2012 Review

2012 isn't necessarily the end of the world, but more likely the end of good script writing. Directed by Roland Emmerich, the name behind such other disaster movies as The Day After Tomorrow and Godzilla, 2012 explores the long speculated theory that the Mayans believed the world would end in the year 2012. 

The story primarily revolves around the character of Jackson Curtis (John Cusack) and his estranged family, who are forced to fight with the rest of humanity against the collapsing of the Earths' crust and getting aboard one of the massive arks designed to preserve the survival of the species. 

The prize for the biggest impression in this film goes to its digital work, which with a lot of Emmerich's films, seems to evolve with the growing times. The rest of the film doesn't make as good an impact with what it delivers.

The script is as stereotypical as it comes, with weak dialogue and little that is creative. The characters and their fates are predictable by now compared to the other disaster movies that Emmerich has made. A dash of a protagonist with marital issues here, a pinch of a politician with little regard for the survival of others, a teaspoon of a loony bin conspiracy theorist and ta-da! You have yourself a disaster movie with the same forms of characters and struggles, but with your own choice of chaotic topping to give the audience something fresh. 

Throughout the entire length of the movie, it continuously suckled at the utter of tension, throwing more and more narrow escape scenes that should have killed the characters ages ago in any other reality. 

The story and the script that holds it together is the biggest flaw, though the music and action do remain something to be admired. In most cases, you can enjoy the suspense that this movie will give you, and maybe even shed a tear at a handful of performances, but you won't find much entertainment in terms of creativity or imagination.

G.I. Joe: Rise of Cobra Review

G. I. Joe, a real American hero or a true international bombshell? G.I. Joe is based off a certain famous toyline and cartoon that told the story of the Joes, a secret operation of soldiers from around the world and Cobra, an evil organization that seeks to take over the world. Naturally, this sounds like a great plot for your Saturday morning cartoon, but would need something a little stronger for your film adaptation. Right? 

Not according to Stephen Sommers. After I watched this movie I understood completely how he was the guy behind this movie. It’s just like some of his other big movies, the Mummy or Van Helsing. Big adventure movies, a handful of terrifying scenes,cussing, but characters that have little to no personality and an atmosphere that is both cliché and semi-kiddish half the time. I understand that since this is based on a cartoon that ones a given, but there’s just no balance to it. You might as well have MADE it a cartoon! 

From one of the first glimpses of the visual effects, I almost rolled my eyes. Some of these designs look like they were still in development stage for crying out loud! Still, that didn’t stop the film from having some good action. Good, but not great, and definitely favoring the digital side. I was practically begging for them to throw Ray Park on there as much as possible. 

One thing I noticed by the end was the use of flashbacks and the fact that they only really needed half of them. The flashbacks with Duke I felt were necessary for the story, but the ones with Snake Eyes and Storm Shadow were almost flat out useless. I don’t care if they filmed them, but really you could have only needed one NOT three! Another flaw to the film was the technology. Sure the nanomites thing was cool, but really most of the vehicles and weaponry they made was really not that creative. The suits look like grey Master Chief costumes and the flying vehicles look like those flying machines from Terminator. With all these kooky gadgets and action, the film is trying to become a sort of “movie mythology” as Channing Tatum said like “X-men, Star Wars, or Mission Impossible.” Fair enough, but you know what all those movies had? STYLE! Something G. I. Joe lacks! One minute it’s trying to be Star Wars, the next James Bond and, I am really not kidding, sometimes it feels like Team America! It doesn’t have a really original universe to it and seems to borrow too many tidbits from other film franchises. Because of this, the movie moves in an almost predictable fashion and I seemed to notice most of the surprises before they happened. 

Now there was ONE thing I enjoyed with this film, and that was the Cobra Commander. You know most of the performances in this movie I found weak from the start, but Cobra Commander blew me out of the water. Joseph-Gordon Levitt was the man in this film and made this guy really intimidating and mysterious. I’m not saying he deserves an Oscar for it, but I’d say this is definitely his best performance yet!

The King's Speech Review

Before the rise of World War II, King George VI (Colin Firth) has just stepped into power after the abdication of his brother. To the country, his image is not a good one due to a stammer he’s had since childhood which makes for public speaking to be a challenge. His wife (Helena Bonham Carter) therefore hires Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush) a speech therapist who’s said to have unorthodox but successful teaching methods. Readying to be the voice of his nation, George, or “Bertie” has he’s called by family, works to make sure he earns his crown.

Director Tom Hooper assembles a delightful cast, with the three main actors feeling right at home in their roles. Colin Firth brings a royal demeanour to everything he does but works with such fragile nerves that are examined throughout. At his side is the perfect match of the wonderful Helena Bonham Carter, who maintains a warm classiness that you’ll never get enough of.

But it’s through Geoffrey Rush that the movie’s charm is captured. The peculiar Logue  is a wise, and yet still wise-cracking counterpart against Bertie, trying to stand as his equal. His role is a speech therapist, but he’s practically an unofficial royal counsellor wanting to bring up George’s confidence in the middle of these political and family whirlwinds.

The story documents the tale of George’s ascension into kinghood and his road into accepting the responsibilities he’s prepared for all his life, but almost never had to use. The film’s production value has marvellous camera work to capture the nervousness of the main character and widens the scope to show just how far George’s voice is meant to travel. Filled with classy performances everywhere, including Timothy Spall in a surprisingly dead-on portrayal of Winston Churchill, The King’s Speech closes in on something history heard but never saw before.

The Green Hornet Review

Britt Reid (Seth Rogen) has spent a lifetime of partying and not caring about the happenings of the everyday world. But after the death of his father, Britt inherits the family’s newspaper and decides that it’s time for a true purpose to his life. With the help of his friend/executive associate/coffee boy, Kato (Jay Chou), he decides to take on the guise of a vigilante to pose as a fellow criminal to take them down from the inside. His name is the Green Hornet.

Based on the old radio show and comic books, the tone to this adaptation of the Green Hornet is designed to be comedic, the main reason why the studio cast Seth Rogen in the title role. Unfortunately, for the route they were taking, they should have kept two words in mind: 

Rated PG.

Rogen’s style of comedy has a lot of fans, but limiting to an audience of those film standards truly brought his jokes down. He comes off as a loser on the screen who is trying to act like he’s something he’s not. If the filmmakers wanted him as a central part of this film, then they should have let him speak freely or else he just feels restrained.

Green Hornet’s best comedy comes really out of the set up of the story and the characters. Here, the sidekick is the one boosting the coolness factor and the “hero” has no redeemable qualities. Jay Chou as Kato makes him this laid back friend who just happens to be able to jump across the laws of physics. He is the glory of this crime fighting duo and brings the viewers fantastic action that frankly could have used some more usage in its run time.

Fans of the Green Hornet may be mildly amused. Fans of the Seth Rogen may…also be mildly amused. If you’re ready for a big, loveable superhero comedy, then sorry to say, but this is just a comedy with some good fight scenes. Its larger than life atmosphere was used, but not really pushed to the extent it could have gone. Enjoy it for a couple good chuckles.

Die Hard with a Vengeance Review

Capping off our third instalment to the Die Hard series and the final addition to our marathon of the trilogy, we come to Die Hard with a Vengeance, arguably one of my favourites of the franchise even after first viewing. 

A hung-over John McClane (Bruce Willis) is in the middle of a psychological game of “Simon says” that will cost the lives of hundreds of New York citizens should he fail. His tormentor Simon (Jeremy Irons) holds a hidden vendetta against McClane for a past wrongdoing, but has much more in store for the police lieutenant than a simple bullet in the head. At his side during this race for survival is Zeus (Samuel L. Jackson) a civilian who ends up caught in the middle of the chaos and is forced to play along with Simon’s game or he too will suffer the consequences.

Originally developed as a screenplay for just another action movie, what became Die Hard with a Vengeance truly widens the scale bigger than ever, leaving the entire city in the crosshairs of this desperate criminal. Jeremy Irons is a wonderful antagonist in this piece, full of ego, sarcasm and even his own interesting set of ethics. He truly makes for one of the fiercest criminals to be set against McClane in the series yet.

What may be considered a little bit of a cliché with the film is the forced use of Samuel L. Jackson as simply “the black partner.” There isn’t much use to his character being involved in the story other than McClane simply needing comic relief, but he certainly delivers in that department. His bitter attitude against McClane is not something unusual in comparison to almost anybody who’s met him in the Die Hard franchise, but the anger that fleshes out in his character makes for one great sidekick.

Throughout a continuously heightening plot is a scale that builds in heated tension that can almost be felt in the setting of a New York City summer. McClane has little to no character development in the film, but returns to the same incredible physical endurance like the first movie provided. That, plus a hangover, and you've got yourself one ticked off protagonist.

Die Hard with a Vengeance has necessary similarities to the first film, but has enough changes in its screenplay to make for a great action ride. Where some people may feel that the life was running out of the franchise by this point, I say, “Nonsense!” The film goes where it needs to, repeatedly stuns when you think it’s out of juice and delivers the same charm as the original Die Hard.

Die Hard II Review

In our continuation of exploring the gritty, yippee ki yay lifestyle of John McClane, we come to Die Hard II, often called "Die Harder".

John McClane (Bruce Willis) was only waiting for his wife's plane to come in from L.A. when a group of ex-soldiers/liberators takes hold of air traffic control and threatens to bring down every plane unless a powerful military figure is released from custody. Now it's up to McClane to take on the thugs in his own style, rescue his wife, all the while shouting...doesn't this sound a little too familiar?

Employed into this film are villains with more tech-savvy than the cronies of Hans Gruber in the last film, which will be updated for the movie's fourth installment as well. Colonel Stuart (William Sadler) is a more blunt villain than that of his predecessor, but he lacks colour in his personality. Where he improves however is that as opposed to Mr. Gruber, Stuart can actually take on McClane in a fist fight and not have to put a gun to his head because he has to.

This film has been called Bruce Willis' least favourite, and at first viewing, it's understandable. McClane is not put through as much pain as in the last movie and the plot is very coincidentally similar to that of the first film's "just the wrong place at the wrong time" tone.

The tension in the film is really about a ticking clock, and it goes for a sort of subtle emotional jab at McClane in realizing that the scale is bigger here than just his wife and her office workers. It also shows the action as a bit more basic and at times, a little more clumsy than the Die Hard series is used to. Here, McClane constantly uses gravity to his advantage in his stunts and at times, they even come back to bite him in the rear.

Die Hard II isn't terrible, but the circumstances throughout the movie's duration feel a little pushed to simply being there to try and prove McClane can come back another round. The films do improve along the line, but if you were to pass on this one, I (and maybe even Bruce Willis) wouldn't blame you.

Die Hard Review

Some time over the holidays, I had the inkling to check out some good Christmas films. Then I thought, "Forget that!" and went for something with a slight holiday theme to it, but mostly something out of the ordinary. When I returned home, I popped into my DVD Player...

...along with its first two sequels. I'd already seen Live Free Die Hard and was intent on observing the glory of the originals I had heard so much about.

Barely a minute of this movie left me without entertainment. From the hilarity of the protagonist's barking attitude to the continuous excitement the film never ceased to show off, my eyes were glued to the TV practically from start to finish.

When police officer John McClane (Bruce Willis) visits his estranged wife Holly (Bonnie Bedelia) in Los Angeles for her company's Christmas Party, the entire building is suddenly taken hostage by Hans Gruber (Alan Rickman) and his gang of thugs. Desperate to reach the authorities for help, save his wife, and of course, survive, McClane goes through the fight of his life to make it through the building and protect the people in danger.

Action is pushed to the limit everywhere in this film. In the duration of the movie, McClane is put through hell on practically every inch of his body, rendered bleeding, limping and breathless by the end. He doesn't walk any of these injuries off, he takes them, pauses to recover, takes on another bad guy and repeats the process.

It's this sense of realism that truly brings out the true colours of McClane, a cut-the-bull character, with the manners of a sewer rat and yet a charm that draws the audience in. Put against the classy, always on top of things Gruber and McClane breaks out as a man who's ready to jump through the fire no matter what's on the other side. Both characters are calculating in their own actions and yet always act as if they're the ones in control.

Die Hard is a relatively simple plot, mostly in comparison to its sequels, but it has layers and does not disappoint in delivery. The stunts leave an explosive finish, the music is at times an odd but yet impressive choice and the film only continues to astound every time you think it's mark is deep enough.

I personally name Die Hard one of the greatest action films of all time.

Grown Ups Review

Adam Sandler brings several comedians under one roof for both a vacation and a reunion.

Years ago, five friends (Adam Sandler, Kevin James, Chris Rock, Rob Schneider, David Spade) won a basketball championship that made their coach proud. But when the coach dies, the five reunite after many years to remember the good times and learn a message of how to change their lives.

So was the intention, but unfortunately, the execution did not deliver.

This should have been a simple comedy about men getting back to being kids again, and it isn’t. Its five guys with their wives and children with so much going on that you have practically zero story, little to no lesson and so many sub plots that you’d almost assume that they were the plot.


Far too many characters were included in this film, especially the children. The scripts doesn’t pay enough attention to them or the parents, it’s just to the comedic situations they’re involved in. It’s just a series of comedy sketches threaded together by the same location. Nothing more, nothing less.
You won’t even feel like this film has a plot until the very end. There’s no build-up to what this movie was supposed to be about, no story-pacing, barely even a good look at half of our main characters.

Grown Ups is fun, but its mindless fun. Its one high note is that the comedic styles of these actors hold together well and don’t overshadow one another. If they could have come together on such a script, maybe the movie would have been salvageable.

Anthony Sardinha a.k.a. Antfish Interview

Anthony is a voice actor from Toronto who has played characters on popular web series such as Dragonball Z Abridged, Yu-Gi-Oh Abridged and his own abridged series, JoJo's Bizarre Adventures. For a more thorough look at some of his work, you can check out any of the links below.

Anthony's Voice Acting Résumé http://antfish.webs.com/

Anthony's Newgrounds Account http://antfish.newgrounds.com/

Yu-Gi-Oh Abridged Website http://www.yugiohabridged.com/

Team Four Star Website http://www.teamfourstar.com/

Black Swan Review

With the Golden Globes nearing and the Academy Awards just over the horizon, I thought we'd look at what Hollywood has to offer us for the best of 2010 according to some of its critics. Today, our focus is on the psychological drama Black Swan.

Nina Sayers (Natalie Portman) is a ballet dancer for a company on the verge of falling apart under its director Thomas Leroy (Vincent Cassel). Desperate to save it, Leroy decides to start his own production of the ballet Swan Lake and picks Nina as the lead of the Swan Queen. Though Nina's dedication to the portrayal of the White Swan is evident through her timid and innocent personality, she struggles to capture the performance of the more alluring Black Swan while dealing with the emotional pressure of Leroy and her perfectionist mother (Barbara Hershey). But with the arrival of Lily, (Mila Kunis) a more rebellious dancer who may have her eye on the lead role, Nina begins to psychologically breakdown while fighting to claim perfection in her work.

Every actor pulls their weight, though truly this is Portman's movie. In her career as an actress, we've seen her range from the naïve to the seductive, but here she's able to show us a convincing evolution through the entire spectrum. She goes from the puppy dog eyes to the casual temptress in a memorable role both on stage and on screen. Portman and the other performers within this piece show thorough and detailed choreography to their dancing that would convince you they've been practising all their lives for this production.

The visual symbolism is excellent throughout the film and practically everywhere you turn. It's in the set background, the dialogue, the camera work and the wonderful use of shadows and lighting. Every actor plays off each other's roles with remarkable charm, with Cassel as the authoritative director and Kunis as a great counterpart against the character of Nina. Sexual tension presses against the boundaries in this film and everyone mixes well with each other.
Black Swan shows the audience the emotional and physical endurance of the ballet mentioned off and on, but never fully captured until now. Through the eyes of this innocent girl, viewers will receive a story that moves as gracefully and emotionally as the ballet itself. The basis of using Swan Lake to analyze the psychology of this one ballet dancer was a perfect choice in capturing the frustration of it all.

It's a beautiful psychological masterpiece complimented by a fantastic score that only Tchaikovsky himself could provide to balance the scenes of the ballet with the mood of the story everywhere you look. Its perspective of a competing for perfection makes for a story that jumps over and back across the line of the dramatic and the terrifying.

Who says ballet has to be just for women?

True Grit Review

For the record; no, I didn't see or have any previous knowledge that the original 1969 film True Grit existed. But after viewing its 2010 remake, my curiousity has certainly jumped.

In 1877, Mattie Ross (Hailee Steinfield) ventures to Fort Smith, Arkansas after the murder of her father at the hands of Tom Chaney (Josh Brolin). Seeking to see justice accomplished, the 14-year-old girl invests her money and time into hiring Reuben "Rooster" Cogburn (Jeff Bridges), a one-eyed U.S. Marshall who, despite his best efforts, wants to see Mattie go home while he handles the dirty work of bringing Chaney down. In the midst of it all, Texas Ranger LaBoeuf (Matt Damon) intends to finish the job with or without Cogburn's assistance or Ross' employment. A hunt for vengeance steadily becomes a test of determination as these three head to find Chaney.

For the last few years, the Coen brothers have been bringing their work to the Academy Awards, and this year will likely be no different. Every main cast member shows their finest here, including first timer Steinfield who truly leads the picture in a bold and educated performance. Through her perspective, the viewer sees an innocence stuck in the middle of the bloodshed and brutality of these men and their surroundings. Bridges, Damon and Brolin make up the rest of a colourful cast that are all potential Oscar nominations in the making.

This detective/gunslinger story may not deliver the action as heavily as its trailer implied, but its actors and story don't skimp out on the audience. A tale of the old west with morals to be earned, its themes about the obsession with vengeance are balanced with a short but strongly delivered story.

The Happening Review

                              
M. Night Shyamalan is usually known for three things, the last of which has only seemed to happen recently; suspense thrillers, plot twists and really bad/weird movies. Ever since one movie, his films seem to be the target of a lot of hazing. That movie is simply known as...

In a park, a mysterious phenonemon has begun. People start commiting suicide, unprovoked, immediately and in great numbers. High school teacher Elliot Moore (Mark Wahlberg) and his wife Alma (Zooey Deschanel) are one of hundreds moving out of New York City to avoid the hidden pandemic, clueless about its origin or how long they have before it catches up with them. Running for their lives, the family joins with other fleeing citizens, searching for the answer that will provide their survival.

Let me start this analysis with one thing. Though I will not spoil the plot twist that Shyamalan is known for including in every one of his movies, I will say that it is by far one of the weirdest and, many others have called, stupidest revelations ever put on screen.

Here, Shyamalan is the triple threat of writer, producer and director and it's really an enigma of knowing where he went wrong in comparison to some of his earlier work. The direction to these actors just dries the acting out completely, the script's dialogue pulls tons of clichés and it just leaves the production feeling like a joke.

This is not a suspense thriller, it's a comedy. Plain and simple. When the best performance in this film is coming from 12-year-old Ashlyn Sanchez, it really shows that the movie's characters have been rendered stupid, crazy, devoid of personality or all of the above. Half the places this plot takes the viewer leaves them questioning the decisions of these characters and the logic they believe.

People talk to plants in this movie on more than one occasion; our protagonists ladies and gentlemen.

The movie even breaks the golden rule multiple times with these actors constantly staring dead center at the camera. It only surprised me that they didn't break the fourth wall while doing so.

For The Happening, though it's definetely far from standing side by side with M. Night Shyamalan's best work, it could retain some merit in being so bad that it's funny. Nobody will be jumping with an intimidation factor of zero. The only reason you'll have to quickly leave your chair is to use the restroom or fall out of your seat laughing.

The A-Team Review

Watching reruns of the 1980s television show, the A-Team, I remained curious as to what the "a" stood for. The 2010 movie adaptation was kind enough to show us during its running time.

"A" is for asinine.

Truly this film symbolized that Hollywood is running out of ideas and going for whatever they can get their hands on to cushion the blow of its heavy downfall. This doesn't always mean the movies are bound to fail, though most of them do, but it becomes painfully obvious here that nothing creative is brought to life, a plot that's half baked can still make it to the final cut and villains need no more personality than the gun in their hand.

Compliments go to Sharlto Copley for at least pulling off the role of Howling Mad Murdock and trying to take him in a different direction, but all of the other actors frankly are not working even close to their "A" game with this production. Newcomer "actor" Quinton "The Rampage" Jackson is certainly in the lead for barely putting effort into his character.

Nearly ever stunt pulled off in this movie uses the physics and logic of Saturday morning cartoons. No human body can hold against the things these men pull off with smiles on their faces, hoping the audience is eating up every explosion.

The plot feels like it was thought up at the last minute, with twists that can be spotted far into the distance and any tributes to the original show are brief and, just like the team's famous van, mercilessly crushed. Poor jokes like "Please don't tell me this guy is gonna kill me" sum up the best of this film's humour, with some comedic situations making no sense at all.

Frankly there's many films that come to mind when these actors have their names mentioned, and all of them stand with pride in comparison to this movie. With only two cameos from the original cast (of which one of them regretted even taking part later) the taste of this film is plenty obvious.

I pity the fool that watches the A-Team movie.

-Braydon K

Mars Attacks Review

Back in the 1990s, director Tim Burton had a vision for a comedy...I'm serious!

In the atmosphere of the old 1950s sci-fi horrors where anything that ranged from a radioactive pear to giant turtle set to conquer the world, Burton decided to bring back the feel in a satire known as Mars Attacks!

When an army of Martians decide to leave their red planet to strike Earth, the humans try to make peace with their solar system neighbours only to find out that they don't like us...at all. In fact, these skull-headed sharpshooters enjoy doing nothing better during a visit to Earth than unloading a good load of merciless carnage to bring a smile to their faces.

This is where Burton's vision comes in as the backbone to this movie's comedy. It's not about teaching the viewers that the aliens are misunderstood strangers from a distant world, they're mean little suckers who kill, kill and did I mention kill, just for the sake of...killing!

The cast is greatly put together. There's the classic stereotypes here, but they bring in enough personality to make them feel more than just living comedy devices. The President of the United States (Jack Nicholson) is of course trying to find a peaceful solution to this dilemna while hounded by a particular general obsessed with nuking anything that doesn't come from the same species as him. Followed by characters like the optimistic hillbilly (Lukas Haas) to the ex-wrestler (Jim Brown) gives a needed boost to their portrayals.

The visuals of the films costumes, set design and musical score really do bring a sense of nostalgia to the screen. Performances by Pierce Brosnan and Sarah Jessica Parker complete this surrounding impression of being in the present time, but channeling the period when these films played at the old Drive-In Theaters.

Decades ago, every parody Mars Attacks! gives of old mannerisms and character types that audiences would have been received just as much as the sci-fi horrors it makes fun of. Burton knew how to bridge the gaps between genuine fear, nostalgic atmosphere and hilarious comedy in this movie. Sit back, enjoy, and try not to watch the skies.

-Braydon K