended.

That sums up Sam's life until one day his lawyer and second father, Alan Bradley (Bruce Boxleitner) tells Sam he received a page from Kevin's old arcade (aptly titled 'Flynn's'), which has been closed for the last twenty years. Sam heads there to investigate the strange occurrence and finds a secret basement room containing the portal into the virtual world we became aware of in the first movie.

As with his father, Sam is immediately put into a gladiatorial game as soon as he enters the system. Now that technology has advanced, so has the look of this virtual reality. As Sam identifies himself as a a user and not a program (more specifically as Kevin Flynn's son) an old friend named Clu (an exact digital replica of Kevin) takes sinister interest in Sam and it soon becomes clear what Clu's motive is. Clu wants to use Sam to get to an aging Kevin, who has since been trapped in this world for the last twenty years. More specifically, Clu wants to obtain Kevin's information disk and use it as a way to get out of the virtual world and into the real one, where he plans to continue his journey of creating and maintaining Hitler-esque perfection. With that threat against them, it's up to Kevin and his estranged son Sam, along with Kevin's mysterious protege, Quorra (Olivia Wilde) to not only stop Clu from getting to the outside world, but get themselves home.

Speaking of Clu, I was relatively impressed by the CG they used to animate both the younger version of Kevin Flynn as well as Clu. Although there is something uncanny about the way they move and they both indeed look like characters from The Polar Express (2004), it's a neat way to bring back a younger Jeff Bridges from the pre-Lebowski era and an effective story-telling technique. There are some people that are bashing this, but considering Clu exists in a computer generated world for the most part, it's not something I had a problem with.

On a pure aesthetic level, Legacy looks fantastic and is certainly easier to get into than its predecessor. I give it some credit for the idea to make the virtual reality world 3D and not the real world that sandwiches the middle of the film. Although the 3D isn't come-at-you amazing with Legacy, I believe this decision was still effective, at the very least.

The biggest problem Legacy does have is not anything that makes me hate the film per say, it's more or less just an improvement that needed to be made. Although some will gauge this problem as perhaps bigger or smaller than I am making it out to be, it is a problem nonetheless. What you will find as you exit the theatre after the credits begin to roll, is that although you have been pleasantly entertained for the last two hours, you weren't blown away - at least not as much as a fan of the first film (or even a newcomer) should be. The action was fine, the storyline okay but ultimately (and oddly) forgettable. I don't really know if it was because we've seen films with a similar storyline before (ie: Inception, The Matrix, I, Robot) or if the darker look and lighting of the film put your mind more asleep than doing what it should have, which was creating an effective atmosphere.

I would have ultimately enjoyed the film a bit more should they have explored the other possibilities this virtual reality had. There is moment in the film where Kevin gives Quorra (a virtual reality-born individual) a new arm by locating the broken code on her disk and fixing it, thus having her new limb grow right before their eyes. I couldn't help but think of a similar thing being done for people with cancer, who are handicapped or blind, and having their problems being solved as simply as a computer virus can be. Although this may not be viable in this storyline, it was something I felt should have at least been discussed. Meh, perhaps the sequel.

I also wondered why even simpler things aren't questioned - like why or how food exist in this world and why Kevin needs it, or more poignantly - why he even ages in the first place. These are things Sam didn't ask, and seeing as he was representational of the audience's point of view - it would have been nice.

Tron Legacy ultimately gets an open door. Although there are movies I've liked on a higher level in recent months, this one still has it's moments and is worth a trip to the theatre. Don't go in expecting too much and you'll have a good time. Also, let it be known there are some things left unanswered at the end of the film. It doesn't make or break the movie for me and I don't know if they're saving it for a follow-up, but it is something to be aware of as it may be a bother to some.

*Stills courtesy of Walt Disney Pictures

Read more...