The Last Exorcism: Movie Review

"If you believe in God you must also believe in the Devil" is the tag line to producer Eli Roth's The Last Exorcism. Daniel Stamm helms the director chair of this Blair Witch'esque film. The plot revolves around Reverend Marcus Cotton (Patrick Fabian) who has performed dozens of exorcism-shams over his lifetime as a preacher. When Reverend Cotton hears of an exorcism gone wrong with a child is killed he starts to question his belief in God and decides to quit his life as a preacher and exorcist. On a final exit note he decides to make a documentary exposing exorcism for what it is, a sham. He picks a 'help me' letter which sends him into Idlewood, Louisiana to exorcise the demon Abalom out of a young girl, Nell Sweetzer (Ashley Bell). While Reverend Cotton believes the supernatural aspects surrounding Nell aren't really her actions he performs a mock-exorcism (which he's used to doing) and leaves only to find that nothing changes, in fact everything escalates bringing forth her actual demons.

This movie is everything wrong with horror films. It is supposed to be a supernatural thriller, with no thrills. We've seen the fake documentary horror films before with The Blair Witch Project and even to some extent Paranormal Activity.  This film is so boring, nothing happens. Every time you think somethings about to happen... nothing happens. We hear thumping coming from Nell's locked room. The documentary crew storm in... no one is there... oh wait, Nell is sitting on top of her dresser. Everyone goes back to doing nothing. We hear shrieks coming from a non-existent child only to find Nell drowning a doll in a bath tub. The thrilling moments are held together by the intensity of wondering what could happen, only to become anti-climatic with absolutely nothing coming out of the intensity.

The ending is also seen a million miles away. First off, and sorry if I ruin this for you, the film is lost footage. Unless you live under a rock and have never seen or heard anything about this film you will know that as the marketing strategies all talk about this lost footage being found. So obviously it's not a favourable outcome. And not even thirty minutes into the movie the director point blankly literally points to a picture and says: this is how everyone dies. AND THEN the characters talk about it for 5 minutes which just assures us as an audience that that's how the main characters will eventually be destroyed. Also - I don't feel bad for saying any of that as horror movies are 99% tragic. They are the exception to being able to have a tragic ending. And while The Last Exorcism is so much more boring than scary the tragic ending is the only trait that keeps in style with horror films. Writers Huck Botko and Andrew Gurland have never written a successful horror film in their lives, their resume is filled with raunchy-teenage 'comedies'. And I think they should stick to ruining that genre as the horror genre has been ruined by many others countless times over.

As for the acting, well Patrick Fabian wasn't a bad actor, he held this pitiful piece of shit together... as for Ashley Bell (the other lead) I couldn't get past the fact that she looks like Michael Cera with a wig, and therefore was waiting for her to start to hit on a hotter girl that is obviously out of her league.

This movie is a waste of 80 minutes. Over hearing comments as I left the film everyone else hated the film too. I tried so hard to like this film, and it had so much potential - yet nothing of substance happened. Nothing scary happened. Nothing worth making this film watchable happened. You keep getting sucked into the intensity of the film only to be let down with all the anti-climatic plot turns. The final 10 minutes is also the most ridiculous moments I have ever seen in a movie. They reminded me of Nicolas Cage's remake of The Wicker Man. So all I can say is: don't bother with this movie.

1 out of 5 stars.

Vampires Suck: Movie Review

The most surprising thing about this film is that I actually made it all the way through the movie without walking out. Vampires Suck reunites Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer as co-writers and directors. The only genre they know is that of the parody-genre who have been working together since Spy Hard, through The Scary Movie series, and every other parody-based genre which includes: Date Movie, Epic Movie, Disaster Movie, and Meet the Spartans. So it`s not a really great track record and it`s one that`s gotten worse with age. God forbid how bad Scary Movie 5 will be.  Before I delve too much into this review I just have to say: Ken Jeong has officially become Hollywood's favourite whore; from background work for MadTV, to baring his l'il Jeong in The Hangover, and to the villain in the Brendan Fraser miss Furry Vengeance Ken Jeong is popping up all over the place and he seems to be only hitting his stride as a comedic actor 20% of the time.

Have you seen Twilight? I haven't, BUT with all the Twilight phenomenon I figure it's a simple plot and the exact same plot as Vampires Suck. New girl at school meets outcast boy whose really a vampire. They fall into forbidden love, but because the love is forbidden obstacles keep them apart, enter werewolf who wants girl to fall in love with him. The conflict of the soul. Ultimately vampire is chosen. The end. Sorry if I ruined your movie. Now, I get it - the film is a parody and what this film attempts to do is be more of an Airplane! parody than a Scary Movie parody. Friedberg and Seltzer take one film and try to parody it scene for scene as Airplane! did with Zero Hour! rather than parody a slew of movies. Sure there is one mention of True Blood and by mention I mean a vampire that looks like Bill walks by carrying a bottle of True Blood.

Vampire fiction is huge and it has been since the late 19th century with Stoker`s Dracula, especially in cinema with Nosferatu, Dracula (all bazillion movies made), Blade, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, True Blood amongst hundreds of other films and television shows, all taking a different take on what a vampire really is. When you have a film title such as Vampires Suck you would think that this movie would be an all-encompassing parody of all things vampires... but no... it`s an all-encompassing film that plays more like a tribute to Twilight than a parody film.

This movie was painful to watch. It was so boring. It was pure drivel. The acting was horrendous. Ken Jeong has hit a low-point in his career. The main character, Becca (Jenn Proske), is a complete unknown... and there`s a reason for that. I have seen better acting in grade school musicals. Other than Jeong other actors include comedienne Crista Flanagan, who somehow also gets roped into doing all of these parody films with Friedberg and Seltzer... she hasn't been funny since her first two seasons with MadTV. Other actors include 90210`s Matt Lanter, Gossip Girl`s Chris Riggi, and Disney-owned Anneliese van der Pol. B (and C)-list actors in a D-list film.

Do I think Vampires Suck is going to do well in theatres? Unfortunately yes. Vampire-fiction is the hottest form of fiction now-a-days... more of this fiction is the last thing we need, especially since 75% of it is just garbage. (Yes, Twilight I'm looking at you.) This movie is going to be hated, by critics and by everyone who goes and sees it... but unfortunately these parody-films are a cash-cow (just like the Twilight franchise).

Skip this movie. Seriously. I hated it. Every part of it. I should have saved that 80 minutes of my life and not bothered with this piece of shit.

ZERO out of FIVE stars.

BIG FAT 0!!!!!

The Expendables: Movie Review

The Expendables kicks you in the face with pure adrenaline and awesomeness right from the very first minute. Barney Ross (Sylvester Stallone) leads a rag-tag gang of mercenaries who don't ask questions when it comes to taking a job.  Their jobs fall on the side of being hired by governmental agencies or corporations to do what needs to be done when they can't do it themselves. After a job where one of their group, Gunner Jenson (Dolph Lundgren), goes rogue the group of mercenaries decide to take a job offered by the CIA (enter Bruce Willis & Arnold Schwarzenegger) which takes them to the small island of Vilena in South America. Their mission is to kill dictator General Garza (David Zayas); a battle unevenly matched as Barney's five man team must face a small army to get close to completing the task.

Stallone knows action and he delivers. Bringing together some of the world's best action stars to front this film Stallone just nailed it. Jet Li, Jason Statham, Terry Crews, Randy Couture, Dolph Lundgren, Steve Austin, and of course Sylvester Stallone rock the audience with an hour and a half of pure action. Oh yeah, Mickey Rourke is in it too - but his character does jackshit. As for a film in general: sure, there are plot holes... the script has moments of weakness... the love interest is boring... but who cares, we get to see a guy shoot a shotgun machine gun that launches 250 rounds per minute tearing holes through people. We get to see heads being blown off and body limbs torn off. There is an action scene where Jet Li karate kicks a guy in the neck breaking it so badly that it hangs loosely BACKWARDS. Sure, the violence is so extreme that it borders on hilarious - but it's so bad that it's amazing.

This is the movie that twenty years from now my children will be watching and loving the way I can sit down and watch Rambo or Rocky and love it. Stallone isn't new to the writing and directing chair either with a resume of great films behind him. All I can say is that Sylvester Stallone is the Clint Eastwood of extremely violent action films and I hope he never changes. 

If you like violent action films than this is the films for you. Fuck Inception! This is the movie of the summer!

I may just have to go and see it again!

4.5 out of 5 stars!

Scott Pilgrim vs The World: Movie Review

Scott Pilgrim (Michael Cera) is an ass. A complete and total ass. Having been dumped by the 'girl of his dreams' approximately a year before he hops from girl to girl rebounding and ultimately breaking their heart in the process. Oh yeah, he plays in a band. They suck, or at least that's what they keep telling us, so the fact that they win little competitions throughout the movie is kinda surprising. I digress... he meets Ramona Flowers (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) an only attractive in a kinda cute way unique individual that he immediately falls in love with. Her disinterest in him only makes him pursue her even more until she randomly changes her mind, likes him, and invites him over for sex and tea... but in a Michael Cera'esque fashion the sex never happens. Immediately Scott Pilgrim is plagued by Ramona's 7 evil-exes who have formed together as a legion to destroy anyone who dates Ramona. The entire premise, as illogical as it is, is either augmented (or diminished, pending how you look at it) by video game like animations.

The film runs close to 2 hours but the novelty wears off within the first 20 minutes. By evil-ex 3 I felt like I had checked out and all I wanted to do was go home and watch something more entertaining like C-PAC or just count the bumps on my ceiling... there has to be tens of thousands up there. But no, I stayed... until the end... still trying to figure out the pointlessness of the final 20 minutes.  While director Edgar Wright has had some major hits in his past (Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz) I would daresay that Scott Pilgrim vs. The World is being catered to a certain niche and people are either going to love it or hate it.

Now to contradict what I just said I can't say that I hated it... there were moments that I smiled... the first twenty minutes were kind of cool... unfortunately like I already said the novelty wore off and jokes about peeing on people and Scott Pilgrim having to share a mattress on a floor with his gay roommate and his boyfriends got old very quickly. It was also nice to see a movie filmed AND set in Canada, because while everyone comes here to shoot their films no one really sets anything here. So it was nice to see a movie set in Toronto... however now that I say that I didn't hate it... I far from loved it. Like on a scale between love and hate I am closer to the hate level of the scale. What didn't I like besides what I've already talked about?

The performances were sub par. Anna Kendrick went from almost being a gorgeous Oscar-winner to being 3-hairs away from a uni-brow and a whiny bitchy sister character that is almost completely unnecessary. Don't even get me started on the performances by the ex's. And of course Michael Cera plays, once again, a boy who tries so hard to get with a girl that is so far out of his league... and managing to do so. The movie in itself was also way too long for a movie of this genre.  Don't get me wrong I don't dislike this film for the absurdity of it, because sometimes the absurdity makes things generally enjoyable... this time it just got boring and fast. Maybe it was the acting, maybe it was the rehashed fight scenes every few minutes, maybe it was the overuse of video game animation... whatever it was - I got bored, quickly... and once I'm bored I stop enjoying the film.

Is this movie worth paying to see? No. Is it worth seeing? Maybe only if you have absolutely nothing better to do with your time. And yet, despite the fact that I disliked the film I believe that a lot of people will like it... a lot of people who don't go to movies so often will find it different and those that do go to a lot of movies will find it refreshing because of the absurdity. I however also believe that a lot of people will get bored, really easily with this film and that it really won't be as big of a hit as everyones guessing it will be.  Everyone who has really had a desire to see this film has already seen it in pre-release with Universal Studios doing premieres throughout the country over the past month and a half, giving die-hards many chances to get into see it.

1.5 out of 5 Stars

Oh... Sorry... Those are the bumps on my ceiling... time to get counting...

Waiting for Superman: Update

Paramount Pictures  is currently working on the documentary film WAITING FOR “SUPERMAN” that will open in theatres this Fall and is from the same team that brought us AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH.

It examines the crisis of public education in the United States through multiple interlocking stories and is designed to start a national conversation on both sides of the border.

The great news is,  that if we get enough pledges in our Canadian cities, First Book Canada has agreed to donate 25,000 new books to schools and programs in low-income communities across CANADA! 

Please go on this site and pledge now.    And pass along to your friends and families too.

www.waitingforsuperman.com

Each city only needs 50 pledges to show up on the leaderboard, so let's get this thing going!

Dinner for Schmucks: Movie Review

Steve Carell plays Barry, a lonely and quirky man who enjoys re-creating the greatest scenes throughout history with dead, stuffed mice, in Jay Roach's newest comedy Dinner for Schmucks. This remake of 1998 French film Le Diner de Cons pits straight-laced and uptight Tim (Paul Rudd) against himself. While attempting to receive a very important promotion at his business Tim finds himself invited to a dinner, with a twist. Each invitee brings along their own 'special' guest, or for lack of a better term, an idiot for the rest of the dinner guests to make fun of. The employee who brings the biggest idiot wins and Tim is under the impression that if he can bring the best idiot he will receive his promotion. Enter Barry, a man who Tim accidentally hits with his car; however immediately Barry stands out with his quirkiness as he was trying to save a dead mouse from being run over and also feared that Tim would try to sue Barry for hitting him. An unlikely friendship is formed as both Tim and Barry learn about themselves and about each other in this feel-good buddy comedy.

Jay Roach is the director behind the Austin Powers trilogy as well as Meet the Parents and Meet the Fockers.  I definitely have to say that this film follows in the tradition of Jay Roach and juvenile humour; but it doesn't necessarily come off as bad.  The film is very absurd, so unrealistically over the top, yet at the same time I didn't seem to mind as I found myself laughing hysterically moment to moment. Yes, the humour is juvenile but it still has a very witty feel to it. One of my favourite lines in the movie is the epitome of this. Barry is talking to a group of people: "My wife left me because I lost her clitoris. I couldn't find it. I looked everywhere, but I just couldn't find it. Once I thought I found it under the couch, but it was only a chewed up piece of gum." Jermaine Clement of Flight of the Conchords fame also has a quirky cameo as Kieran the absurd artist who tells a story about how when he feels that his art has become 'bullshit' he rubs actual bull excrement all over the painting to make it truly art.  Each character has their own quirks and absurdities that, if indeed they were all put together in a room together chaos would ensue, all characters except for Tim (Paul Rudd.)  Unfortunately Paul Rudd is the weak link in this film as he manages to only get cast as the straight-laced uptight character, but after seeing Anchorman we all know that he can play over the top zany and be funny as well.

I'm surprised at how well the script was written by David Guion and Michael Handelman's whose only other credits to date is the Zach Braff and Jason Bateman bummer The Ex. They really bring their A-game in this film, and although the gag starts to get old after awhile, especially as it's a fairly long film for a comedy (almost two hours) the two writers continue to throw out good one-lined zingers which bring the audience back to knee slapping and clapping moments. A personal example is the day of the dinner, where Tim and Barry are going to Kieran's ranch to find Tim's girlfriend Julie (Stephanie Szostak). The action and the laughs are starting to fade when suddenly Barry bursts out in an hilarious rant about how one can catch gonorrhea from riding the bus. Instantly any boredom that I was starting to feel was evaporated by the hilarity of the moment. Another great example is at a fairly boring lunch meeting with a Swiss businessman Barry shows up and starts talking about Switzerland and than goes off saying: 'I even know some of your language' before continuing off mumbling like the Swedish Chef from The Muppets.

This movie is honestly laugh-out-loud funny and despite mixed reviews on crowds leaving the theatre I will say that I personally liked it. It kept me laughing and entertained and Steve Carell is just purely hilarious. It's unfortunate that he'll be leaving The Office at the end of this season but I really hope he continues to make films like this.

3.5 out of 5 stars.

Inception: Movie Review

Inception. The idea is to plant an idea in someone’s subconscious and allow it grow and fester until the person believes this idea to be the monumental truth, whatever the situation. To do this Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) and a team of the world’s greatest ‘extractors’ team up and invade Robert Fischer’s (Cillian Murphy) dreams and plant an idea that would destroy his father’s legacy. They dally around in his dreams, creating layer after layer, transcending each layer to plant a single idea in Fischer’s mind and then attempt to escape his dreams unscathed. Got it? No? A little confusing? Very confusing? Indeed. This film is 2 and half hours and continues to get more and more complicated with each passing minute. The story itself is an interesting premise but the way it’s played out is full of holes and continuity errors. I don’t want to give away any spoilers but I’ll give a few examples of little holes; there is a scene where Cobb needs to drug Fischer to put him to sleep and so he palms a sedative and drops it into a glass of water in front of Fischer. In my mind, that’s a very risky move. Although the person who poured the water (off scene) was in on the drugging plot it would have been much easier and less risky for the entire plot of the movie for that person to have drugged the water. Another example is there is a guy who is driving a pick-up van and being chased by a slew of men with guns who shoot at the van repeatedly over a 40 minute period (things happen in between). His front side driver’s window explodes in fragments like 8 times! These are little plot holes/continuity errors, but the film is made up of these!  Another huge issue that needs to be brought up is that there is no bad guy; or at least not clearly portrayed as a bad guy, the person displayed as the 'bad guy' is truly more of a victim than anything in this film. You can't have a film of such 'grandeur' without a bad guy. It made the weak ending even weaker.

The movie is so long, and a lot of the film is rehashed over again through extraneous dialogue; its imagery is pretentious and the movie is horribly predictable. By 30 minutes in I was ready for it to be over. By the time it finally ended, 2 hours later my head was just pounding. I know I seem to be hitting this movie a little harshly, but I didn’t hate it, per se. I didn’t like it… but it was far from fantastic.  Christopher Nolan is a fantastic director and he brought this story to life in a way I don’t believe any other director could, the problem, in my opinion rests in the script. For example for such a complex film the ending was too simple. And by ending I truly mean the finale; the final 15 – 20 minutes. I’ve already gone through other holes in the story and there are a lot more, I’d just rather not give away the story for those who plan on going to see it. The entirety of the film felt too much like a Matrix wanna-be minus the cool kung fu.

The acting was half decent though. Leonardo DiCaprio is a very strong actor and I enjoy seeing him in films. I can’t remember the last film I’ve seen him in that was under 2 hours though.  Joseph Gordon-Levitt is another very interesting actor whose career has been very up and down, but more recently he has found his own niche and is blossoming into a fantastic actor. Ellen Page, albeit given the most boring character of the bunch, played her with enthusiasm and managed to make what could have been a very dreadful lead character slightly interesting.  I was hoping for more from Michael Caine; however his role just turned into a two scene cameo. But altogether, the acting was decent, the directing was superb… the problem with this movie rests in the underwhelming story.

If you truly want to check out this film, try it on a cheap Tuesday.

2 out of 5

The Sorcerer's Apprentice: Movie Review

The Sorcerer’s Apprentice reunites Jerry Bruckheimer with Nicolas Cage for the gazillionth time and I can’t say that it gets better with age. Set in present day New York, Balthazar (Nicolas Cage), a millennium old magician who apprenticed under Merlin, continues to seek out a future apprentice who will be able to defeat Merlin’s greatest threat, an evil witch named Morgana. When it appears that Balthazar has found his future apprentice in an everyday normal guy, Dave (Jay Baruchel), all hell breaks loose in the ultimate battle for good or evil all the while using New York as a backdrop for destruction. While Dave comes to terms with his new life and battling evil he must also learn how to deal in the art of love and be able to juggle both without destroying the other.

Walt Disney Pictures has a hard-on for making PG live action films which frankly suck. Don’t believe me? I’ll list a few: Pirates of the Caribbean 3, G-Force, Beverly Hills Chihuahua, Alice in Wonderland, Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, Race to Witch Mountain, I could go on… but you get the picture… the problem is: Walt Disney Pictures makes movies based on a formula that contain very little action, ‘witty’ dialogue which comes off as being more pretentious than actually witty, and worst of all the movies are more boring than anything. They get a slew of big name actors to walk through the film with their eyes closed and earn a big pay check just for showing up. I know a lot of people hate on Nicolas Cage a lot but I honestly like the guy; sure he’s done some crappy movies, this being one of them; but overall he’s a decent actor. Jay Baruchel has had a huge year with all the movies he’s been pumping out, and while I believe him to be a very talented actor he let his fans down with this collaboration.

Director Jon Turtelaub has worked with Nic Cage and Jerry Bruckheimer before with National Treasure 1 and 2. Both National Treasures can be considered masterpieces in comparison to The Sorcerer’s Apprentice, because at least their puzzle elements kept audiences engaged in comparison to what The Sorcerer’s Apprentice will do. I was really excited to see what Turtelaub would produce after his excellent, but under-appreciated mini-series Harper’s Island, and unfortunately it was this. The Sorcerer’s Apprentice: the cinematic version of literary drivel.

The writing was horrendous as well. Each and every choreographed movement spelled out through dialogue as well, yes Nicolas Cage we see you walking down the stairs you don’t need to tell us that you’re walking down the stairs while you do it. It’s really hard to figure out who to blame for the writing though as there were 3 screen story writers and 3 screenplay writers. I guess it’s a lie to say if you put enough monkeys in a room you can get them to write Shakespeare. Regardless these 5 (as one crossed between being a screen story writer and a screenplay writer) wrote a 100 minute snooze fest based on a single sketch from the late Disney musical film Fantasia. You know the scene I’m talking about, the one where Mickey plays with the mops and ends up flooding his master’s room? Yeah, it happens in this film too… I’d suggest you just leave it to the scene in Fantasia and skip this film.

1.5 out of 5

Grown Ups: Movie Review

"Nothing happened. And I love that" is a line said by Roxanne Chase-Feder (played by Salma Hayek). She has it half right. Nothing happened. But boy did I hate it. This film, written by Adam Sandler & Fred Wolf is a movie about nothing where nothing happens.  Now you might smile and think about the Seinfeld episode where the idea of a show about nothing was pitched; well it differs from that on the fact that the poorly written and directed Grown Ups carries absolutely none of the charm that Seinfeld did.  The Dennis Dugan directed film reunites a slew of funny men who mostly got to know each other through their work on Saturday Night Live. Adam Sandler, David Spade, Chris Rock, and Rob Schneider are joined by the only reason I wanted to see this film, Kevin James to try and provide a laugh a minute comedy; however, this movie ends up being a laugh an hour comedy, and it's only an hour and twenty minutes long.

The five main characters played basketball in elementary school and each have gone on to live separate and completely different lives. Reunited by the death of their basketball coach the group get together with their families for  the Fourth of July weekend at a cottage where the funeral is held. That is the end of the plot, and we're only 10 minutes into the film. The remaining 70 minutes is obviously a lot of fun for the cast and crew who got to goof around with each other but tediously boring for the audience as the 'educated' humour that Adam Sandler is pitching our way is mainly filled with fart jokes, pie-in-the-face jokes and midget jokes. All of which tire after the first one... unfortunately the audience is in for 50 of each. While the film is only 80 minutes in length it feels closer to 120 because of how slow it is and because nothing is actually happening.

Now don't get me wrong, if you like watching people get hit in the nuts, or if you like calling short people midgets, or if you like jokes about old ladies having sex with younger men than this movie is for you. If you like fart jokes, and watching men slap other men, and like making fun of older men who pee a lot than this movie is for you. BUT if you like actual intelligent humour, if you hate hack humour, if you want a plot when you watch a movie than for the love of God skip this film.

Adam Sandler hasn't been good in a film since Happy Gilmore and Rob Schneider's claim to fame is as Deuce Bigelow.  I can't even think of a film where David Spade was a lead. Chris Rock has a lot of hits and Kevin James is always funny in my opinion, but even those two fail us throughout the span of Grown Ups.   I was hoping for something great from Dennis Dugan who has brought us many of Sandler's films including Happy Gilmore, I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry and You Don't Mess With the Zohan but I think he was having just as much fun as the cast was and didn't really care about making a film. 

I highly recommend that you skip this film. Not only was it not funny but it was dreadfully boring. Just when you think it can't get worse, it gets worse... I couldn't watch this movie without groaning at every hack of a joke and sighing every time a joke within the film is re-hashed.

1 out of 5 stars.

Toy Story 3: Movie Review

Toy Story 3 is the last installment in the Toy Story franchise brought to you by Disney Pixar.  The first Toy Story film that hit theatres 15 years ago in 1995 took the world by storm; as it was the first full-length computer generated animated feature film; and ever since then the world of animation has never been the same. Toy Story 3 stays with the same excellent animation quality that Pixar has been providing us for the past 15 years and it kicks ass. This is the most engaging Pixar film since Monsters Inc.  I constantly find myself sceptical of Pixar films and honestly don't like many of them. Regardless, this film blew me away and kept me engaged from start to finish.

Toy Story 3 picks up many years after Toy Story 2 ends; Andy is now 17 and just about to head off to college. Andy has to make the decision of what to do with all of his old toys; which includes Woody, Buzz and the rest of the gang.  There is a mix-up as he puts them in a bag to take up to the attic and the toys end up headed for the trash. After a quick maneuvering scheme the toys end up being donated to a daycare. Without giving too much of the plot away the toys face many adversities as they realize that the daycare is really not for them; however their escape is thwarted by other toys that aren't as cute and friendly as they appear.

Toy Story 3 is hilarious from beginning to end; but also deals with the subject of loss, much like Up! only without death. The gang, Woody, Buzz, Slinky, The Potato Heads, etc... are joined by Barbie, Ken, and a slew of rejected toys to create a laugh-out-loud tour de force of over 100 minutes.  Michael Keaton voices Ken and is hysterical from start to finish. The other voice actors are amazing as well with Tom Hanks, Tim Allen, Don Rickles, Joan Cusack, Wallace Shawn, John Ratzenberger, and Estelle Harris coming alongside newbies Michael Keaton, Jodi Benson, and Ned Beatty to provide the masterpiece that is Toy Story 3.

This is director Lee Unkrich's first time solo directing, although he has been a co-director behind many other Pixar films including Toy Story 2, Monsters Inc. and Finding Nemo. However, behind a great director, behind great voice-talents, behind great animation there needs to be a great idea. That idea and it's execution can be attributed to writers: Lee Unkrich, Michael Arndt, John Lasseter and Andrew Stanton. Lasseter and Stanton have worked together many times before, dating back to the very first Toy Story film.  The script was nearly flawless, each character given the perfect amount of time to shine.

This movie is funny and touching from start to end and a great family film that kids and parents will enjoy alike.  Once again, I warn against the gimmicks of 3D. See the film in 2D; save the money; you're not missing out on anything by seeing it in 2D over 3D.  The good films always garnish smaller reviews.

4.5 out of 5 stars.

The A-Team: Movie Review

I seem to be going into film's these days without expecting to be impressed. I go in with such low expectations of films yet I've continued to come out surprisingly impressed. The A-Team is no different. I went in, despite bad reviews, thinking that this is probably an interpretation of a classic show that doesn't need to be made; however I was sorely wrong. Throw all aspects of cinematic integrity out of the window and this movie is surprisingly a hit.

Four Army Rangers fighting in Iraq have been framed for a crime they didn't commit. Under the heading of Hannibal (Liam Neeson) the remaining members of the A-Team, Face (Bradley Cooper), B.A. Baracus (Quinton Rampage Jackson), & Murdock (Sharlto Copley) break out of federal prison and continue on their way to prove their innocence. The ending, of course, sets it up for a sequel; and one that I think would actually work if done properly.

Joe Carnahan directed and co-wrote this production which is far better than some of his past efforts that included Narc and Smoking Aces. I'll be honest, there are moments in this movie where I went: what the hell just happened? I don't understand how this relates to anything... Yet the amount of fun that everyone in the theatre was having takes away all negative feelings to moments in this film.  The acting had it's ups and downs, mainly ups; especially from the ever-talented Sharlto Copley as Murdoch who was really funny and kept the audience laughing.  This movie works excellently as an action-comedy; the few moments where Carnahan tried to get serious and add drama the acting talent started to drop and the audience started to get distracted... however those moments were few and far between.

This movie kicked ass and I highly recommend it; just for a guilty pleasure... it was really enjoyable!

3.5 out of 5 stars

Killers: Movie Review

Alrighty - let's start this beast off. I went into Killers with very low expectations.  When movies are not screened for critics they are generally awful, look at GI Joe: Rise of the Cobra, The Bounty Hunter or any of the last few Saw films as good examples of that philosophy. SO when the film actually started off good I was pleasantly surprised.

The plot isn't much to write home about, but it holds itself solidly for the first hour Spencer (Ashton Kutcher) is a spy/assassin for the CIA; but when he meets Jen (Katherine Heigl) who is on vacation with her parents The Kornfeldts (Tom Selleck & Catherine O'Hara) in Nice, France, Spencer decides to give up his spy life after one last mission and be with Jen. Jump to three years later where Spencer and Jen are married and living the suburban dream and suddenly Spencer is called back into the game by his handler. When Spencer hesitates about being called back in he finds that his friends, co-workers and neighbours are suddenly all trying to kill him for a 20 million dollar bounty. Spencer must juggle trying to keep himself and Jen alive, finding out who set the bounty as well as handling the erratic Jen who had no idea about his past life.

Like I said, the first hour was actually half decent; it was a good action flick with witty moments and Tom Selleck was fantastic... what a mustache. The only other memorable acting moment in this film was a stellar performance by Rob Riggle; which was surprising because normally I hate Rob Riggle. I don't think he's funny one bit; but he managed to pull off a character that was slightly different for him and was entertaining. Kutcher and Heigl were nothing to write home about, their 'shining' moments were more dull and boring than actually exciting. Heigl is actually not funny at all - and she plays herself off as a rich-snob, which is what I imagine her being in real life. We all know her Grey's Anatomy drama off-set and her unrealistic financial demands show her true colours as an actor, one who isn't it for the art but purely the money. It was the supporting cast that made the actual characters plausible and less painful to watch.

Director Robert Luketic's niche is rom-com's like his previous films Legally Blond, Monster-in-Law, Win a Date with Ted Hamilton! & The Ugly Truth. I would personally suggest that his best film to date is 21 but he has definitely become a hit-and-miss director with Killers falling in the miss category.  The script, written by Ted Griffen and Bob DeRosa, wasn't half bad until the end, it was obvious though that the end was the product of novice screenwriter Bob DeRosa whose claim to fame include films like: Taco! & King Pathetic Creep.

I'm gonna get down to brass tax about why I did not like this film and it really comes down to the ending. First off, you see the twist within the first 25 minutes of the film. You know what's coming, when it's coming and how it's going to play out. However, it's how the writers tried to make a twist on the twist at the end that royally pissed me off.  The following contains spoilers and will be written in black type, so highlight over the dark spaces to read the rest if you don't care about spoilers:

In the end, it's Jen's father who places the 20 million dollar bounty on Spencer's head. It's placed because Spencer's last mission was to kill him, but he failed. So, Jen's father placed a group of hit men around Spencer and had them become his co-workers, neighbours, and friends and then when he gave the word they were to kill him. When this story comes out and Spencer and Jen find out suddenly everything just becomes hunky-dory. There is no reasoning given for why Spencer was supposed to assassinate Jen's father or why after he finds out about it suddenly all is forgiven and the family is able to sit down for a 'trust circle' and tell each other all their deep and dark secrets. The two 'killers' are suddenly complacent with each other and just let everything go.

The story has no real resolution and ends up being a groan fest for the last half an hour, a decent flick is ruined in its ending and I quickly realized why critics were not allowed to review this film for release day. I have a fear that people are going to forgive this film for its ending because it does hold you captive for 2/3rds of the film; but the cliched, anti-climatic, boring and unrealistic ending made me HATE this film. As the film progressed I was thinking to myself; this is a solid 3.5 out of 5 stars... however, I must warn you - skip this film... the ending really ruined it that much for me. I am only giving it:

1.5 out of 5 stars.

Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time - Movie Review

Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time is a film about a dagger that holds the 'sands of the gods' and can turn back time. By thirty minutes in I wish I had my own magical dagger that could have turned back time so I wouldn't be sitting through this film. The plot is simple, so simple that it's dreadfully boring. The Persian Army invades the mystical city of Alamut in which a dagger that can turn back time resides. Street urchin, Dastan (Jaky Gyllenhaal), who was adopted by the King of Persia when he was a young boy, becomes the holder of the dagger and also the key suspect when his father is murdered. On the run from his brothers and uncle Nizam (Ben Kingsley), Dastan and the beautiful princess Tamina (Gemma Arterton) find out that the entire attack on Alamut and assassination of the King was all a conspiracy set up by Nizam. Nizam wished to obtain the dagger, turn back time and have his brother killed so that he would become King and rule over the Kingdom of Persia instead. The movie's originality died within the first 30 seconds as it's opening sequence was almost mirrored to Disney's Aladdin, the rest of the film played off like Hamlet.  And then, of course, there is the screaming parallels to George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq.

The film is 2 hours long; yet the plot is so simple and predictable that the two hours stretch and feel like forever. The action sequences were cool, at first, but very quickly became very repetitive and were filled with slow-motion and stop-action camera shots that even bastardized the sell-point of the film. The scenes are over the top and ridiculous to the point where I actually found myself moaning out loud as every cliche in the book was played out. In one scene a character has had 5 metal spikes stabbed through his chest; when the camera pans over him, he is obviously dead as blood bubbles out of his mouth. Five minutes later when Dastan is in a fight that he cannot win this 'dead man' suddenly has the strength to grab a giant spike and stab it all the way through the man fighting Dastan.  In another scene Nizam is about to commit an act that could destroy the world and instead of rushing and stopping him Dastan and Princess Tamina decide to share the kiss that they kept trying to throughout the entire film. Don't get me started on the last 15 minutes as the end was the biggest cop-out I have ever seen in a film. By principal I cannot like a film that ends the same way that this film did... making everything that we have watched over the last two hours pointless... it almost made me as mad as the TV series Lost has made me.

This script was painful; as was its execution. I thought only John Cusack walked through movies without giving a damn; but now it seems as if it's the in thing to do. Yes, the action was well choreographed, the acting was obviously left on the back-burner until it was too late.  Prince of Persia was written by three veteran screenwriters; including Boaz Yakin's whose claims to fame include From Dusk til Dawn 2 and Dirty Dancing 2. I'm sure it must have been his contributions to the script that made Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time feel like a horrible sequel. The other two screenwriters have worked together before writing sub-par films like The Great Raid and The Uninvited. They are also the minds behind the upcoming Disney flick The Sorcerer's Apprentice, which after this film makes me lose faith in how that film will turn out on release.

But, for the lack of writing talent one can hope that amazing director Mike Newell could still save this film; he has, in fact, been behind the camera for film greats including: Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, Donnie Brasco, Four Weddings and a Funeral, Mona Lisa Smile, and has 76 directing credits to his name over the past 46 years. And while I can honestly say the film was well shot and had great moments of cinematography Newell's mind was obviously more focused on getting great fight shots and working on capturing a great set than on creating a movie with a decent plot that was actually able to captivate it's audience.  People were walking out of this film before the credits even started rolling.

Let's talk about the credits for a second. I know that this isn't going to be the case across the world; but at the Premiere - no credits were rolled. I don't know if that's the fault of the studio or the theatre; but when the film ended - no credits rolled. And I know it has nothing to do with the film; but there were hundreds of people who devoted so much time and effort to this film that even though not a lot of people stay for the credits their names still deserve the right to scroll across the big screen. I sat patiently waiting to see if they would start; after five minutes nothing had yet to roll and I slowly left the theatre. At least the credits would have been more entertaining than the actual film.

This film was dreadfully boring. It's plot nearly drifted me to sleep many times and it's acting was atrocious. Disney's live action films have been a let-down over the past few years... I can only hope that they manage a rebound with their upcoming Sorcerer's Apprentice and if not that, with Tron Legacy.

This film is definitely a skipper. Don't waste your money; go watch Shrek Forever After again or instead wait a week until something that looks like it has more promise to it like Splice or Get Him to the Greek or maybe even Killers.

1 out of 5 stars

Shrek Forever After: Movie Review

Shrek Forever After is the fourth and final installment of the Shrek series brought forth by the ever creative DreamWorks Animations. Once again Shrek, Fiona, Donkey and Puss in Boots are intertwined in another adventure of a lifetime. However, this time only Shrek knows it. When domesticated life gets a little dull for Shrek he makes a deal with the tricky Rumplestiltskin just to be a scary ogre again for one day; but to get a day he must give a day.  Without thinking of the consequences Shrek signs away a day from his childhood; which Rumplestiltskin takes to prevent Shrek from being born. This of course means that Princess Fiona is never born and the Kingdom of Far Far Away is in peril.  When Shrek comes to on his day he finds himself in a drastically altered Far Far Away where no one knows him, including Donkey, Puss in Boots and Fiona. So before days end, to save himself and his loved ones he must make Fiona fall in love with him all over again while defeating the evil Rumplestiltskin.

The plot, for a Shrek film, is actually quite complex yet it plays out well. Once again voice actors Mike Myers, Cameron Diaz, Antonio Banderas, and Eddie Murphy are back voicing their respective roles. Mike Mitchell helmed the wheels as director. Although being a vetern director Mitchell hasn't done any decent work since his work on the very short-run but hysterical television show Greg the Bunny.  Shrek Forever After was written by Josh Klausner (writer of Shrek the Third) and Darren Lemke (who hasn't written anything worthwhile in his entire life).  As for a script it was alright; nothing to write home about. My only concerns with the script were the excessive references to the very first Shrek  and the fact that it was super dark, content wise. Not a film I would take young children to.

The film as a Shrek film was much better than the atrocity that was Shrek the Third. I'm in the minority of people who have never been a big Shrek fan from the beginning. I didn't like the first one and I hated the third one; although I really, really liked the second one.  I can't really compare Shrek Forever After to any of the other Shrek films since the storyline is very unique (other than the references) from the other Shrek films.

The film itself was, as I mentioned before, quite dark; yet despite being the least funny of the Shrek  films the few laughs it had were good ones.  I didn't think I was going to like fat Puss-in-Boots either; but he ended up being one of the highlights. However, while I wouldn't take very young children to the film it is a good family movie.

As for the 3D - to be honest; I didn't really notice it. The glasses were more of a hassle than anything - but than again I'm not a big fan of 3D. I would suggest you just do the 2D route because the movie is enjoyable regardless of 3D or 2D.

Yes the content is dark; but it has it's moments and the story is actually enjoyable. If Shrek the Third scared you off of Shrek films you should still give this one a chance.

Oh - and as a last minute aside - the character of Rumplestiltskin was introduced very briefly in Shrek the Third in a bar scene; where he appears as a tall and lanky character not a short angry character. Just thought it was interesting to point that out; especially since the third and fourth Shrek were written by the same writer.

3 out of 5 stars.

The Trotsky: Movie Review

Jay Baruchel has had a busy year. The Trotsky is the fourth film that he has been in the past 12 months with another one on the docket to come out in July. Despite growing up and living in Montreal it's a true honour to say that Baruchel hails from Ottawa where a lot of great talent is managing to find its way to Hollywood's doorsteps.  Jay Baruchel is joined by the ever talented Colm Feore,  Anne-Marie Cadieux, Emily Hampshire, Saul Rubinek and Michael Murphy to provide a knee-slapping Canadian comedy that pulls no punches yet remains intellectually stimulating from start to end.

Leon Bronstein (played by Jay Baruchel) believes he is the reincarnation of the late Leon Trotsky; and therefore feels destined to bring social justice to whomever he meets and wherever he works.  After staging a failed hunger strike to unionize his father's packaging/shipping company he finds his funds cut off and he is headed to public school for the first time.  At the public school Leon realizes that those in power, mostly the principal, Principal Berkhoff (played by Colm Feore) are abusing their power; so Leon decides to unionize the school; which leads not only to a strike but also other antics which provide two hours of hilarity.

First off, Canadian movies, unless made by Paul Gross, get a bad rep and are treated too much like foreign films. Films like Lucid, Niagra Motel, Mouth-to-Mouth, The Cabin Movie, and one of my favourites Bon Cop, Bad Cop are completely ignored by film fans, and even critics at time, despite the fact that not only do they represent great moments in Canadian culture but they are also some of the best works of art out there.  The Trotsky as great it is will likely end up on the same slate. Release date is May 14, 2010 yet it is only being released in one Ottawa-theatre.  It's a travesty that we manage to neglect Canadian film so easily; especially when it's so good.

The plot of The Trotsky is simple, yet intellectually stimulating and manages to capture Canadian comedy at it's best.  It was written and directed by Jacob Tierney who is also writer and director for another upcoming Jay Baruchel film Notre Dame de Grace. Tierney has more experience in front of the camera than behind it; but despite The Trotsky only being his third film as a writer and director he has really nailed it as an art form. He has managed to take something as simple as one-loan Montreal high school and make it seem like the most important thing in the world; or at least the starting point for something great. No one could have captured this story in the same way that Tierney did.

The acting was phenomenal. Jay Baruchel is at the top of his game and has been ever since he really broke out onto the scene in Judd Apatow's Undeclared. I can't wait to see what else he is able to pull off as each performance he pulls off I think to myself; he can't get better - yet manages to prove me wrong every time. The supporting cast, Canadian as well, were breathtaking to watch and everyone, down to the involved background performers, gave their heart out for this performance to make one of the best Canadian films, let me rephrase that, one of the best films, I have ever seen.  Going through the cast list on imdb and seeing the list of actors and actresses it's neat to see how many have actually filmed here in Ottawa, including projects I have worked on.  Colm Feore, while not his best performance, is still amazing.  Colm Feore is one of my favourite actors and he doesn't disappoint.  This is the same man who has performed many live shows on Stratford while managing to film over one hundred movies or television shows including his ultimate performance as Pierre Elliott Trudeau on the captivating miniseries: Trudeau. I'm very excited to see how he does on the upcoming Paramount film Thor.

There isn't really anything wrong with this movie. It wasn't 100% perfect but in hindsight I can't think of anything that I would change about it and this film is definitely the best film I have seen since last summer's The Hurt Locker.

I recommend this film. I highly recommend it! Not only as a Canadian film but as a great film in general.  Go out and support Canadian film so that way the next Canadian release is more than just a one-theatre run!

4.5 out of 5 stars

Letters to Juliet: Movie Review

I'll be honest, seeing Letters to Juliet was really the last thing on my mind. I had no real interest in sitting through another rom-com and seeing the exact same plot developments we've all seen a hundred times before. However, when I realized that Jose Rivera was one of the co-writers of this flick I knew I had to give it a shot. Rivera has written for Diffr'ent Strokes and Family Matters as well as the film The Motorcycle Diaries and one of my personal favourites: Trade.  Tim Sullivan, the other co-writer is fairly new to me; and so I didn't know what to expect.  However, I decided to give it a try; I really didn't want to see other movies like Valentine's Day or Everybody's Fine yet found myself thoroughly enjoying both of those flicks... maybe Letters to Juliet would buck the trend of the regular rom-com and provide me with some decent laughs and some unexpected plot twists.  I was sorely disappointed.

Letters to Juliet follows Sophie (played by Amanda Seyfried - who has a surprising amount of arm hair) who goes on a 'pre' honeymoon with her fiance, Victor (played by Gael Garcia Bernal) to Verona. While in Verona she and her fiance slowly drift apart while he tries to find suppliers for his New York Italian restaurant and she starts to help out the secretaries of Juliet. An organization of women who respond to love/help letters that are left by women who come all the way from around the world to leave a letter at the wall of Juliet Capulet. Sophie finds a letter in the wall that has been hidden in a hole for fifty years; she responds and to her surprise the author of the letter, Claire (played by the ever-talented Vanessa Redgrave) and her grandson Charlie (Christopher Egan) show up in Verona to follow the advice of the letter and find Claire's long lost love.  Meanwhile everyone, Victor excluded, learns more about who they are and how they want to live their lives regardless of the consequences.

The movie is, to be frank, boring. The plot, as simple as it is, feels almost insignificant in the long run and the audience gets confused over what the main plot truly is. The movie has many subplots but no real singular plot. Sophie wants to become a writer for The New Yorker leads to Sophie finding a story and becoming a writer for The New Yorker. Sophie is engaged to an inattentive fiance who cares more for his restaurant than her leads to Sophie realizing she needs to take control of her life and find someone who is willing to change for her - which to me is a horrible message. The fact that even the man she finds in this plot to 'love her' and she finds herself 'falling in love' with requires change and he even makes a comment that is along the lines of how he would change who he was for her... can't she find someone compatible to her own needs without requiring a drastic change? Finally there's the plot where Claire comes to Verona to find her old lover; all intertwined through the shit-disturbing Sophie.  Three plots; which even intertwined to formulate one plot feel scattered, drawn out much longer than need be and also dreadfully boring.

The movie is your typical rom-com made in the likeness of Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet; two lovers whose families are so different yet they find themselves being pulled closer together despite what the consequences may be; however it's also dreadfully boring and the only likable character is Claire; but that could just be because Vanessa Redgrave was the only talented actor in the film.  Gary Winick has been a director of many misses; including 13 Going on 30 and Bride Wars; it is not surprising that Letters to Juliet is a mere follow-up.

Amanda Seyfried seems to be getting a lot of attention ever since she shared a kiss with Megan Fox in Jennifer's Body, yet no one seems to remember that flick and it's not even a year old.  Despite the fact that she is on the hit HBO show Big Love much attention is from her more risque roles with Boogie Woogie and Chloe. In many ways she reminds me of Anne Hathaway; a decent actress who went wild in a few movies and just hasn't been the same since her Disney days.  Has Seyfried's time already come and pass? Her acting in this film would certainly suggest so.  Don't even get me started on Gael Garcia Bernal - I don't even know what the hell he was trying to do. His character's behaviour was so erratic; that I'm not sure if his character came off as a two-dimensional character because of his lack of talent or the lack of writing skills involved in this film. Finally; the best for last; Christopher Egan who fluctuates from being a total douche bag to a love-struck puppy and back again.  His acting was almost more two-dimensional than that of Bernal's.

Ultimately this movie fails on many levels; a poor script and dull acting are just the first two and they are enough for me to warn you to skip this film. I understand that it's got that romantic nature that many people out there like; but I guarantee you before; if romantic-comedies are your genre you've seen this film before; many times.

1.5 out of 5 stars

Iron Man 2: Movie Review

Iron Man 2. What can I say? It's definitely the most anticipated movie of 2010 and it's going to rule the box office opening weekend; but just how good is it?  Everybody remembers how horrible Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen was in comparison to it's predecessor.  Would Iron Man 2 have to suffer the same fate?  Let me answer the question before I get bogged down in the details of the film: no.  While not better than Iron Man as The Dark Knight was to Batman Begins or X:2 was to X-Men, Iron Man 2 is still a solid sequel.

Iron Man 2 starts off just a few months after Iron Man finishes. Tony Stark (played by Robert Downey Jr.) has come out of the closet as Iron Man and has 'successfully privatized world peace.'  The world loves him; the government hates him; and weapon-manufacturers are jealous of him.  Across the world in Russia a man by the name of Vanko and former partner of Tony's father passes away in poverty after being cast out of America as a spy; he however possesses an advanced formula of the Iron Man suit as he helped design it.  His son, Ivan Vanko (played by Mickey Rourke), takes the plans, builds his own Iron Man suit (Whiplash) and plots his revenge on Tony Stark for the desecration of the Vanko family name. Tony, however, is suffering from a problem himself, his suit is releasing palladium into his body slowly killing him, which pushes him away from the lovely Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow), his best friend Lt. Col. Roads (Don Cheadle), and his new associates Natalie Rushman (Scarlett Johansson) and Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson).  Acting as a one-man show Tony must save himself, and the world from the likes of ultra-jealous weapon manufacturer Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell) and the likes of the ultra-evil Ivan 'Whiplash' Vanko.

First off I must say that the acting is phenomenal. Mickey Rourke, almost silent throughout the film, plays the perfect superhero villain and Sam Rockwell nearly steals the show as Justin Hammer of Hammer Industries. And leading lady Pepper Potts got pushed aside for Scarlett Johansson's portrayal of the super-sexy Natalie Rushman ("Black Widow").  Don Cheadle on the other hand walked around looking embarrassed to have stolen best friend Terrance Howard's role.  And as for Robert Downey Jr., this is where he shines. No other role was suited for him like the role of Tony Stark.

Let's talk about the movie itself, it's not perfect, far from it. A lot of the middle part of the movie is anti-climatic showing Tony Stark slaving away by himself in his lab to create a machine to save himself and then it compares to Ivan Vanko sitting in a lab preparing his army of drones/creating his new-and-improved Whiplash suit to destroy Tony Stark.  The movie started off very strong with an epic battle between Iron Man and Whiplash and quickly faded away to more of a personal drama for both before an epic battle at the end, culminating with a rather weak showdown between Whiplash and Iron Man and The War Machine.  And that is the only part of where the movie fails.  It starts off with a great big boom, and becomes very anticlimatic quickly; but at the same time; it's not an anti-climatic atmosphere that is necessarily a negative one - it's just how the film worked out.

I liked the film; and so did the crowd at the screening. A lot of people cheered throughout the film and loved the scene after the credits.  The movie was also funny, which was a nice change.  The Dark Knight, X:2, Spiderman 2 and other sequels (Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen excluded) tried to move away from comedy and focus more on a serious darker nature. I feel that Iron Man 2 was able to hit a darker level while staying rather funny.  I was also impressed with how clever John Favreau's (the director's) cameo's were. They were quick, but frequent, and entertaining enough for the audience to enjoy them.  He made a very good follow up to his smash hit Iron Man.

I am very excited to see what Iron Man 3 and The Avengers Initiative bring us and hope that John Favreau manages to stay attached.  Ultimately this is a fun summer blockbuster and I highly recommend it!

3.5 out of 5 stars

The Losers: Movie Review

I was looking forward to seeing this graphic novel to movie adaptation... unfortunately; the critics don't lie when they say The Losers doesn't live up to the hype.  The first problem is the casting.  Oscar Jaenada, who plays Cougar, looks too much like Justin Long faking a bad Spanish accent; Zoe Saldana, while gorgeous in other films, looks like a cheap two-dollar whore; and Jeffrey Dean Morgan? Well I haven't forgiven him as an actor since he played the dead ghost of Denny who wouldn't go away on Grey's Anatomy.  And the rest of the supporting cast including the ever-talented Idris Elba, Chris Evans, and Jason Patric just fall flat; and it could be in part to the script, the directing, a combination or just a lack of enthusiasm for this film.  It was obviously just a paycheck for the actors in the film who walked through it worse than John Cusack did in 2012.

The story behind The Losers is about a band of soldiers get betrayed by a rogue agent in the CIA and have to fake their own deaths so as not to be the subject of an international hunt.  They in turn meet Aisha, played by Zoe Saldana, who miraculously knows about everything that's happened to them and how they can catch up to Max (Jason Patric) the rogue agent who betrayed them.  The weak story is complimented by a series of pitiful stop-action fight sequences that at times are non-sensical and at other times bordering on pathetically choreographed.  The worst part about this pathetic movie was that the ending was very unsatisfying as the studio definitely tried to set it up for a sequel; which we can all pray will never happen.

Director Sylvain White's claim to fame; if you want to call it that is Stomp the Yard; yet he seems to be on tap to direct a remake to Ronin. I daresay we minimize White's budgets so we don't get mainstream films like The Losers that look to be promising and yet end up boring us to tears. I was hoping for so much more from writers James Vanderbilt and Peter Berg.  Vanderbilt was the genius behind the great story Basic, and the enjoyable Zodiac and The Rundown so I was hoping for something fantastic with The Losers but the story was definitely a disjointed mess of crappy dialogue and horrible plot developments.

This movie isn't worth the 95 minute run-time that it is.

Definitely add it to your skip-pile.

1 out of 5 stars

Furry Vengeance: Movie Review

Sorry for the delays; I have been ultra-busy with work and everything else.  I saw this film before it was released and I just knew that it wouldn't last long.  Furry Vengeance is a film about a contractor, Dan Sanders (played by Brendan Fraser), who is building a suburban community in the Oregon forests, despite the fact that he doesn't really want to build it.  His boss Neal Lyman (played by Ken Jeong) is forcing his hand and making him get ready to tear down the entire forest.  The forest animals find out of this plan and don't like it; and mistaking Dan Sanders as the ultimate devil rather than Neal Lyman.  They make his life a living hell, ultimately trying to kill him, driving him insane to the point where he tries to kill all of them. In the end of course Dan Sanders bonds with the animals and helps them drive Neal Lyman away.

The plot is simple, it's a child's movie for God's sake, but it's the worst kind of child's movie.  A movie where there are no good guys because throughout the movie you grow to hate the animals and hope that Dan Sanders manages to kill them; but at the same time Dan Sanders is just as annoying and so you hope the animals win - or ultimately the terrorists drop a nuke on Oregon erasing this painful movie from our memories with the destruction of everyone. 

If you like movies that are filled with cheap nut shots, animals talking using word bubbles and an incoherent plot filled with skunks spraying the main character (every other scene) than this is the movie for you. If you were the parent who cringed every time a dog talked in Beverly Hills Chihuahua just tell your kids that this movie didn't come out and take them to see How To Train Your Dragon again.

This film was directed by Roger Kumble, who infamously directed Cruel Intentions and from then on, a pile of garbage.  Furry Vengeance can be added to that pile of garbage alongside Cruel Intentions 2, Just Friends, The Sweetest Thing and College Road Trip.  The writing team of Josh Gilbert and Michael Carnes join forces to create a tour de force that was even worse than their first film Mr. Woodcock. It seems that the only thing they know how to write is cheap body humour and it makes it understandable how Steve Carrell and Jeremy Pivens both passed on playing Dan Sanders leaving the sinking-ship Brendan Fraser to step in and take hold of reins.

I don't understand why anyone would attach themselves to this project; let me give you a few examples of how painful this movie was:

1. There is a scene which takes about 10 minutes and all it is, is a crow tapping at a window pane trying to keep Dan Sanders from falling asleep. His wife, pitifully played by Brooke Shields doesn't here it, neither does their son. But this 10 minutes of tapping is also 10 minutes of Dan Sanders rolling around in bed frustrated wanting to scream; ultimately it leads to him climbing out onto the roof, falling off, landing in the hot tub and falling asleep there.
2. Dan Sanders is driving in a car. 20 skunks pop out of nowhere causing him to crash. This scene is repeated two or three times throughout the film. 
3. Whenever the animals talk to each other they have word bubbles pop out of their heads.
4. Nut shots. Nut shots. Nut shots. One where Dan Sanders is soaked around the crotch-region and makes a public statement: "Oh, look at Mr. Pee-Pee pants."
5. The film is supposed to be about saving the environment and helping animals out; but the animals come across as mean sonsofbitches and are so vengeful and hateful that I almost hated them more than anything else in this film; and I LOVE animal films!

This movie is not cute in anyway. It's dreadfully boring and painful to watch.  A child behind me kept crying for the first 30 minutes: 'I don't like this movie! I don't like this movie.' Until her parents took her out.  Upon leaving the theatre kids had mixed reactions about it but parents HATED the film.  Ultimately detested the film saying that the only benefit it would have would have been if it had been released in mid July - August so they could escape for a 90 minute air-conditioned nap while their kids mindlessly watched the retarded antics brought to you by Roger Kumble.

Don't bother with this movie. Seriously, as a parent you will hate the film.  Don't subject yourself to this torture. It somehow managed to score a 2.1 out of 10 on IMDB.

0.5 out of 5 stars.

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo: Review

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is the latest film brought to us by Swedish director Niels Arden Oplev; based on the first novel of The Men Who Hate Women trilogy by Stiegg Larsson.  The story revolves around an unsolved forty year old murder and Mikael Blomkvist, an investigative reporter’s (played by Michael Nyqvist) search to uncover the mystery surrounding the murder, meanwhile uncovering the works of a religiously and racist motivated serial killer. Blomkvist, who is waiting to serve out a prison term for a crime he was set up for, is helped out by ultra-feminist and genius computer hacker Lisbeth Salander (played by the ever talented Noomi Rapace).

The plot is simple enough, the execution, not so much.  What starts off as a very engaging plot quickly turns into a grotesque horrorfest of graphic sexual violence and nauseating scenes of rape after rape. And while these sexually violent moments are essential for helping shape the characteristics of the victim, Lisbeth Salander, the graphicness of them could have been avoided – as these scenes not only made every person in the theatre uncomfortable; but led to quite a few walk-outs.  After we get through these extremely graphic scenes the plot starts to engage the audience again and continues to unravel at a nice pace... that is, until the last half an hour.  This film is two and a half hours long, and that is edited; the original version is over three hours; and technically the plot ends around 1 hour and 50 minutes into the film.  The remaining 30 – 40 minutes is an attempt at cleaning up every last untied knot; which lead to moments where the audience goes: ‘wait a second – if that’s the case – this entire movie was pointless!’

Don’t get me wrong; I didn’t hate the film... but I definitely didn’t love it either. The acting was incredible; Michael Nyqvist’s portrayal of Mikael Blomkvist was phenomenal.  I am looking forward to seeing him in future films.  I’m very interested in seeing the next two films: The Girl Who Played with Fire and The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet’s Nest to see if Mikael Blomkvist can manage the same level of performance that he did in the first film.  Noomi Rapace as Lisbeth Salander took awhile to warm up to as a character. She was cold and devoid of emotion and at the beginning of the film you didn’t know if that was a character flaw or an acting flaw; but as the movie progressed and Lisbeth’s story was told her character became much more sympathetic and it would be hard to envision anyone else playing the role of Lisbeth.  Once again, I am interested to see how Rapace does in the next two films... and very interested in how David Lynch will cast the 2012 American re-make of this film.
 

Leaving the film a lot of people either really liked it or really hated it; and really it all comes down to how people a) stomached the sexual violence and b) how they reacted to the explanation at the ending.  I don’t want to give away spoilers; but the entire 40 year old murder investigation has absolutely no real premise in the film by the end; and the way that it is presented was done in a way that kind of pissed me off; but really pissed off the guy next to me; who ranted and raved forever about how the ending of the film made him mad and was lazy script writing; etc..

Roger Ebert thinks that this is one of the best films he has ever seen;   this confuses me because the film was just subpar, nothing too fantastic, nothing too dreadful.  I wish it had been shorter and less graphic.  I don’t know how the North American audience will react to this film. First off, it’s subtitled – a lot of fun was had in the first 10 minutes as we watched all the illiterates stand up and walk out of the theatre; secondly – it’s one of the most graphic (sexually) films I have ever seen – it’s on par with Lars von Trier’s Antichrist for sexual violence; thirdly – it’s so long that to have A.D.D. North American audiences try to engage with this film definitely won’t be as easy as European audiences.

The film is not for the faint of heart.  If you can’t handle violence or sexual content in films then don’t think you can handle this film. I have sat through some violently graphic films before but nothing has made my stomach churn like a few scenes from this film.  The movie isn’t even that fantastic to justify these scenes; they could have been done, as important as they are, without the same level of graphicness.

This movie is definitely not for everyone.

2.5 out of 5