Real Steel: A Solid One-Two Punch of a Film

A movie about Rock ‘Em Sock ‘Em Robots? Not quite. While this is NOT a movie based on the grandfather of all button-mashing games, Real Steel is, indeed, a movie about robots beating the bolts out of each other. And it’s pretty darn fun. Here’s the breakdown:

The year is 2020 and human boxing is a thing of the past. Robot boxing is all the rage; robots can take more hits, move faster, create a more entertaining experience for spectators. Enter Charlie Kenton (Hugh Jackman), an ex-boxer himself who has adapted to the robot boxing craze. But when Charlie is reunited with his estranged son (Dakota Goyo), he must make some tough choices between money, fame and family.

The Monkey: The overall feel of Real Steel is very “Americana.” Its futuristic setting is not distracting and the state fairs, rural locations and even urban arena scenes still feel very real and accessible. At its core, Real Steel is about a father-son relationship and the fight to make dreams reality. Sound a bit cliche? Maybe, but Real Steel offers enough exciting visuals and compelling performances to make it all worth while. Speaking of exciting visuals and compelling performances…

The robot boxing scenes are spectacular. One can see why human boxing diminishes in the future; robot boxing is brutal and intense, an entertaining experience well beyond anything a human fighter could deliver. From crushed metal to leaking hydraulic fluid, squealing pistons to sparking wires, Real Steel might even have better robot fights than the Transformer movies…at the very least, much grittier. The filmmakers do an excellent job of showing the full breadth of the sport, from seedy underground rings to mega-stadium showdowns, lending a much appreciated level of credence to the story.

But it’s not all gleaming robots and spring-loaded punches. Real Steel is held together by a surprisingly emotional father-and-son story arc. Hugh Jackman plays the apathetic (and rather cold) Charlie well, keeping the audience at a distance without making the character unlikable. Despite his heartless behavior at the beginning of the film, you still want to see him succeed and move beyond his selfishness. Real Steel even dips into the very real problem of gambling and addiction, a shockingly mature theme for a movie touting robot fun for the whole family. While it is a surprising theme to include, it’s refreshing, made even more so by the absolutely stunning performance by relative unknown, Dakota Goyo.

This kid rocked it. And while Real Steel will probably never see an Oscar nomination, Goyo deserves one. Child actors are hit-or-miss, but Goyo makes his adult co-stars look like amateurs. Not only does he carry much of the comic relief in the film, he’s also responsible for much of the emotional drama. That’s a lot to expect from a young actor, but Goyo pulls it off not only well, but effortlessly. You almost forget he’s acting at all, he’s so completely comfortable and natural in his role as Max Kenton.

The film’s finale is pretty much what you’d expect from a sports-themed movie, but despite its predictable nature, it’s a pleasure to watch. The emotions are real, the action is intense; there’s nothing here not to like.

The Weasel: There are several unanswered questions. What happened to Max’s mom? What really was the connection between Max’s mom and Charlie? Much of the film is spent talking about how wonderful she was, but with little to go on, most of this seems like filler dialogue, not contributing to the overall emotional thread of the story.

And I’m unsure of what to say about the robot characters…if you can even call them characters. Atom is the main robot boxer, an outdated sparring robot that comes out of nowhere as the underdog competitor. Yet he’s controlled via remote and a “shadow” program. So is he somehow sentient? Several moments in the film hint at this. But if that’s the case, the violence of the boxing matches becomes uncomfortable. If this is a character that somehow has feelings and emotions, seeing these robots pummeled to scrap is rather unsettling. But if they aren’t emotional characters, it’s hard to really have an emotional stake in their fight, aside from their human controllers. I think this is an aspect of the film that could have really been examined more closely, and could have elevated the philosophical tone of the story. Humans were replaced by robots, but are the robot fights any more “humane”? If the human characters in the movie were forced to ask some of these tough questions, it would have added a wonderful amount of depth to the already solid story…alas, it was relatively glossed over.

A creative take on the sports drama, Real Steel is a fun action movie, a special-effects feast and a surprisingly emotional father-son story. Definitely wouldn’t mind seeing a sequel to this one.

4.5 Death Stars out of 5

What do you think? Did you enjoy the robot fights? How’d you think Dakota Goyo did in his role? Share your thoughts in the comments!

Colombiana: A Female-Led Action Thriller That Hits Pretty Close To The Mark

Colombiana is the sequel-that-never-was to Luc Besson’s 1994 classic, The Professional. The writer/producer revamped his script for the sequel and created an entirely new story, the result of which is Colombiana. Here’s the breakdown:

Cataleya (Zoe Saldana) witnessed the brutal murder of her parents when she was only nine. She quickly dedicated her life to becoming the best assassin she could be. But revenge can’t be ignored, and Cataleya embarks on a quest to rid the world of her family’s murderers.

The Monkey: Colombiana has a solid story. While familiar, the revenge thriller is nearly always satisfying; you can’t help but want to see the bad guys get what’s coming to them. And make the leading protagonist a beautiful, resourceful, gun-toting woman and you’ve got yourself an enjoyable romp, no matter how you spin it. Saldana proved she can carry a movie – she channeled the likes of Milla Jovovich and Angelina Jolie well and added a certain poise and grace of her own.

The supporting cast members were equally strong. Jordi Molla as the go-to henchman, Cliff Curtis as the wise mentor and Callum Blue as the dirty CIA operative delivered standout performances that lent a much-needed gravity to the opera of flying bullets and skin-tight catsuits.

The action was the centerpiece of Colombiana – no surprise here. The filmmakers managed to keep the sequences fresh and entertaining. From MacGyver-like jury-rigging to shark tanks to an all-out one-woman assault on a fortified compound, Colombiana kept the action coming one magazine after another.

The Weasel: Some of the emotional notes of the film were off-key. While we feel bad for nine-year-old Cataleya, and sympathize with her desire to avenge her parents, the transition from avenger to for-hire assassin was glossed over and underdeveloped. Why was it a surprise to her uncle (Curtis) that she was seeking revenge, when that’s why she began her training in the first place? Why did she so carelessly put her remaining family in danger, despite her meticulous nature and attention to safety in all other aspects of her life? These questions were left unanswered in order to move the story along. Unfortunately, no amount of bullets could keep these plot holes plugged.

The weakest link here was FBI agent Ross (Lennie James). His character was late to the game and given too much screentime without enough substance to make the audience care. Ross was intended to be the cat to Cataleya’s mouse, but he ended up being an unnecessary piece of an already muddled puzzle. And while I like Michael Vartan, his turn as the artist/love-interest Danny was underutilized. The character was a foil, meant to humanize Cataleya and give her a glimpse of what her life could be; however, there was far too little development and chemistry between the two to make it a worthwhile plot investment. At some point you realize you don’t care about her romantic entanglements, you just want her to grab a bazooka and blow things to hell.

A stable story peppered with great action and an thoroughly watchable leading lady, Colombiana accomplished what it set out to do and them some. And again I ask…who doesn’t like seeing a gorgeous lady lay the smack down?

3.5 Death Stars out of 5

What do you think? Does Zoe Saldana have what it takes to join the kick-ass female action star hall of fame? Share your thoughts in the comments!

Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark: Less Horror and More Dark Fairy Tale

A remake of the 1973 made-for-TV movie of the same name, Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark is a Guillermo del Toro produced “horror” film starring Katie Holmes, Guy Pearce and  Bailee Madison. Here’s the breakdown:

When Sally (Madison) moves in with her architect father (Pearce) and his new girlfriend (Holmes), she unwittingly uncovers a centuries old secret and unleashes a living nightmare.

The Monkey: The tone of this movie was rock solid. From the set design to the music; from the cinematography to the script, Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark thoroughly maintained its “creepiness” factor. The sprawling Victorian mansion became a character all its own, with its blood-red stained glass, creaking stairs, secret chambers, roaring fireplaces, labyrinthine gardens and classic fixtures. It was a haunted house from backyard to buttress.

Del Toro brought much of what made his critically-acclaimed Pan’s Labyrinth a success to this endeavor as well. A classic story, with genre tropes twisted just enough to feel refreshingly original and genuinely creepy. More of a “dark fairy tale” than a true horror film, Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark played out its fantastical elements without apology and del Toro’s contributions continued to shine throughout, especially regarding the honesty of the storytelling (not to mention his almost infamous creature designs).

While the “Don’t go in there!” moments were myriad, it lent to the overall “We’ve seen this before but we don’t mind seeing it again” feeling that permeated the whole movie. Fairy tales are grounded on archetypes and familiar plots…so it becomes all about the embellishments. And there were many here. A truly blood-chilling opening sequence, creepy music-box music, grotesque drawings and even a homage-ish shower/bath scene, Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark rests firmly on the bones of tried-and-true ghost stories, allowing the filmmakers room to get creative with the trappings.

The Weasel: Unfortunatley, the movie was not exactly marketed well. Touted as a true horror film, the movie was much more thriller, much more dark fairy tale. And while there were wonderful tastes of this (especially when the story began to focus on its own mythology), the fantastical elements seemed almost out of place, in that it kept the movie from becoming actually terrifying. The fantastic nature of the story should have been given more prominence.

The acting was neither here nor there; decent enough to support the story, without being distracting.

There was a significant portion of the movie dedicated to the family drama surrounding Sally’s estranged parents and Kim, the new girlfriend. This relationship was played up even more in the final moments of the film; however, the build-up was shoddy at best and unbelievable at worst. Tonally, Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark was never quite sure of itself, and the mismatched drama/horror/fantasy pieces were evidence of this.

In the end, Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark is a big-budget camp-side ghost story, an extended episode of the Twilight Zone, a twisted fairy tale. A bit of mis-marketing and some tonal inconsitencies aside, don’t be afraid to give this movie a chance.

And on a side note: there was NO reason for this movie to be rated R. This was practically cable TV ready, with no gore, swearing, nudity…R for “Violence and Terror”? Please. The most ridiculous rating I’ve ever seen.

2.5 Death Stars out of 5

What do you think? Was Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark a decent remake? Did you find it more horror or fantasy? Share your thoughts in the comments!

Conan the Barbarian: A Fun Action Flick…Better Suited For Your Xbox

A remake of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s 1982 cult classic, Conan the Barbarian stars Jason Momoa, Rachel Nichols, Stephan Lang, Ron Perlman and Rose McGowan. Here’s the breakdown:

As a young boy, Conan (Momoa) witnesses the massacre of his village and family, including his father (Perlman), by the ruthless warlord Khalar Zym. Zym and his witch daughter Marique (McGowan) are after pieces of a mystical mask that, once assembled, will turn Zym into a god. Conan grows up to be a warrior and a thief, all the while seeking his father’s murderer. When the grown Conan stumbles across Zym, still on his god-quest, an epic struggle ensues, and the fate of the world and the fate of an innocent girl (Nichols) who’s ancestral blood is the key to Zym’s plans hangs in the balance.

The Monkey: Conan the Barbarian was, most noticeably, visually stunning. From idyllic Cimmerian villages to sprawling temple cities, this movie definitely delivered audiences an epic feel.

It was also nice to sit through a hard-R action adventure, where nudity and violence weren’t shied away from. It’s a story that lends itself to such excess and never did it feel over-the-top or unnecessary (although a certiain scene involving a finger and a nose had me squirming).

The fight scenes were extremely well choreographed and surprisingly original. A standout scene involving bewitched sand warriors was by far the best action piece in the movie and was incredibly entertaining, original and looked amazing in 3D. And Stephan Lang’s Zym and his double-bladed sword action was some of the best and most exciting sword work since Star Wars.

Jason Momoa and Stephen Lang played their respective roles well, playing off each other and bringing a believable amount of chemistry to the screen. While I wasn’t entirely convinced that Momoa could take on the Conan mantle (based on the movie’s marketing), he surprised and fit the role with the right amount of humor, brawn and bravado. Perlman was, as ever, enjoyable as Conan’s stalwart father, Corin.

The Weasel: The rest of the cast was a bit weak. Rachel Nichols’ whining Tamara was an unlikable love interest and would-be heroine. And Rose McGowan’s villainous Marique was almost comical; how that woman and her immovable Botox addled mug get any acting gigs at all amazes me.

The plot played out much like a video game. I half-expected to see “level-ups” and “loading” bars between scenes. This led to the movie’s biggest problem; a lack of urgency and danger. Zym had been searching for the mask for decades and yet he was just now letting the pieces fall into place? Just as Conan happens to be of ripe ass-kicking age? The movie really could have used a “race against time” feel to it. In addition, the video game quality caused each fight scene to become repetitive; yes we know Conan can kill, yes we know he’ll win – there was never any real sense of danger, and each time Conan was pitted against enemies, it just made the next encounter that much more unnecessary.

Momoa has supposedly written a sequel to Conan the Barbarian and sees this movie as his ticket to even more leading roles. Unfortunately, I think the poor box office and negative reviews might set him back a bit. And that sequel? Yeah, probably not happening.

Conan the Barbarian is an action-packed, violent, testosterone-fest. And it’s fun. While it suffers in the acting and plot department, the action scenes and the 3D make this a fun, B-sword-and-sandals flick. Don’t expect any more.

3 Death Stars out of 5

What do you think? Is this newer Conan a worthy reboot? Did Momoa do an adequate job of filling Schwarzenegger’s shoes? Do you want to see a sequel? Share your thoughts in the comments below!

Final Destination 5: A Study In Redundancy

Wasn’t the last Final Destination movie called The FINAL Destination? Yes, yes it was. Yet, money and box office “cha-chings” are the immortal waters of the Fountain of Youth to film franchises, so here we are, yet again, with a 5th episode. It’s like freakin’ Cher and her “farewell” tours…you know there’s gonna be another one. So, here’s the breakdown:

Boy has vision of terrible accident (this time a bridge collapse). People die horrible deaths (cables, oil, boats, etc. are involved). Boy saves a group of people (insert list of archetypal horror film blood-n-guts fodder). Said “lucky” group of people start dying off in increasingly gory and “creative” ways, all in the order with which they died in the vision. Remaining survivors try to figure out how to stop Death’s relentless march – after all, he doesn’t like to be cheated (or so we’re told).

The Monkey: Fans of the franchise will be excited to see a return to basics; clever, edge-of-your-seat kills, dark humor and a familiar plot structure. And let’s be honest – the kills are what people are wanting to see when they pay for a ticket anyway. The kills in Final Destination 5 are definitely more creative than previous installments. Just when you think you have it figured out, Death takes you down a twisted path to a blood-soaked end you could have never guessed. Cringe-worthy for sure. After every kill, audience reaction went as follows: “Ooohhhhh! Hahaha! *Clap* *Whistle*.” We’re the YouTube generation and watching train-wrecks and wipe-outs has created an audience ever receptive to this kind of entertainment.

The opening sequence was impressive, especially considering the relatively conservative $47 million budget. There was also a pretty clever twist ending that had me nodding in appreciation. But the best part of Final Destination 5 was the 3D. It was gloriously cheesy and everything you’d expect from a B-horror film. From impaling rebar to flying body parts, there was no shortage of blood and guts flying at your face. Exploitation of the medium? Absolutely. Satisfying? You bet.

The Weasel: I have to imagine the script for this movie was like a MadLib. “Fill in the blanks with different ways for people to die!” No one goes to these movies for the witty dialogue or the ingenious plot; however, a little time and creativity would have been appreciated. If you’ve seen any of the others, you’ve seen this one. Aside from the moderately surprising ending, there was nothing about Final Destination 5 that contributed much to the franchise. Mediocre acting, a subpar script and an awkward effort at dark comedy stained this blood-fest an irrevocable shade of “blah.”

Will fans like this movie? Considering it’s a marked improvement on the last two installments, yes, I’m sure they will. Even fans of over-the-top horror/gore films will find something to enjoy. But anyone looking for a clever take on a tried and (sometimes) true story structure should just rent the first film and pretend it’s the 5th one.

1.5 Death Stars out of 5

What do you think? Was Final Destination 5 a successful addition to the franchise? Did the end surprise you (no spoilers in the comments please!)? Anyone want to take bets that Final Destination 6 involves a cruise ship? Share your thoughts in the comments!

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides: Not That Strange After All

Based in part on Tim Power’s historical fiction novel On Stranger Tides, the fourth installment in the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise sees Captain Jack Sparrow take center stage on a brand new adventure. Here’s the breakdown:

Jack Sparrow is back, but this time, lacking a ship and a crew. In an effort to reclaim his beloved Black Pearl, Jack must embark on a dangerous mission, a mission that ultimately leads to the coveted Fountain of Youth. Along the way, Jack will meet old friends and new enemies – and some who might be both. And with zombies, deadly mermaids and the dreaded Blackbeard thrown into the mix, Jack’s quick wit might not be enough to save him this time.

The Monkey: Johnny Depp IS Captain Jack Sparrow. Depp has made this character so thoroughly his own, it’s hard to image Depp in any other role. From the swagger to the lilt, Depp brings this beloved film character to life once more. Fans of the original trilogy will not be disappointed; the humor is back in force and the twisted logic and mesmerizing double speak of the world’s most “savvy” pirate will keep new and old fans alike pleased.

While this was most certainly Depp’s movie, the supporting cast did an admirable job doing just that – supporting. Geoffrey Rush returns as Hector Barbossa. Having traded in his pirating ways, the scheming “privateer” is now in His Majesty’s navy, and finds himself at odds with Jack. Kevin McNally is back as sidekick Gibbs. Ian McShane breathes life into the legendary Blackbeard, his dark-rimmed eyes holding all the menace necessary for the character. Oddly enough, it was actually Richards Griffiths’ simpering portrayal of King George that nearly stole the show. His five minutes of screen time were some of the most enjoyable of the film.

While the cast was well comprised, a summer blockbuster just wouldn’t be a summer blockbuster without the requisite visuals and action sequences. On Stranger Tides has several action pieces and stunning visual treats, but none so incredible as the eerily violent mermaid attack. Expel any notion of The Little Mermaid – these sea sirens are fanged, vicious creatures and their appearance in the film makes for one of the most thrilling scenes of recent memory.

While I still find that 3D tends to make the picture unnecessarily dark, On Stranger Tides was beautifully done and quite stunning in all its three dimensions.

The Weasel: The reason Captain Jack Sparrow became such a favorite was his unmistakable role in the previous Pirates franchise; he was the comic relief, the jester, the character that worked because he was surrounded by a strong cast of main characters. Unfortunately, On Stranger Tides loses site of this formula and places Jack smack in the middle of the story, giving him the responsibility of comic joker and main character all at once. And while this can and has been done successfully, in this case, it’s too much of a good thing. Depp is fascinating to watch, but is far more enjoyable when he is balanced out with more traditional characters. Here, Jack is the star of the show, giving little room to the other characters and giving the audience hardly any breathing room between clever one-liners.

It was clear that Penelope Cruz’s Angelica, Sam Claflin’s Philip and Astrid Berges-Frisbey’s mermaid Syrena were meant to fill the void left by Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley; however, so little effort was put into these characters that, by the end, you wonder why the writers even bothered with them.

These characters weren’t the only things left half-realized; On Stranger Tides features so many half-plots and almost-themes that the story starts to feel cobbled together. Glimmers of deep plot points involving religion, the morality of immortality and familial bonds were left unresolved. Odd bits of supernatural elements (magical rigging, voodoo dolls, shrunken ships and the like) were taken for granted and never even cursorily explained. Then, add in two love stories that were thrust upon the audience with zero justification, the pointless inclusions of the “evil” Spanish Catholics, and the complete lack of convincing character motivations (particularly with Barbossa and Blackbeard) and you have quite a mess on your hands.

All these errant plot points caused the film to drag in several places – the scenes without Depp felt like mere filler until the camera could get back to Jack’s usual shenanigans.

A fun summer movie to be sure, On Stranger Tides will please both franchise and Depp fans. But if you’re looking for a sequel (or even potential second trilogy kickoff) that manages the same magic as The Curse of the Black Pearl, you’ll walk away disappointed. It turns out On Stranger Tides isn’t that strange after all – pretty standard in fact.

3 Death Stars out of 5

What do you think? Do you think On Stranger Tides is the beginning of a new Pirates trilogy? Can Jack Sparrow carry a movie on his own? Share your thoughts in the comments!

SCRE4M: New Decade. New Rules. New Standard.

It’s been fifteen years since Drew Barrymore spilled her guts onscreen in the first Scream movie, ushering in a new era of horror and sparking a wave of subsequent sequels and spoofs. Now, writer Kevin Williamson and director Wes Craven return to the franchise that started it all, joined by the intrepid trio that managed to survive the original trilogy: Courteney Cox, David Arquette and Neve Campbell. But as the tagline suggests, it’s a new decade, there are new rules, and there are plenty of new cast members, thrills and deaths. Here’s the breakdown:

Sidney Prescott (Campbell) is on the final leg of her book tour. Her last stop? Woodsboro, the town where Sidney’s dark past was born. And she just happens to be there on the anniversary of the infamous “Ghostface” killings. Once home, Sidney reunites with local sheriff, Dewey Riley, and his wife, intrepid reporter turned fiction writer, Gale Weathers-Riley. But Sidney’s past won’t die, and gruesome murders once again shake the small Woodsboro community. It’s up to the three friends (who’ve survived Ghostface thrice before) to find the killer and save the next generation of unsuspecting victims.

The Monkey: Where to begin. Oh, right…this movie was perfect. From its ingenious opening sequence to its twisted finale, SCRE4M is everything fans of the franchise hoped it would be and more. The film is so self-referential, so tongue-in-cheek, so self-aware, so meta that you can’t help but be impressed with Williamson’s razor-sharp wit and deft storytelling. It’s as if SCRE4M is staring at itself in a mirror, while holding up its own mirror – you’re left with an infinite loop of self-references and meta-jokes, making your head spin…in a good way.

There are even large portions of the dialogue dedicated to veritable cinema commentary and philosophy; the characters are practically delivering monologue treatises on the state of the horror film in modern cinema, critiquing the very genre with which it sits squarely. SCRE4M is wickedly funny, in that it covers any of its own shortcomings by the mere fact that it has analyzed, panned and dismissed them already. Brilliant. It’s like writing a book about the death of the paperback and the domination of the eReader, only to publish said manifesto in paperback; the irony is scathing and delicious and will have savvy audiences grinning from ear to ear the entire film.

The story progresses quickly, the kills are numerous and sufficiently grizzly and the characters are all shrouded in mystery. You’d think after decades of “whodunits” audiences would be numb to these types of movies, that there would be no surprises left. But Craven and Williamson perform magic onscreen, cobbling together a mysterious collage of hooded glances, impromptu entrances and noticeable absences for every single character, making it wonderfully impossible to guess the outcome. When they say everyone is a suspect, they mean it.

Campbell, Cox and Arquette reprise their roles with enthusiasm, brining a sense of history and gravity to a film that, otherwise, features a young, fresh (and unscarred) cast. And not only is the meta subtext confined within the realm of the fictional world – there were several real world nods as well, most notably, to the very public relationship between Cox and Arquette. A move like that could have easily been seen as cheap and could have pulled audiences right out of the movie – but Craven is a master and the references did nothing but strengthen the movie’s near academic self-evaluation.

As for the young cast: Emma Roberts as Jill Roberts, Sidney’s cousin, and Hayden Panettiere as Jill’s friend Kirby Reed led the new generation of teenage slasher film fodder expertly. In a wise move, SCRE4M didn’t try to fit the new characters into blatantly obvious roles (aside from Jill’s similarities to Sidney, there really weren’t any “younger versions” of Gale or Dewey, for instance). This allowed the new cast to stake a claim in the franchise on their own. It was this independence from the original trilogy that made it that much more satisfying when shameless throwbacks did show up. Rory Culkin and Erik Knudsen played the film’s version of Jamie Kennedy’s Randy from Scream and Scream 2 – the somewhat stereotypical film nerds. They deliver the franchise’s signature “rules” lecture, introducing a whole new slew of meta references and ushering the franchise into an era of shaky-cam horror and YouTube fame.

It was this juxtaposition of old and new, young and old, traditional and edgy, familiar and unfamiliar that made SCRE4M such a delight and will not only please die-hard fans of the original, but will garner a horde of new fans as well. SCRE4M speaks to the YouTube generation while playing to the generation that grew up with the originals. It still amazes me how well the film was able to balance the myriad dichotomies that were created by its very existence. This movie just might give cinema theorists existential crises.

While I, obviously, won’t divulge who the killer is here, I will say that I was pleased with the outcome: it was yet another instance of the film’s uncanny ability to self-critique, and, in this instance, provide a bit of uncharacteristically enlightening social commentary as well.

The Weasel: The concept of filming the murders was brought up as part of the “new rules.” But it wasn’t really touched on until about two-thirds into the movie, and even then, it almost felt like a throwaway reference, one that was never fully capitalized on. The influence of social media networking sites like Twitter and Facebook, while referenced, were similarly underdeveloped. And I have to say – initial buzz has it that SCRE4M is the first part of a second Scream trilogy. I’m beginning to hope otherwise. This movie outdid even its predecessors and it’s unclear how two more sequels could top what Craven has done this round.

A gem of a film, especially considering it’s the fourth in a horror franchise. The script is devilishly meta, the actors are above par and the direction keeps you guessing till the very end. So, what’s your favorite scary movie?

5 Death Stars out of 5

Please don’t reveal too much about the plot, the kills or who Ghostface is in the comments. Give those who haven’t seen the movie yet a chance to be surprised. If you give away too much in your comment, I’ll delete it, or ask you to edit it before posting. Thanks!

What do you think? Does SCRE4M live up to the original? Did you enjoy the self-aware nature of the movie? Share your thoughts in the comments below!

Your Highness: A Great Idea That Wears Thin Quickly

Danny McBride gets his first major starring role in Your Highness, co-starring James Franco, Natalie Portman, Zooey Deschanel and Justin Theroux. Here’s the breakdown:

Prince Thadeous (McBride) is a worthless stoner of a prince, especially when compared to his brother, the heroic Prince Fabious. But when Fabious’ bride-to-be, Belladonna (Deschanel) is abducted by the evil warlock Leezar (Theroux), both brothers must embark on a quest to rescue her. Along the way they must overcome many obstacles and meet many strangers, including the beautiful and mysterious traveler, Isabel (Portman).

The Monkey: At its core, Your Highness is a stoner-comedy-road-trip-buddy-film-raunch-fest…set in the Middles Ages. The juxtaposition is quite comical.

There were some genuinely funny moments; McBride is a talented comedian and his comic timing (especially with Rasmus Hardiker who plays Thadeous’ manservant, Courtney) is enjoyable and spot on.

A pleasant surprise: the special effects. From a five-headed serpent to a spectacular finale, Your Highness manages to pack blockbuster-like action into a genre typically devoid of such visuals. It was also nice to see Weta involved with the creature work: from perverted pot-smoking gremlin wise-men (don’t ask) to horny Minotaurs (no, seriously, don’t ask) Weta proves they are the go-to workshop for creature makeup, prosthetics and the like.

The Weasel: Unfortunately, the hilarious juxtaposition of modern, raunchy humor with the medieval setting wore out its welcome about ten minutes into the movie. Watching a character say the ‘f’ word with a horribly (albeit, purposefully) fake British accent is a gag that only worked once – yet, for some reason, was continuously played out throughout the entirety of the movie.

James Franco and Natalie Portman were clearly hired for their notoriety. Both coming off Oscar nominations (and a win), it’s rather dumbfounding to see them in a movie like Your Highness. They offer nothing that couldn’t have been accomplished by any other actor. It’s not that they were bad (except for Franco’s GOD AWFUL accent), it’s just that they were…meh. Zooey Deschanel is hardly even worth mentioning as her screen time amounted to, maybe, five minutes.

The biggest flaw with Your Highness was its reliance on a one-trick ploy: let’s tell dirty jokes with British accents and swords in our hands. It would have worked marvelously as a Funny Or Die short (especially given those shorts’ preponderance for featuring notable actors like Franco and Portman). But imagine your favorite online sketch comedy segment elongated into a painful hour and a half. SNL has tried this multiple times, and has been met, multiple times, with failure. Just because the characters are wearing amour and flailing swords doesn’t make the penis jokes any more original.

A great concept…that should have been kept to five minutes.

1.5 Death Stars out of 5

What do you think? Does Danny McBride have a future as a comedic leading man? Do you feel Your Highness would have worked better as a comedy sketch short? Share your thoughts in the comments!

Arthur: A Talented Cast Does Not Good Chemistry Make

A remake of the 1981 film starring Dudley Moore, Liza Minnelli and John Gielgud, Arthur stars Russell Brand in the title role, as well as Helen Mirren, Luis Guzman, Jennifer Garner and Greta Gerwig. Here’s the breakdown:

Wealthy and spoiled billionaire Arthur Bach (Brand) leads a life of blissful ignorance. Content to drink himself into ridiculous (and expensive) situations, Arthur knows nothing of the real world. Other than his chauffeur Bitterman (Guzman) and his trusty nanny Hobson (Mirren), Arthur has no friends. That is, until he meets Naomi (Gerwig). But when his mother (Geraldine James) threatens to cut him off unless he marries business partner Susan (Garner), Arthur must choose between love and money.

The Monkey: While Brand can often come off campy, abrasive and one-dimensional, his turn as Arthur was surprisingly genuine and endearing. His childlike outlook was wonderfully juxtaposed with his copious drinking and adult sensibilities.

The writing was well done and the jokes were above par, often witty and surprising. One can’t argue Brand’s natural talent for comic timing and delivery. But it was Helen Mirren and Jennifer Garner that nearly stole the show. Mirren has been no stranger to comedy of late (RED, a recent Funny Or Die short film) and she proves she has comic chops in Arthur. Her understated, heavy-lidded performance was wonderful and remarkably funny; but more than that, there was a third-dimension not often seen in secondary comic characters. Her emotional scenes were just as compelling as her comedic ones, which contributed to the movie’s unexpected depth and layering.

Garner also delivered a noteworthy performance, stepping out of the traditional leading lady role and filling the shoes of the movie’s villainous Susan. Conniving, power-hungry and unstoppable, Garner’s Susan was delightful and the chemistry between Brand and Garner was, shall we say, magnetic (there’s a floating magnetic bed involved at one point). In fact, they worked so well together onscreen, it was a shame their two characters didn’t end up together – it would have been much more believable (more on that below).

Aside from the wonderful performances, Arthur managed to incorporate a fair amount of heart into an otherwise comedy of one-liners. Brand had even more chemistry with Mirren than with Garner and the two of them lit up the screen, both in their comic scenes and their more serious moments.

The Weasel: I’ve been surprised to see that many reviewers see Arthur as Greta Gerwig’s shining moment, claiming she nearly stole the show. I’m dumbfounded. She was awful. Her blank-eyed stare and mumbled lines were distracting at best, inane at worst. There was absolutely zero chemistry between herself and Brand; in fact, there were times when  it seemed Brand was physically in pain just by being near her. Not in a million years would Arthur have given up his billions for Naomi. And when you have a pivotal relationship that is so utterly unbelievable, the whole movie starts to collapse. You were supposed to cheer for her and Arthur, but I wanted Garner’s Susan to crush her and ride off into the sunset with Arthur instead.

Luis Guzman was horribly underutilized, to the point of nonexistence and Nick Nolte (as Susan’s father) was awkward beyond belief, his scenes being some of the most ridiculous and unnecessary of the entire movie – and when you have a drunk Brit flying through Manhattan in the Batmobile, that’s saying something.

And while there were nice moments of heart, they were unconnected and ad hoc, unable to contribute to an overall sense of coherent plot or character development.

A seemingly unnecessary remake, Arthur manages to pack in some clever wit and some endearing emotional moments. But despite the valiant efforts of Brand, Garner and Mirren, Gerwig sank this movie in an irredeemable way.

3 Death Stars out of 5

What do you think? How does the remake compare to the original? Do you like Mirren in comedic roles? What’s your opinion of Greta Gerwig in this movie? Share your thoughts in the comments!

Sucker Punch: Lives Up To Its Name In Every Way

While Zack Snyder is known for his masterful adaptations (Watchmen, 300) Sucker Punch is his first attempt at directing a film based on his own original script. Here’s the breakdown:

After being institutionalized by her evil stepfather, Baby Doll (Emily Browning) must delve into a layered realm of alternate realities in order to collect the necessary items needed to escape. Fellow patients Rocket (Jena Malone), Sweet Pea (Abbie Cornish), Blondie (Vanessa Hudgens) and Amber (Jamie Chung) join Baby Doll in her fight for survival.

The Monkey: This movie is a study in stylized filmmaking. From its brain-buzzing soundtrack to its gratuitous slow motion, Sucker Punch has no qualms about being a sensory feast. It owns it and drives it home so hard, you can hardly argue with the execution. The term “eye-candy” seems far too subdued – Sucker Punch is more like an eye-gasm. For every single one of its 109 minutes, Sucker Punch gives the audience something to look at. Whether it’s absurdly perfect eyelashes or a full-on mechanized-Nazi-zombie brawl, every frame is gorgeous. And yes, I just said mechanized-Nazi-zombie brawl. More on that later.

The movie’s structure was far more complex than the trailers implied, and anytime a movie offers more than a trailer promises, it’s a win. The story takes place on three planes of existence: reality, a subconscious realm and an even deeper level – a psychological battlefield. This Inception-esque layering was well done and easy to follow; plus, it gave Snyder free reign to, quite literally, do whatever the hell he wanted.

The subconscious level sees Baby Doll and her compatriots as prostitutes in a lavish bordello, run by the evil Blue Jones (Oscar Isaac). Isaac’s villainous portrayal was one of the best in the film, maybe even of recent movie memory. His pencil mustache and flamboyant panache belied his black heart, making his slow descent and loss of control even more enjoyable. The madame of the bordello, Vera Gorski (Carla Gugino), was the perfect mix of seasoned mother-figure and hard-bitten taskmaster – heavy Polish accent and all. While these scenes house the major plot of the movie, it’s Baby Doll’s trance-like state that launches Sucker Punch into the fantastic.

Forced to dance for customers, Baby Doll is able to mesmerize her audience, giving her friends ample opportunity to collect a number of items needed for escape: a map, fire, a knife, and a key. As her eyes flutter shut and the dance takes over, Baby Doll is transported to fantastical worlds wrought with danger. What follows? A series of mind-warping, eye-gasmic, awesomeness: five beautiful girls fighting mechanized-Nazi-zombies in a biplane and zeppelin riddled WWII landscape; hordes of orcs and fire-breathing dragons in a besieged castle; massive, gatling gun wielding samurai warriors in a snow-swept monastery; and legions of gleaming robots aboard a high-speed hover train. Sound like a trip? You bet your ass.

Critics are complaining about Snyder’s gratuitous use of slow motion. Screw that. There could have been more. The action is so well choreographed, so visually entertaining, you want it to last for as long as possible. Go back and read the above paragraph again and tell me you don’t want to see that in glorious slow motion. Thought so.

Jena Malone and Abbie Cornish were the standout performers. As sisters Rocket and Sweet Pea, their relationship was the most solid and believable of the film, which, by the end, made perfect sense. And Scott Glenn as “The Wise Man” was perfect, his weathered frame taking on the roles of general, monk and yes, even bus driver. His pre-mission bits of wisdom (always prefaced with, ”Oh, and one more thing…”) were quirky and sincere, helping craft one of the most memorable characters of the whole movie.

Three words: buy the soundtrack. From haunting covers (Sweet Dreams) to bone-jarring remixes (Army of Me) the music was the ultimate companion to the over-stimulation onscreen. It’s also worth noting that Baby Doll actress Emily Browning lends her vocal talents to three of the tracks as well – and she’s pretty good too.

Quick side note: those who are suddenly voicing concerns about the upcoming Superman reboot (reportedly titled Man of Steel) based on their opinion that Sucker Punch was sub-par…they need to calm down. Superman is hardly a Snyder original idea, and he’s shown in the past that he can knock an adaptation out of the ball park. And with Christopher Nolan involved, there should be no concerns…so take a deep breath naysayers…geez.

The Weasel: Emily Browning was rather drab and unaffecting as the lead character, Baby Doll. Her eyes, while wreathed with perfect eyelashes and bleached-blonde hair, were vacant, and her performance lacked the energy needed to match the film’s tone. And can someone please stop hiring Vanessa Hudgens? Hopefully after her ridiculous overacting as Blondie and her disaster of a film that was Beastly, this recently Zac-Efron-less “actress” will cease to invade screens, both small and large. Jamie Chung and John Hamm were criminally underutilized.

The critique that Sucker Punch moved along like a video game is warranted: collect item #1, collect item #2, etc. In the end, it lent the movie a familiar skeleton to drape its CGI trappings over, but was really neither here nor there.

The shift in focus away from Baby Doll at the end of the movie was the most unsettling, especially because the whole opening scene (one of the few scenes that take place in the real world) was centered around her. If it was meant to be a twist, it failed, although I think it was due to a lack of script editing more than anything else.

Was the plot groundbreaking? No. Did Emily Browning deliver an Oscar-worthy performance? No. Is there any rhyme or reason as to why Baby Doll sinks into a dance-trance and fights insane battles? Absolutely not. Should you care? Hell no.

4 Death Stars out of 5

What do you think? Did Sucker Punch live up to your expectations? Should Zack Snyder stick to adaptations, or did you enjoy his original story? What was your favorite fight scene? Share your thoughts in the comments!