Gravity

Gravity was an awesome and truly unique film-going experience. I really enjoyed it, I thought it was really well done, and I highly recommend it.

Now, if I was most people, I'd just end this review there, because that's really all you need to know: It's a good film that's well worth seeing, especially in the theater on the biggest screen possible. But I'm not most people. I'm an asshole. Well, maybe not an asshole -- although certainly enough people have called me one to lend legitimacy to the claim -- but I've certainly reached a point where I'm just unable to turn off the critical faculty in my brain that nitpicks the shit out of movies that should've known better. I guess that's why I have a blog. Anyway, while the first half of Gravity is brilliant, creative, visually astounding, and worthy of the critical acclaim and position at the top of the box office for the past couple weeks, the second half... isn't.

Here's the story: A NASA Shuttle mission gets destroyed by debris from a recently destroyed satellite, leaving two surviving astronauts adrift in space as they try to make their way to the nearest space station. That's it. That's the entire plot. But don't worry, because it's never boring and almost always magical in its visuals and riveting in its action set pieces. I'll admit that I was curious (or perhaps even worried) going in how they'd be able to sustain this thin a plot without it starting to drag or without resorting to cheating. Turns out, they resorted to cheating... at least in terms of consistency in storytelling and overall realism and believability.

I don't want to get into spoiler territory or discuss the plot points with an in depth analysis because part of the fun of this movie was in watching the suspense build. I actually don't even remember if I saw a trailer for this film before I saw it. I went just on word of mouth and the reviews I had read. But I will say that the debris field that destroyed the shuttle in the opening of the film goes into orbit around the Earth, and comes back a few more times, completely coinciding with every major plot point in the film, almost as though the debris itself had read the script and picked the most dramatic time for its next attack. After the third or fourth time this happens, it kind of stopped being exciting and just got kind of ridiculous.

As I said, the first half is brilliant and perfectly done, but the second half turns into the second half of a generic slasher film, where every time you think the hero is safe, the monster comes back! There is just disaster after disaster after disaster, until it just kind of ends with a finale that was incredibly entertaining and beautifully filmed, but completely and absolutely impossible. Wouldn't happen. Couldn't happen.

But other than those complaints, it's a brilliant film that's completely unlike anything you'll ever seen. Probably 90% of the film takes place in space, and it is the best space photography ever put on film. I don't know if it was all CG or if some of it was real, I just know it was gorgeous and filmed with such a scope that made me feel like I was floating in space along with the characters. If you're prone to motion sickness, this might be a tough film to sit through, especially during the scenes where the characters are spiraling out of control and we see from their perspective.

I also saw it in 3D, which I recommend as well since it added another level of depth and helped to show where every object was in relation to every other in the free fall of space. Also, the big set piece where the space station gets ripped apart and the pieces fly right into the screen was high on my list of the coolest fucking things I've ever fucking seen.

Director Alfonso Cuaron is pretty much guaranteed to get an Oscar nomination, and he'll probably even win, which would be well deserved because this was an astounding piece of work. The camera is always moving with some of the most intricate choreography I've ever seen with visuals that are, literally, limitless in showing the vastness of space. The film is also told in a series of incredibly long takes, which keeps the momentum going and the suspense building. Of course, most of these takes aren't really long tracking shots, since they were all clearly filmed on a green screen and built together from multiple shots stitched together with computers, but they were still dazzling in their complexity and choreography. There is one sequence where the main character is floating around a space station for an extended take and we see her from head to toe and I have no idea how that was filmed. It was flawless.

 But I think Cuaron's previous film Children of Men had the more impressive and complex long takes in film history. This guy is just a genius.

And then the acting was pretty good too. I had my reservations about Sandra Bullock, since while I've enjoyed her in movies like Miss Congeniality, I've never really cared much for her as an overall performer. This movie didn't really change my mind on her talents, but she did a good job. I don't think she lit the screen on fire, but she did her best with her particular talents, and maybe even added a lot to a character that was frankly underwritten and unlikable.

Why was this person in space anyway? There is some added subplot about how she's still overcome with grief after the death of her daughter years previous, and she has to deal with that loss before she can really deal with her current fight for survival and blah blah blah blah. That was completely unneeded in my opinion and added a level of melodrama that the actual drama didn't require. Also... if this woman was really suffering from this level of emotional baggage -- to the extent that the mission commander doesn't even know where she lives, has a family, etc -- how did she get into the space program? Any human is more likely to get into the NBA than they are to get into NASA. Becoming an astronaut is maybe the most rigorously selective employment process in the history of mankind, and I'm sorry to say it but this character wouldn't have made the cut.

Oh yeah, and George Clooney was also in there too. George Clooney is a wonderful actor, but there are some movies where he actually plays a character and others where he just plays George Clooney. In this movie he just plays George Clooney, albeit in a space suit.

But... I liked the movie. In fact, I kind of loved it and I plan to see it again, next time on IMAX. Sure the second half of the film gets a bit wacky and taxes your suspension of disbelief, but it never gets boring and it's always stunning to watch and gives you something you've never seen before in every scene. As space disaster porn it's probably the second best film of its kind, ranking just behind Apollo 13. This film might be a little more exciting and visually inventive, but Apollo 13 has the added virtue of being a true story, and one that doesn't cheat or drag in the slightest.

Anyway... Just go reread my first paragraph again then go see this movie. It's awesome.

The Man with the Iron Fists

I really wanted to love this movie, but it didn't quite work out that way. I liked it (for the most part) and respected it, but it was ultimately too much of a mess to stand up as anything more than a mildly entertaining curiosity, which is a shame because it was a good effort with some nice ideas and some decent moments.

The film was written and directed by RZA, who also played the titular character. RZA is a brilliantly talented hip hop performer and producer, and an admittedly kung fu film fanatic. He is now an icon of the music industry with enough clout to get a film financed, and he decided to make his feature debut an homage to the Hong Kong martial arts films he grew up watching. That's awesome. I wish more filmmakers made passion projects like this instead of, say, Transformers part 3 or another adaptation of a Nicholas Sparks novel. Unfortunately, the fact that you've watched a lot of kung fu movies doesn't mean you can direct one of your own. Then again, most of the movies he grew up watching were probably terrible, and I wouldn't call this terrible. It's just a mess.

The best thing I can say about this movie is that, for the most part, I was never bored.

The worst thing I can say about this movie is that I have no freaking idea what it was about.

Seriously, I don't know what the plot was. There were some guys who did stuff. Something about a gold shipment. Some guys father was murdered. Russell Crowe had a gun with a knife on it that spun around when he pulled the trigger.

So as a screenwriter, the RZA bit off more than he could chew. I wasn't looking for an epic story or Shakespearean levels of characterization, but I would have enjoyed a story that I could understand and follow. There were just too many characters and too many things going on, none of which made sense or seemed all that interesting.

The action was pretty off the hook, however, and almost -- almost -- makes the whole thing worth watching. The opening fight scene was ridiculously fun and well choreographed and set to a great hip hop music track. After that I thought the film was going to be amazing, but then it just kind of fell flat, until the next fight scene, anyway. Here's all I really need to say: There's a scene where Lucy Liu kicks some guy's head off. That's cool, right?

It's also a very pretty movie, with some stunning locations and great set design. Too bad the special effects were pretty terrible.

The cast was a lot of fun too, with a very strange performance by Russell Crowe, who clearly realized the script was nonsense so he decided to just go so far over the top nobody would notice that his character made no sense. Rick Yune (the diamond-faced guy from Die Another Day) was in there as somebody and he was very good, as was Lucy Liu as the owner of a brothel. I was never sure what role she played in the film, and even though kicking some guy's head off was awesome, I didn't know who the guy was so it ultimately didn't really mean much. Professional wrestler Batista plays a villain who can turn his body bronze, and he pretty much stole the entire film. He was great. And then there's RZA, who as an actor is a wonderful rapper. Anyway... he did his best. I enjoyed his performance, but I wouldn't call it good, or, really, even acting.

As a film debut by a man with no real film experience to speak of, this was very close to being a success. It had a great cast, noble intentions, and some really fun action set pieces, but it suffered from a lackluster screenplay, poor pacing, and no real narrative flow.

But... go ahead and check it out if only for some cool fights and an amazing soundtrack.

More Movie Trailers

Whenever I'm bored, haven't done much else to write about, or just feel lazy, I watch and post my thoughts about trailers for upcoming movies. Don't expect this to take up much time, because I sure didn't find many worth sharing:

Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters
This isn't a real movie, right? There's no way this is a real movie. I don't even just mean because the premise is idiotic, but because no studio could think any movie starring Jeremy Renner and Gemma Artereton could be a hit. No offense to either of them who are both fine actors, but appearing in the Avengers doesn't mean you can open a movie... unless that movie opens on January 25th. Fair enough.

Anyway, while I was watching this trailer, I kept expecting Bugs Bunny to pop up and go, "Hansel?!"

Olympus Has Fallen
This isn't a real movie, right? There's no way this is a real movie. I don't even mean because the premise is so 1992, but because no studio could think any movie starring Gerard Butler could be a hit. No offense to Gerard Butler who's a fine actor, but... ah fuck it. Fuck you, Gerard Butler. I liked 300, but what has he done since? I'm certainly not gonna see this one.

A Good Day to Die Hard
This movie looks just as stupid as Olympus Has Fallen -- more so, even! -- but the Die Hard series has earned the right to be stupid, and they've been doing stupid for longer and better since before Gerard Butler was waiting tables at the Planet Hollywood in Melbourne.

Wait... is Gerard Butler Australian? Who cares.

Anyway, this looks dumb, but I'll at least rent it.

The Call
Don't watch this trailer because it looks like a totally by the numbers, generic thriller. I'm only posting it so I can ask this question: When did that little girl from Little Miss Sunshine turn hot?

Saving Lincoln
What the fuck is this? This literally looks like something that was filmed in front of a green screen then chopped together in two weeks to cash in on the popularity of that other movie about Lincoln. This has some good actors, but watch this trailer and tell me it doesn't look like the absolute worst movie ever made.

Scary Movie 5
Here's another trailer you shouldn't watch because, frankly, why would you? I'm only posting it so I can point out that Ashley Tisdale has finally reached the point in her career where she's playing a grown woman with a husband and a child. That just blew my fucking mind, man. She's still gorgeous.

But this movie looks almost -- but not quite -- as bad as Saving Lincoln, and it wins if only because it looks dreadful but not pretentious.

Oh... and this will be of interest to absolutely nobody else, but her husband is played by Simon Rex. Remember him?

Phantom
This doesn't look terrible, but it does sort of look like a made for TNT original movie. And that's fine, and I'll maybe rent it some day or at least watch it when it does come on TNT, if only because Ed Harris and David Duchovny are both cool. Maybe I'll even go see it if it actually opens in a theater somewhere, if only to support these two, both of whom probably need a hit. It'll be hilarious if this film went on to be the highest grossing movie of all time.

It could happen.

42
I'm torn. On the one hand, Jackie Robinson was a true American hero whose story is one of the most inspiring and indelible in our nation's history. On the other hand, this looks like a pretty mediocre movie. If it gets good reviews, I'll check it out because I like the man and I love a good baseball movie.

The Last Exorcism 2 / The Haunting in Connecticut 2: Ghosts of Georgia
I didn't watch either of these trailers either, but -- again -- I have some questions and observations:

First of all... look at those posters. These are the same movie, right?

Second of all... how can you have a sequel to a movie called The Last Exorcism? They should've at least called it "The Last Exorcism 2: One More Exorcism" or something.

Third of all... how can you have a movie called "The Haunting in Connecticut" that seemingly appears to take place in Georgia? More importantly, why isn't the tagline for this movie, "The Devil went down to Georgia"? Missed opportunity.

The Incredible Burt Wonderstone
Ok, this one made me laugh. I'm not going to go see it, but I might rent it maybe. Anyway, it might be the one trailer I posted that's worth watching.

 And that's all I got.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (High Frame Rate 3D)

I'll make a long story short (which is the exact opposite of what director Peter Jackson did): The Hobbit was awesome.

I probably graded that score of "awesome" on a bit of a curve if only because the reviews of this film have been so overwhelmingly harsh and negative that I wanted to counter them if I could, and also because they had me going in with such low expectations. I probably put off seeing this movie during its first week in the theaters because the reviews were so abysmal, but I decided to check it out anyway because everybody I know who actually saw it loved it and raved about it.

And now I saw it and I loved it, so I guess I'll rave about it. It's awesome. If you liked the Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy adaptations, go see this because you'll love it. And if you didn't like those films, go see this anyway because it's way better. For real. In my opinion, this is the best Tolkien film of all time, possessing the visual splendor and action of the earlier films, but without gutting the story, changing the characters, or just plain getting the story wrong. This is a better adaptation and just a better film.

But, yeah, it's also really long... and I'd even go so far as to say it's probably too long, since I was more than ready for it to be over maybe twenty minutes before the credits began to role. I wasn't bored by the film or unengaged by the story, I just had to pee and I was hungry. This is one of those movies that's so long you literally have plan your entire day around it, so you end up either having lunch really early or dinner really late, and lord knows you can't bring a soda in or you'll either have to pee your pants or miss part of the movie when you get up to use the bathroom. Let's hope Peter Jackson never films an adaptation of War and Peace or I'll have to have a catheter installed.

And, frankly, I was also getting antsy for the film to end because I knew it was just the first part of a trilogy, all based on one book. I've heard a lot of criticism about this decision because people feel it's just a greedy attempt to make more money by the studios, but I don't think that's why the film was split into a trilogy.

Honestly, I think the film was split up because Peter Jackson is out of his god damned mind, man.

I believe that Peter Jackson would split every film up into a trilogy if he had his druthers, and he seems incapable of making a film that isn't a bloated, three hour epic. I mean, this is the guy who's remake of King Kong spent more time just getting to the island than the original film ran from start to finish, and I'm not making that up! And I've never really understood why Jackson remade King Kong anyway. He said it was his all time favorite movie so his dream ever since he was a child was to make his own version, which is also proof that he's insane. Don't most people consider their favorite films to be sacred and scoff at the idea of anybody remaking them? But in Peter Jackson's world, when you love something, you need to remake it, only change everything for the worse, either because you think the original got it all wrong or because you simply didn't understand what it was all about at all.

Anyway, that's what he did with King Kong and that's what he did with the Lord of the Rings films, giving us a story that only kind of resembled what Tolkien originally envisioned and characters who are generally the same as his only in name only, with dialogue randomly reassigned, motivations changed, and entire concepts so radically different it could only be assigned to a total misreading of the original text.

But luckily very little of that happens here, and aside from too much action and violence -- which I don't mind, to be sure -- this felt very much like a faithful adaptation of the works of Tolkien. If anything, this film maybe suffers not because so much is changed or left out, but that too much is forced in, with just about everything from the novel taking place, as well as stuff from the appendices of the Lord of the Rings and other stuff from The Silmarillion.

Why did this film open with Bilbo talking to Frodo? Other than to bring back Ian Holm and Elijah Wood, I can't think of a single reason why this was needed. Same goes with the appearances of Saruman and Galadriel. It was nice to see Christopher Lee and Cate Blanchett -- especially Cate Blanchett who seems to just get more gorgeous as she gets older -- but their scene was completely pointless and overlong. And why was Radagast in this movie? And why was the interpretation of his character so strange? Again, he served no purpose and should've been left out, but at least he was a lot of fun so I didn't mind.

The cast of characters that actually appear in the book was big enough, I'm not sure why they had to add in all those people who didn't appear, but I guess I shouldn't complain because they were all so good. When I find myself complaining about an unnecessary appearance by Christopher Lee, I need to just realize how cool it is to see Christopher Lee in anything so I'll just shut up and enjoy it. Honestly, Christopher Lee should show up as Saruman in every movie. Why not?

Martin Freeman was perfectly cast as the young Bilbo Baggins, and I think he actually did a better job in the role than Ian Holm in the original trilogy. But then again, it's not really a fair comparison because Freeman was given so much more to do, being the star of the film instead of just a bit character who gets the plot going and then disappears. Anyway, Freeman has always been good in everything I've ever seen him in, and he has the brilliant ability to be funny and dramatic from scene to scene, and even from second to second. Hopefully this is the film that will finally make Freeman into a movie star, at least over here in America.

Ian McKellen returns as Gandalf the Grey, and he's as good and dependable as you'd expect. This isn't really a role that requires much in the way of acting other than appearing imposing at times and reading the occasional line with a certain amount of gravitas, but as film actors go, there's nobody more noble and regal than Ian McKellen.

Richard Armitage plays Thorin Oakenshield, the leader of this band of Dwarves, and he's amazing. I don't know who this actor is and for his first few scenes I thought he was Gerard Butler. This may be the best character from any Tolkien film adaptation, and I thought he knocked his performance out of the park, putting Viggo Mortenson to shame as another would be king leading a fellowship on a quest to restore honor to his people.

Then there were, like, a thousand other characters, a few hundred of them being Dwarves that were hard to tell apart, but the filmmakers really tried to give them different beard styles and each got at least once nice little moment here and there. I never really understood why they all looked so different from one another. Most of them looked like good luck troll dolls while one of them looked just like a young Rick Springfield, but whatever. I liked them all and can't remember if there was a single bad performance in the entire movie.

About the plot I guess I haven't said to much because, to be honest, nothing really happened, despite the film's three hour running time. Here's the plot in brief: A century or so ago a dragon named Smaug took over the Dwarven kingdom of Erebor, stealing their gold and forcing them out of their homeland. A young Bilbo Baggins and Gandalf join Thorin and a band of Dwarves as they attempt to finally drive off the dragon and reclaim their home.

But all that really happens in this movie is that they convince Bilbo to join them and go for a walk, where they keep getting into battles every fifteen minutes or so until the film just kind of ends randomly with them only slightly closer to the end of their quest than they were before they started. I guess this is one of the big complaints I've heard about the film, and it's certainly a major one. It's sort of like if somebody adapted A Christmas Carol and split it into a trilogy, with each film being about a different spirit, but even then the first hour of the first film would be devoted to a young Scrooge getting his MBA and then starting his own business. That would be awful.

Well... The Hobbit, somehow, isn't awful. In fact, it's awesome... but... yeah, not much happens in the way of story or plot. However, the film was so well done and so much fun that I never really minded and I'm already committed to seeing the next couple films when they come out. Honestly, a meandering film about a group taking a walk through Middle Earth is still more fun than almost any other movie with a deep script or intricate plot.

And before I go I guess I should talk about the version I saw, which was in 3D and shown in 48 frames per second. As if we needed another option when choosing how to see a film, we now have to choose between seeing it normally, in 3D, in Imax 3D, and now in 3D with a high frame rate. Enough already!

Anyway, I guess Peter Jackson decided to film this trilogy in 48 frames per second, which is double the 24 frames per second that has been used for every other film ever made. I respect Jackson for taking a chance and attempting to enhance the film-going experience with this new technology. But on the other hand, it totally sucks. It's just... weird, and so off-putting -- even after you get used to it -- that led me to wonder if anybody actually watched any test footage before giving 48 fps the go ahead.

When the characters aren't moving, or just when they are moving very slowly, the added frame rate is astounding and gives the film a clarity and detail that is, quite frankly, more beautiful and crisp than anything I have ever seen in the cinema, but then the characters start to move and it seems like one of those bits on Benny Hill where everybody is in fast motion. Even little movements feel jerky and out of whack with how people actually move, not just on film but in real life. Also, the added clarity actually makes everything look more fact and surreal, since the backgrounds look like backgrounds and the characters pop way more than they should. Everything sort of looks like a videogame cut scene.

So I say see this film in 24 frames, but then sneak into a showing afterward to check out a few seconds of the 48 frames just so you can see how awful an experience it really is. I'm glad I saw it so I can safely never see another film like this ever again.

And that's that.

Trailer Park

Hey... let's watch some movie trailers:

Pacific Rim
This might be the most epic trailer ever made.

Guillermo del Toro directing Giant robots, kaiju, Jax from Sons of Anarchy, Charlie from It's Always Sunny, Stringer Bell from the Wire... and was that the voice of Glados from Portal? I'll be there opening day.
Parker
This looks like fun. Jason Stathom as Parker from the Donald Westlake novels. I've never read those so I can't speak to their faithfulness to the source material, but I'd be surprised if Westlake wrote a character who did so much karate. Anyway... cool trailer. I'll rent this for sure.

Epic
Nice animation, but no thanks. Even as a kid I would've thought this looked stupid. Do kids even like all these animated movies anymore, or are they as sick of them as I am? When I was a kid, I always preferred movies about real kids. I could pretend I was one of the Goonies. I can't pretend I'm some weird, super-deformed, plastic-looking freak, nor would I want to.

But then again, that's just me.

World War Z
If you read my blog you know I love zombie movies... but this looks bad. Not bad, maybe, but just not engaging. Anyway, it's a boring looking trailer. I have no interest. But I do like Brad Pitt so I'll keep an eye on it. 

Star Trek Into Darkness
Pretty epic trailer, but at the moment I still have zero interest in this. The first JJ Abrams Star Trek film wasn't Star Trek, and this one looks even less so. Maybe if I can divorce myself from the source material I can go into it an enjoy it on its own terms, but I dunno. I didn't just think the previous film was bad Star Trek, but bad sci-fi in general. Then again, I've seen worse, and I do like that Bennedict Cumberbatch guy, or whatever the hell his name is.

A Haunted House
This looks awful. I laughed.

Man of Steel
Another epic trailer, but I'm still unsure of how I felt about it.

Henry Cavill certainly looks the part and it is action packed which should be an improvement on that last Superman movie, but the costume looks weird and some of the lines sound odd... like when Pa Kent suggests that maybe Superman should've let that kid die. Huh?!

Anyway... nice looking trailer. Check it out. I sure hope it's good. Lord knows the world deserves to see a good Superman movie. I just wish it looked a little more... I dunno.. like Superman.

The Last Stand
Schwarzenegger came out of retirement to make this? I'll rent it, but only cause I'm a fan. Doesn't look too good, but it could be fun.

The Lone Ranger
Fuck you.

Oblivion
Tom Cruise sure needs a hit, but this won't be it. But it is a very cool trailer and it looks like a neat movie. If it gets great reviews, I'll go see it. If not, I'll probably still rent it. I like Sci-fi and I like Tom Cruise, no matter what anybody says.

But here's my advice for Mr. Cruise just in case he reads my blog: Do some supporting work in some good films by good directors and put the big budget action films on the back burner. Just my advice.

Gangster Squad
I'd love to watch a big budget gangster film about Mickey Cohen (starring Sean Penn no less!), but this doesn't look too good. Also... what's the appeal of Ryan Gosling. Can somebody explain that to me? Nice looking kid to be sure, but he's not a particularly good actor. Or maybe he is, but he's not a particularly engaging one in my opinion. Still... interesting trailers.

Universal Soldier: Day of Reckoning
Is there a single person in a single scene of this trailer that doesn't look greasy? According to this trailer, this movie came out last month. Who knew? Would you believe I've never actually seen a Universal Soldier movie? I sure as hell ain't gonna start with this one. 

Les Miserables
Does this looks good? I'm not sure. I don't know the musical well enough. Nice visuals though, and that's a cool cast, but only a few of the voices actually sounded all that good. But boy do I love Russell Crowe, and I'd love to see him in a musical. How funny is that?

The Expendables 2

The first one was better.

That isn't to say this was a bad movie or that I was at all disappointed or let down, it's just that the first one was better is all. Maybe it's because the first film had more novelty and felt fresh while this one is just more of the same. Maybe it's because this film felt like less of an ensemble and more of a starring vehicle for Stallone. Maybe it's because this one had a weaker story and more muddled direction. Maybe it's because I'm a few years older and more mature. Maybe it's because I watched this one alone in my apartment instead of on opening night in a theater full of like-minded Stallone fans. Or maybe it was just because it wasn't a very good movie.

I dunno.

Anyway, I liked it.

If you liked the first film -- and I can't imagine that anybody would go see it unless they were the kind of person who was going to love it -- you'll like this one too, since it brings back almost all of the main characters and puts them through the same intense, over the top action. The I described the original film's finale as the best action sequence in movie history, but the opening of this one maybe tops it. This was seriously one epic opening battle that was ridiculous in all the right ways, perfectly creating one of the most epic introductions to some of history's most epic action stars. But then it kind of lost steam, and even though there was a lot of action along the way, it was never as creative or fun as that opening, nor as anything from the first film. It all just kind of played out with people shooting until they run out of bullets and then throwing knives into some merc's throat. In any other film review, that would be a rave recommendation, but for an Expendables film I just expected more.

I don't really remember the main plot of the first film (and that's as it should be!), but this one is about the team's search for revenge after one of their own is murdered in cold blood during a mission. But don't get too worked up, since the Expendable who died wasn't anybody from the first film, but a new character played by the very handsome but very bland Liam Hemsworth. Listen... if you're going to make your entire film revolve around a revenge story, you have to make it about a character we care about, not some new guy who was shoe-horned in just so he could be killed off in the first half hour. This would've been a much stronger story had they killed off one of the main guys, and at least that would've explained why none of them had much screen time anyway. I hardly remember Randy Couture or Terry Crews being in this movie at all, and Jet Li really only had a cameo before he disappeared all together.

There was also some woman added to the team which didn't really work. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with women in action movies, I'm just saying I didn't know who this actress was and that she was bland and added nothing to the story.

There was also an appearance or two by Chuck Norris, which sounds cool but it didn't really work either, since he was so awkwardly forced into the movie with no real explanation or thought. It was kind of funny how Norris basically played some god-like force or nature who showed up when the team needed him most, killed everybody, then vanished again, but it just didn't work for me. And having Chuck Norris repeat one of his internet meme "facts" isn't meta humor, it's just kind of dumb.

Much more fun were the expanded roles for Bruce Willis and Arnold. But then again, Chuck Norris's fame is kind of based on the fact that he's kind of a joke whereas these guys are famous because they're awesome, so having more of both actors is always great. I could've done without all the "I'll be back" and "terminator" jokes, however, since a little of that goes a long way.

And I don't know about Jean-Claude Van Damme as the villain. He was a lot of fun, but he didn't really do much and I never really knew what his plan was. But Van Damme is always funny, and his big fight against Stallone at the end was fantastic.

But the main problem -- and this is going to sound like a dumb criticism of a big budget action movie throw back -- is that the script lacked wit. The first movie was just as funny as it was exciting, but this one just fell flat in too many places. Here's one example: At one point Stallone and Jason Statham are running through the jungle when they are suddenly ambushed by a bunch of villains.

Statham: "Did you order room service?"

Stallone: "Not really..."

Not really? Not really?! That was really the best set up and follow through they had? Stallone should've said something like, "I really have to complain to the concierge."  Or, "Zagat's gave their service four stars," and then he could've thrown four ninja throwing stars into their throats. But all that happened was he said, "not really," then they stood around awkwardly until he pointed his finger at them at which point some sniper shot them all... which was a bit they ripped off from that movie The Losers anyway. But there were just too many moments like that, where I was left waiting for the joke or one-liner to come... and they just never did. This script just needed a punch-up.

Hey, Sly... if you're reading this, you can use that "four star" gag in The Expendables 3!

So that's the Expendables 2. I liked it and I recommend it for fans of the first film, as long as you go in realize some of the magic has been diluted every so slightly. But I still liked it.

The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)

I give this movie an A for effort, but a B- for execution.

I liked it a lot and thought it nailed both Spider-Man and Peter Parker as characters, but the film around them really fell flat and was just kind of bland. This is a big contrast to the previous trilogy by Sam Raimi, which were astoundingly entertaining films that completely ruined the characters from the comics. At some point somebody will finally tell a great, entertaining story that perfectly captures on-model depictions of Peter Parker, Spider-Man, and the rest of the supporting cast. Oh wait... somebody already did that: Stan Lee and Steve Ditko in the comic books. But as adaptations go, this was a lot of fun and mostly respectful of the source material.

This movie is about, well, Spider-Man, so I don't think I need to recount the plot since the character's origin story has been told and retold so many times that by now it must be as well known as Superman's flight to Earth as a baby or the murder of Bruce Wayne's parents. Geeky high school outcast gets bitten by a radioactive spider, gets super powers, fights crime. Considering how this is a reboot of one of film's most popular and successful film trilogies, it was a bit odd how it was almost an hour before we actually saw the character become Spider-Man, but it's ok because this was really more of a film about Peter Parker anyway. But still, did we really need to spend that long retelling the same origin story once more? 

But once Parker finally did put on the Spider-Man costume, the action got pretty great and mostly non-stop. There was a bit too much CG (or, at least, a bit too much CG-looking CG, if that makes any sense), so I was never sure if there was ever a guy in a suit at all of if it was all digital, but the fights were still great and the scenes where he swung on his webs through New York City were astounding. I honestly regret not having seen this in 3-D in the theater because I bet it would've looked phenomenal.

Our star was Andrew Garfield, who was as perfect a casting choice as I could've hoped for. One of the reasons I never enjoyed the previous films was that I thought Tobey Maguire -- a fine actor -- was all wrong for the character. He was bland, flat, and lacking in any real charisma, but not so with Garfield, who just nailed it. I've never seen or even heard of this actor before, but now he's one of my favorites if only because he just captured the character I grew up reading. He was awkward when he had to be, but still charming and quirky, creating a perfectly believable high school pariah whose character arc has him becoming a hero. Oh, and he was funny too. Spider-Man should be funny.

The supporting cast was pretty great too. Emma Stone played the love interest Gwen Stacy, and she was very lovely and very charming. Dennis Leary showed up as her father, and he did his usual performance as Dennis Leary. He's ok. Peter's Aunt May and Uncle Ben were played by Sally Field and Martin Sheen, both of whom were great, but only Sheen was given much to do. Field was mostly wasted, but maybe she'll be given more to do in the sequel, I dunno.

Then there was our villain, Curt "The Lizard" Connors played by Rhys Ifans. I don't know what to say about this character or this performance since it just felt so disjointed and weird. Ifans is a wonderful actor who did a great job, but the Lizard was all CG so it almost felt like two different characters, and we never really got a sense of his motivations nor did I really understand his plan or what threat he posed. And, frankly, the CG was pretty weak and just looked fake. I hate to say it, but this wasn't a great villain, which is a shame because a villain is really only as good as the threat he's facing, so this kind of made the film fall apart slightly, at least on a emotional level during the climax.

But I still liked it. In fact, I liked it a lot. Director Marc Webb did a great job with the human characters, but maybe the action and the monsters kind of fell flat and eluded his talents as a director. The action scenes were neat and fun, but they often felt a little out of place, as though they were awkwardly inserted into a quieter, character-driven film. I still recommend it and I look forward to the sequel.

Part-3-Athon Day 31: Halloween III: Season of the Witch

Welcome to my Part-3-athon movie marathon, where every day during the month of October I will be posting a video review of a different THIRD entry in a horror/sci-fi series for which I have NEVER seen parts 1 and 2.

Here is Halloween III: Season of the Witch:

Part-3-Athon Day 30: Phantasm 3

Welcome to my Part-3-athon movie marathon, where every day during the month of October I will be posting a video review of a different THIRD entry in a horror/sci-fi series for which I have NEVER seen parts 1 and 2.

Here is Phantasm 3:

Part-3-Athon Day 29: Shark Attack 3: Megalodon

Welcome to my Part-3-athon movie marathon, where every day during the month of October I will be posting a video review of a different THIRD entry in a horror/sci-fi series for which I have NEVER seen parts 1 and 2.

Here is Shark Attack 3: Megalodon:

Part-3-Athon Day 28: Bloodrayne: The Third Reich

Welcome to my Part-3-athon movie marathon, where every day during the month of October I will be posting a video review of a different THIRD entry in a horror/sci-fi series for which I have NEVER seen parts 1 and 2.

Here is Bloodrayne: The Third Reich:

Part-3-Athon Day 27: Lake Placid 3

Welcome to my Part-3-athon movie marathon, where every day during the month of October I will be posting a video review of a different THIRD entry in a horror/sci-fi series for which I have NEVER seen parts 1 and 2.

Here is Lake Placid 3:

Part-3-Athon Day 26: Basket Case 3

Welcome to my Part-3-athon movie marathon, where every day during the month of October I will be posting a video review of a different THIRD entry in a horror/sci-fi series for which I have NEVER seen parts 1 and 2.

Here is Basket Case 3:

Part-3-Athon Day 25: Every Death From Death Wish 3

Something a little different today. I was so impressed (is that the right word? Appalled? Shocked? Bored?) by the death count from Death Wish 3 that I decided to put together this little montage of every single death (I think) from the film. So here is my tribute to the amazing carnage in this film, the hilariously fun performances by the stars, the incredible direction of Michael Winner, and the epic score by Jimmy Page.

Welcome to my Part-3-athon movie marathon, where every day during the month of October I will be posting a video review of a different THIRD entry in a horror/sci-fi series for which I have NEVER seen parts 1 and 2.

(SPOILER WARNING):

Part-3-Athon Day 24: Death Wish 3

Welcome to my Part-3-athon movie marathon, where every day during the month of October I will be posting a video review of a different THIRD entry in a horror/sci-fi series for which I have NEVER seen parts 1 and 2.

Here is Death Wish 3:

Part-3-Athon Day 23: Turbulence 3: Heavy Metal

Welcome to my Part-3-athon movie marathon, where every day during the month of October I will be posting a video review of a different THIRD entry in a horror/sci-fi series for which I have NEVER seen parts 1 and 2.

Here is Turbulence 3: Heavy Metal:

Part-3-Athon Day 22: House of Frankenstein

Welcome to my Part-3-athon movie marathon, where every day during the month of October I will be posting a video review of a different THIRD entry in a horror/sci-fi series for which I have NEVER seen parts 1 and 2.

Here is House of Frankenstein:

Part-3-Athon Day 21: Cube Zero

Welcome to my Part-3-athon movie marathon, where every day during the month of October I will be posting a video review of a different THIRD entry in a horror/sci-fi series for which I have NEVER seen parts 1 and 2.

Here is Cube Zero:

Part-3-Athon Day 20: The Howling 3

Welcome to my Part-3-athon movie marathon, where every day during the month of October I will be posting a video review of a different THIRD entry in a horror/sci-fi series for which I have NEVER seen parts 1 and 2.

Here is The Howling 3: The Marsupials

Part-3-Athon Day 19: Final Destination 3

Welcome to my Part-3-athon movie marathon, where every day during the month of October I will be posting a video review of a different THIRD entry in a horror/sci-fi series for which I have NEVER seen parts 1 and 2.

Here is Final Destination 3: