Pacific Rim review

Before I begin this review I'd like to warn you guys that there will be some spoilers. So if you haven't seen Pacific Rim go see it now before you read this. It's well worth your time and money, and I doubt you'll be disappointed.

When I first heard about Pacific Rim I was immediately hyped for this movie. It's one thing to finally get a movie that takes mecha and kaiju, two of my favorite things about Japanese media, and bring them together for a giant rumble, it's another to finally have an original film in a world where adaptations and sequels reign supreme. Sure, original films aren't extinct (yet) but they're hard to come by in mainstream media. Normally, you have to go onto the independent circuit to find original stories and most of the time they fail to grab you the right way. The last feature film I saw that I considered to be "original" (in that it's not based on previously existing media) was Oblivion, and I loved the heck out of that movie.

In my pattern of thinking, Pacific Rim was a movie that encapsulated genres that Del Toro and his co-creators loved as children. This was a similar thinking process the Wachowskis had when filming the original Matrix. They had a love of anime, sci-fi, and kung-fu movies and wanted to make a movie that had all those things and went about making a plot capable of having those aspects. It was the fact that Del Toro and company were inspired to make a movie, as opposed to be driven to revive a dead franchise due to brand recognition, that attracted me to this movie.

So, does Pacific Rim manage to hold its own, or does it fall apart due to poor manufacturing? Well that's a complicated question to answer as the film does get so many things right, as well as many other things wrong. While it succeeds in delivering a spectacular action film overall, some aspects of the film hold it back from being as good as it should be. Whether it's the characterization to the plot, there are some things that just could've been better.

To start, I'd like to mention just how fun this movie is. I sometimes feel I had more fun watching this film than I really should have, and that's because it is a genuinely fun film. Watching giant robots punch and hack away at giant monsters is, naturally, going to be fun to watch. You'd have to try to make it dull or down right unwatchable. You can't help but get sucked into the action when you see the Jaegers take on the kaiju. Right then and there, that should be enough for most people. The trailers for this film have made this movie out to be a giant slugfest between monster and machine and you get what's advertised. Better yet, the action is actually easy to follow (suck it Michael Bay!), that is, if you're not watching the movie in 3D (suck it James Cameron!).

I actually viewed the film in both 2D and 3D, and while the 3D isn't terrible (and let's face it, on a good day 3D will lightly rape your eye sockets) the movie has a tendency to rain on you to get the feeling of depth. Sadly, this can render some of the action scenes completely incomprehensible. However, I attribute this to the fact that the crappy 3D glasses the theater gave me kept getting a glare. (I will probably end up writing a whole other entry on 3D for another time.)

The film is rich in visuals, from the giant Jaegers to the set designs, and it helps craft a world that I wish I had gotten to see more of before the credits rolled. A majority of the film takes place in a giant Jaeger silo called The Shatterdome, and this place is just brimming with amazing design. I'm a sucker for old, metallic, war bunker-like designs, and The Shatterdome feels like a mix between an old WWII bunker and the Nebuchadnezzar from The Matrix. However, if military bunkers aren't your thing the film also shows us a bit of a city that was built around the bones of a dead kaiju. Sadly, we never actually get to explore the world after the kaiju in that much detail and most elements the film presents are easily lost in the background.

This is one issue of the film: it never truly sells us on a world devastated by the kaiju. Most of the time, the movie just tells us what the world's like, instead of showing. We get to see fragments from news reels and television shows about how humanity responded to the kaiju threat over the years, all set to a narration that explains the gist of what's going on, but we never truly get to see this for ourselves. Not only that, but most places we do see don't look all that worse off. For instance, we see a kaiju attack Australia, and everything is rather pristine for the most part, even the Sydney Opera House is still standing after all this time. We are constantly told that humanity is barely holding their own against the kaiju, but we never truly see it. Sure, we get the point that things are dire due to the fact that there are only four Jaegars left to defend humanity, but it wasn't enough in my opinion.

When it comes to the overall plot of the film, well I honestly can't say I was expecting something on the level of The Dark Knight. And I feel it would be a little unfair to expect a movie about giant robots fighting monsters to have a tone of brooding and deep storytelling (even though some animes have done it in the past). No, the plot manages to be just what a film like this needs to be: simple. Sure, it could've done something to keep the plot from being stale, but overall it does what it sets out to do: to justify the reason why we have giant robots fighting giant monsters. However, I do feel the plot is a little too upbeat for its own good, especially considering what it presents us with.

While I am more than sick and tired of movies about darkness and brooding, the fact of the matter is that a lot of the characters in Pacific Rim manage to be a little too upbeat than they really should be. The film constantly tells us that the world is on the brink of total destruction, yet no one really acts like it is (apart from Idris Elba's badass commander Stacker Pentecost). This is especially notable with characters faced with severe trauma the likes of which no one has ever experienced. The best example of this is in Charlie Hunnam's character, Becket. The beginning of the film has Becket lose his co-pilot and brother during a kaiju battle. This would be scarring for anyone but, due to the technology used in piloting Jaegers, pilots are mind melded together as one entity. The film tells us Becket is horribly traumatized by this experience, but we never really see it. Once, and only once, in the movie do we see this trauma interfere with his ability to pilot a Jaeger. After that, he's fine. The film doesn't explore how Becket must feel after, essentially, feeling a part of himself die right before his eyes. This is sad considering the film presents us with a unique way to explore it, through the mind melding experience the film calls "drifting." And it doesn't take that much time to get him back into a Jaeger after that.

This is, sadly, due to the fact that the film is aware that the real selling point are the epic fights. However, this results in some very shoddy pacing that jumps through important character moments to get to the next big set-piece. This can be seen throughout the film where we go from Charlie Day's eccentric kaiju researcher Newton to emotional bonding between Becket and Rinko Kikuchi's Mako in the span of seconds. The various plots feel disjointed and rushed, which can be somewhat jarring. The film manages to forget that no matter how awesome the fights may be, it won't matter if we don't have a bond with the characters.

Speaking of characters, the film is full of them! Characters ranging from partially fleshed out to outright cartoony can be found here. As I mentioned above, the film doesn't spend much time on the characters, and it suffers for that. The most interesting character is Mako, and Rinko Kikuchi manages to be lovable enough to keep her character from being flat. This is the same for most of the characters, as all of them manage to keep from being outright annoying, even the jerkass Australian pilot who serves as Becket's nemesis for most of the movie manages to be at least likable in some sense. However, it's Charlie Day's Newton and Burn Gorman's Dr. Gottlieb that stand out as truly cartoony characters, Gottlieb more so than Newton. Both rant techno babble at light speed to the point where they nearly become grating. And then there's Ron Perlman's Hannibal Chau, a black market dealer in kaiju body parts who, apparently, doesn't know the meaning of subtle. While Perlman manages to be entertaining as the gold-plated criminal, he really stands out among the more grounded characters. Overall, I never found myself hating any of the characters, and I was a bit bummed out when some of them died. However, I do feel the film could've done more with the characters, as well as handled them more efficiently.

    As I continue to analyse the film the more flaws I keep turning over, yet, at the end of the day, the film is greater than the sum of its parts. While it definitely could've been more, it certainly could've been less and when it comes down to it Pacific Rim manages to be entertaining without insulting your intelligence. The actors manage to make more of their characters than what was probably on paper and it would've been really easy to make most of these characters boring if not downright unlikable. The story serves only to take us from one big fight after another, which may be unforgivable but you can't really blame the filmmakers for doing. Many will come for the fights, and will undoubtedly be satisfied with the fights the film gives us. When you get right down to it, Pacific Rim is an example of when style manages to outdo substance. It's a ridiculously fun movie to watch, and you will most likely end up liking it more than you really should.

I give Pacific Rim 8 giant mechs wrestling with kaiju out of 10.

Spoilerific Reviews: "The Journey Begins" The Hobbit Part 1 Review

If there is one movie everyone's been anticipating to see, it's Peter Jackson's return to Middle-Earth with The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. The level of excitement for this prequel series has undoubtedly reached Star Wars levels of excitement back when The Phantom Menace was first announced. However, does The Hobbit succeed where the Star Wars prequels failed? Let's find out!

DISCLAIMER: If the title wasn't a big enough of a giveaway, this review will be filled with a treasure trove of spoilers about the film that would make the dragon Smaug envious. So if you haven't seen the film I suggest you go see the film right now, because it's definitely worth your time to watch.

With that little annoyance out of the way let's delve back into the world of dwarfs, dragons, and The One Ring.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is a fantastic film that shouldn't disappoint anyone who even remotely liked The Lord of The Rings trilogy. In spite of being a prequel the world of Middle-Earth feels new and exciting whilst also feeling familiar at the same time. From the very get-go we are treated to the familiar lands of The Shire where Ian Holm returns as Bilbo Baggins, on the eve of his 111th birthday party and the start of The Lord of The Rings.

Immediately Bilbo sets us up with some backstory about the Dwarf lords who lived under The Lonely Mountain and how the diabolical dragon named Smaug forced the dwarfs to flee their kingdom and become nomadic. After attempting to reclaim another former land of theirs, the mines of Moria which will sound familiar to anyone who saw the first film, from orcs the dwarfs eventually settle into their nomadic lifestyle. However, there is one dwarf, the legendary dwarf king Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage), who still wishes to reclaim The Lonely Mountain from the clutches of Smaug.

This is where Bilbo comes in. The young hobbit, played perfectly by Martin Freeman, is met by Gandalf the Gray (once again played by Ian McKellen) who asks Bilbo if he wants to join him on an adventure. After meeting the rest of Gandalf's company, a group of dwarfs led by Thorin, Bilbo learns that they need a hobbit to sneak by Smaug, who doesn't know the scent of hobbits. Naturally, like any true hero on a journey, Bilbo declines Gandalf's offer at first. However, Bilbo's natural curiosity about the world beyond the Shire calls him to join Gandalf and the thirteen dwarfs on their journey to The Lonely Mountain.

To start, I should clarify in that I saw the film in good old regular 2D at a standard 24 frames-per-second. So have this fact in mind when I say that The Hobbit is a beautiful movie to behold. The sweeping landscape shots are just as amazing as they were in LOTR, and the makeup effects for all the dwarfs were very well done. It was refreshing to see such a variety of dwarfs in the film, and might I say Armitage's Thorin Oakenshield gives Viggo Mortensen's Aragorn a run for his money in the "sexy fantasy hero" department even though he's supposed to be a dwarf. The other dwarfs, all of which I won't be going into too much detail because there are so many, are also very well done and memorable. However, it's Freeman as Bilbo that really stands out as it is clear he was born to play the titular hobbit.

While I couldn't shake the obvious parallels between Freeman's Bilbo and his role as Arthur Dent in Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy, Freeman really gives a memorable performance managing to hold his own against powerhouses like Ian McKellen. Speaking of which, McKellen, in spite of looking a bit older, hasn't lost his step as Gandalf. This time around it was nice to see a more adventurous Gandalf who would utilize his magical abilities much more often than we see him do in LOTR. I particularly enjoyed when he improvised some fireballs by setting pine cones on fire with his previously established ability to light small fires with his fingers.

The film mainly follows Bilbo and the dwarfs as they make their way through Middle-Earth, however the film does jump away from their journey to either show us a flashback to a previous battle in history or to entirely different characters to setup what will undoubtedly be plots in the second and third films.

It is here that I must confess that I haven't read the novels, not The Hobbit nor the LOTR trilogy, and I honestly have no true intention to do so. They are dauntingly thick books and I barely have the time to read (or write for that matter) a regular sized novel let alone four. However, I am aware of the fact that Peter Jackson and company are stretching out the films into a trilogy while The Hobbit remains a single novel. Though, in either case, I'm glad we're getting another trilogy and not just a one-off return to Middle-Earth. However, I did feel this movie dragging on a bit as I watched in the theater.

At nearly 3 hours long I was surprised it wasn't longer, because it sure FELT longer than that. However that shouldn't be considered a truly negative criticism about the film, as I was entertained throughout the entire film. Though, as I think about how long most movies I go see are these days it surprises me that we don't reinstate intermissions between the first and second halves of a movie because by the end of The Hobbit I was exhausted! So much happens in this movie, and it is somewhat surprising that we have two more movies after this! As Gollum said at the end of The Two Towers: "We have a long ways to go yet..."

However, it was clear (at least in my eyes) that nothing in this movie was intended to "pad" the movie in order to help stretch it into a trilogy. Everything you see feels relevant to the story. Take the introduction to Radagast The Brown (Sylvester McCoy), a wizard who is rather fond of nature. It is clear that his discovery of a necromancer in his woods will be a key plot point later on in the next films. And that hedgehog! Oh man that scene with that dying hedgehog got me like no other friggin computer generated animal has gotten me before! I even remember the little bugger's name: Sebastian! I nearly bawled like the baby in my theater when I thought he died! I cheered when Radagast managed to save his life! (Note: if anyone wants to get me a Christmas present, find a plush Sebastian the Hedgehog, because I would totally love one now!)

Speaking of computer generated critters, the creatures in The Hobbit are almost, unlike in the LOTR trilogy, completely done with computer effects. I was somewhat miffed by this, especially when the orcs in the previous films had been, almost entirely, done with practical makeup effects. However, I was glad to see some practical orcs here and there and the cg isn't that terrible. The Pale Orc, Azog The Defiler, was a very menacing creature and I wasn't entirely distracted by the fact he was done entirely with computer effects.

The one creature that did turn me off, however, was The Goblin King, who has forever put the miracle of jiggle physics into a dark, dark, place it will not return from... *shudders* It was a bit irritating that this creature was done with CGI when a practical puppet, in tandem with some CGI to help, could've been so much better. Or maybe I say that because a rubber puppet wouldn't have gainaxed so much in such a terrible, terrible, way...

Nightmare fuel aside, the effects in The Hobbit are fairly well done, even though I felt it relied a little too much on CGI. However, there are some really amazing scenes, such as the group's encounter with a trio of tolls, and the scene where the group discover themselves in the middle of a literal brawl between mountains. The Hobbit really adds the fantasy to this fantasy film, where the LOTR films seemed very fantasy-lite.

However, I can't do a Hobbit review without mentioning the creature that made such abominations like Avatar possible: Gollum. If there was one scene I'm sure fans of the books and LOTR films were waiting for it was the legendary showdown between Bilbo and Gollum. Andy Serkis once again plays Gollum, and it was pure movie magic to see the creature come to life once more. It was even better to see him and Bilbo play a game of riddles, Bilbo either winning safe passage out of the caves or losing and being Gollum's next lunch. It was a fun, and memorable, scene as Gollum's dual personalities argued on what to do with Bilbo once he lost. If there's one thing that makes The Hobbit worth seeing it's this scene. And the return (technically the introduction) to The One Ring was as chilling as ever when you first see it "abandon" Gollum. It's even more chilling since everyone knows the truth about the Ring, a true plus to this being a prequel.

While the film does start rather slow, with a few bits of action in the form of flashbacks to keep the film from feeling like a true hike through Middle-Earth, I have to say The Hobbit is a wonderful start to a new trilogy. The performances here are top-notch and the story fairly well done, if a bit long winded. I did have some issues with the over-reliance on computer graphics but I can't really complain, as long as the graphics aren't mediocre I truly don't mind. Though the gainaxing goiter on the troll king could've been toned down...

I give The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey four rings of power out of five for being a fairly solid first entry into a new trilogy of Middle-Earth movies.

Why A New Star Wars Film Is A Good Thing.

The news that Disney has purchased LucasFilm Ltd. for 4 billion dollars has caused quite a stir in the geek community. It seemed like just yesterday Disney had just purchased Marvel. Now, along with the likes of The Avengers, such popular film franchises now live under the mouse-eared shadow of Disney. So far, the reactions I've seen have ranged from happy surprise to good old fashioned nerd rage.

Anyone who knows me knows that I was one of the few people whose reaction to when Marvel was bought by Disney was a mix of apathy and apprehensiveness. However, as time went on it was clear to see that, at least for the Marvel films (I can't say much for the comic portion of the industry, I don't keep a finger on that pulse as much as I should), nothing really changed. It actually got better, in fact, I mean we got the Avengers and look at how successful that movie was! So who is to say the same Disney magic could work for film series that desperately need it, like the Star Wars and Indiana Jones franchise?

I know I must sound like a nerdy broken record when I go on about how horrible the Star Wars prequels were, or how horrible the fourth Indiana Jones film was. So I just won't go there. What's been said has been said. However, I was well aware that more films for both franchises were inevitable. The fact of the matter is that there is nothing bigger, or more recognizable, than the Star Wars franchise. George Lucas made enough money to buy his own country on the merchandising alone. The impact the franchise has had on popular culture is still resonating with us, even though the first film came out in 1977!

That is a level of brand recognition no self respecting businessman can ignore.

Now, I know I may seem like I'm painting a gloomy picture with money hungry businessmen sucking what blood remains in the carcass of the Star Wars films after George Lucas took it out back and shot it with a double barreled shotgun. But I'm not, I'm really not. The fact of the matter is that, yes, I am excited to see what the future holds for Star Wars. I grew up watching the original, untarnished, trilogy. So understand that I am just as big a Star Wars fan as anyone else.

This whole thing, Disney buying LucasFilm and planning on doing more films, is very good news.

Why? Well, because we know what not to do. Just look at the prequels, they're basically a trilogy of "How Not To Screw Up Star Wars Sequels." If there's anything good that came out of the prequels it's that, but it's more than just that. The potential for good is just as likely as bad and here's why I think it's more good:

1. Bringing in new blood.
"It's now time for me to pass on Star Wars to a new generation of filmmakers." George Lucas said this in a statement after the news broke. This is the best thing I've heard him say in a very, very, long time. I really don't want to offend Lucas, because he's been given enough flack over the years, but him letting some new filmmakers cut their teeth on Star Wars is the best news since they announced they would be re-releasing the original, untarnished, trilogy on blu-ray (what do you mean they haven't? Then there's the first thing Disney can do!)

2. New movies means new characters and a new story.
While I wouldn't be surprised if we saw some actors like Mark Hamill or Billy Dee Williams reprise their roles in any new films, it's most likely we'll see a new slew of characters come in to take the reigns. Who these characters will be remains to be seen, they could be the descendants of our heroes (much like the novelizations), or completely new characters. In either case, these characters will need a new enemy to face, and new worlds to explore. The Star Wars universe is full of its share of scum and villainy, and with any potential film coming out in time to face The Avengers sequel along with whatever Christopher Nolan's cooking up next the characters and story have to be grand and epic!

For the time being, it's a good day to be a Star Wars fan. In spite of whatever you may think about Disney, or the Star Wars films, this is a big win. After Jar Jar Binks, you can only move up.

"Loop de loop" Looper review

Once in a blue moon, a movie gets released that is both original and completely entertaining. It's a movie that isn't a remake, or an adaptation, or an adaptation of a remake based on a book. It's a movie that exceeds your expectations and leaves you feeling hope for the future of film. The last movie I recall that was this was Christopher Nolan's Inception. Today another movie has joined those ranks. That movie is Rian Johnson's Looper.

To start off this review I have to mention the first time I watched a Rian Johnson film. That film was Brick and also starred Looper star Joseph Gordon-Levitt. I watched Brick on Netflix with my friend on a late summer night. Today, Brick is one of my favorite films. It was a unique mix of noir storytelling woven into a high-school drama (one of my least favorite genres). The two different genres complemented each other so well that it was actually really humorous and terrifying at the same time. If you haven't seen it, I recommend you do, because it's an entertaining and unique film.

So you can understand that when I heard he and Gordon-Levitt had rejoined to do a time travel film called Looper I was more than excited to see how things would play out. Looper was an original film, not based on anything nor is it a remake. That is RARE in this day and age where Hollywood thinks it's a great idea to remake The Three Stooges. How Looper got made in today's Hollywood seems like a miracle, and the results don't disappoint.

Looper feels like a classic sci-fi action film. The world created by Rian Johnson here is set in the future, but it looks and feels much like our present, only with small differences. Cars are old clunkers that have been retrofitted with solar panels to allow them to run. There are hover bikes, but they're less reliable than the clunker cars. Telekinesis is a common ability found in some people, but most consider it tacky and uninteresting. A majority of America's population is living in poverty. Even in the city the film is set in, which features some tall skyscrapers with futuristic helicopters and flying vehicles, the place looks like a dump. It has a slight Blade Runner feel to it, in that this is a dystopia people have, for the most part, gotten used to living in.

In this world Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays Joe, a special assassin for the mob known as a "looper." Loopers are tasked with rubbing out targets the mob sends into the past from thirty years in the future. If you've seen the trailers you pretty much know this. The beginning of the film has Joe explaining in a narration how, in the future, time travel is only used by powerful criminal organizations for the purpose of disposing of targets. When the mob no longer needs a looper's service, they send the looper's future self for the looper to kill in order to "close the loop." Joe's explanation of the setup and how his job as a looper works is simple and straight to the point. The only explanation Joe gives for why the mob does this is because "disposing of a body is impossible in the future." And it's enough to satisfy you. Looper's concept of time travel has very little exposition, and what exposition it has is very effective. This is one of the defining traits of the film.

However, it's the film's characters that are really the best aspect of this film, with the plot coming in at a close second. Through the course of the film Joseph Gordon-Levitt's Joe comes off as a self-centered jerk. He's an addict who just wants to make enough money to leave the slums of America and travel to France. That's all he cares for, and the way he handles his job as a looper is rather clinical and unemotional. So when Joe is faced with his future self (played by Bruce Willis), he's actually more than happy to kill him upon first seeing him. Of course, future Joe manages to escape and young Joe finds himself in trouble with his employers.

In the middle of the film the focus shifts from Young Joe to Old Joe. We actually watch how Young Joe becomes the Old Joe who arrives in the past, and we soon realize that Old Joe has come back with a plan. As the film progresses your sympathy will jump between Old and Young Joe, both have their flaws, and both have their redeeming qualities. Looper will keep you guessing on who is really the protagonist and antagonist of this film, even though both are the same person. It's this ambiguity that makes Looper an interesting film to watch.

 As the film progresses we see that Old Joe's plan somehow revolves around a mysterious character from the future known as the Rainmaker who is systematically taking over all organized crime in the future. The Rainmaker is somehow tied to a mother (Emily Blunt) and her son (played by Pierce Gagnon who gives a really memorable performance) and Young Joe must figure it out before Old Joe, the mob, or both find him. Emily Blunt's Sara is a tough, down-to-earth, woman who simply wants to raise her son well in a time when most mothers sell their children for drugs. Her relationship with her son, Cid, is shaky to say the least, and they are both harboring a secret that is key to the future. Cid is one of those rare child characters that isn't annoying. He's smart for his age, the kid has a fair knowledge of electronics for being only ten, and the grim world he lives in has made him more aware of how terrible the world really is than a normal child should. You like Sara and Cid, and they both come off as deep, emotional, and damaged human beings. All they want is to live some semblance of a normal life.

This film will keep you guessing what will happen next at every turn. More genre savvy viewers will be pleased with how the film unfolds, because it never goes the way you expect, for the most part. Looper manages to make the time travel tropes we're all familiar with and make them feel new again. As for the rules of time travel in Looper, they're simple to follow and very, very loose. Looper is not the neatest time travel story out there, with it's fair share of paradoxes, but it doesn't matter. Everything that happens, happens, and the film takes advantage of it's loose time travel rules to have some real fun. One instance of this is a horrifying scene of a man slowly falling apart as his past self gets his fingers, hands, legs, and arms amputated. The effects used in this scene are effective and will make you cringe.

Looper is one of those rare movies that takes old tropes and ideas and spins them together into a fun, new, and completely original story. The characters are deep, interesting, and you're not really sure who to root for because everyone has complex drives and histories that make them feel like real human beings. For a time travel movie, it uses time travel as an effective plot device that makes for some memorable scenes and story elements.

To put it simply: Looper is a must see film for anyone looking for a great science fiction film.

I give Rian Johnson's Looper 5 looper blunderbusses out of 5.

 

"I am the law." Dredd review

I should clarify that I don't really read many comic books. Aside from a couple Spider-Man comics over the years I don't read comics all that much. So I never read the Judge Dredd comics. Along with that, I don't remember the Sylvester Stallone film at all. I know it was terrible, but that's about it. So when I went to go see Dredd I basically knew next to nothing about the world the characters inhabited apart from the basic premise. So I didn't have any real expectations for this film apart from it being a good action movie.

So it pleases me to say that Dredd succeeds in reaching my expectations. It's a competent action movie that hearkens back to the classic action movies of the 80's. It doesn't have a truly groundbreaking premise, but I never once felt this movie needed to be anything more than what it is: which is an action film. However this isn't a bad thing, this movie is exactly what it needed to be. In this day and age, where the phrase "big dumb action movie" has taken on a new meaning with the likes of Transformers, it's actually really refreshing to have an action movie that feels more like the films that created action stars like Stallone and Schwarzenegger. It's a classic action movie, through and through, and it proves to be entertaining. 

In fact, from the very beginning of this movie I couldn't help but shake the feeling that Dredd felt like classic sci-fi action movies like The Running Man and Total Recall. Sure, the post-apocalyptic feeling could be attributed to this, in fact this film should be lauded for it's great set design and locations. I wasn't surprised to see that they filmed parts of this movie in Johannesburg, because it serves as a perfect analogue for a post-apocalyptic setting (no offence to the people of Johannesburg but the place looks like Los Angeles' crack whore sister). It's great, and not once was I taken out of the film because it wasn't too apocalyptic enough. And the main setting, a massive super structure called the "Peach Trees," looked fantastically downtrodden. 

However, it's not the locations and set design that make this film entertaining, it's the talented cast. Karl Urban's chin is great as Judge Dredd. He's a tough as nails, cold, and calculating dealer of justice. While the movie does hint at Urban's Dredd having some depth behind the mask, it isn't explored, yet doesn't really need to be. Dredd is like a Terminator, his motivation is simple and clear: dish out justice where it needs to be dished out. If anything, his actions in the film explore what kind of a person Dredd is, and he's a total badass. The more developed character is Olivia Thirlby's rookie Anderson, a Judge trainee who failed basic training yet is getting a second chance because she's got psychic powers. Thirlby's performance is arguably the best as we see her grow throughout the film from a timid rookie to a tough as nails killing machine like Dredd himself. However, because I'm a big fan of Game of Thrones, my favorite character is Lena Headey's Ma-ma. 

Headey brings her menace to the big screen and I never once felt like she wasn't scary as hell. The makeup artist here should be noted here because they are able to turn the beautiful Headey into a believable drug addict/kingpin. While the scars do this well enough (unless you find scars attractive like Krogans and myself do) it's the work they did to her teeth that really sell the illusion. Her teeth are browned and blackened much like a real addict's would be, and every time Headey grinned I cringed (eye gore and teeth squick me out more than anything).

The story is simple: Dredd and Anderson are trapped in the Peach Trees and have to fight their way to the top floor to apprehend Ma-ma. It doesn't need to be any more complicated than that and that's a good thing. I know I usually harp on movies not having  a good or deep story, but when it comes to action films I make an exception. As long as the story isn't convoluted and filled with plot holes I don't mind if it just serves to put the characters into increasingly dangerous situations just to get to the action.

The action and visuals prove to be fun and explosive. Regardless of the fact that the film really doesn't provide anything new or groundbreaking the action works. It has a tinge of hyper-violence dashed into it to provide some interesting visuals. I had the misfortune of watching this film in 3D, however this film proved to be competent in making the 3D add depth to the film rather than have stuff fly out at you, however this was mixed with some amazing slow motion footage to provide some fun visual effects. The slow motion action scenes are filled with explosions, gunfire, and bloody gibs and it's spectacular! These scenes are the only time things really jump out at you but they aren't really obnoxious about it. It's all done rather competently.

You may notice I've used the word "competent" often to describe this movie. The fact of the matter is that this is a competently made film. It doesn't insult your intelligence and keeps you engaged in the action taking place. The characters and acting are good. Dredd is awesome, Anderson is a smart and amiable protagonist, and Ma-ma is threatening and terrifying. They story is simple yet well written. The action is fun, hyper-kinetic, and gloriously violent. Even the 3D is competently used. The movie is what it needed to be, and it delivers what you expect. It's a fun movie, one that proves to keep your attention and doesn't insult your intelligence. Sometimes, that's enough to satisfy your expectations. 

I give Dredd 4 Judge helmets out of 5   

"Beyond The Dark Knight" - The Future of The Batman Franchise and DC Superhero Movies In General

Every story has to have an end of some sort. This year has seen the end of many stories, some good, some bad, some simply okay. However, the one that everyone will undoubtedly remember will be the end of Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy which ended with The Dark Knight Rises. Now, we are standing on the edge of one story ending and another beginning. It's only logical  to think about the future after the ending of one of the best comic book movie adaptations ever filmed. Everyone else is talking about it, so I decided to throw my two cents in for good measure.

This is a SPOILER filled entry so if you haven't seen The Dark Knight Rises (shame on you if you haven't) go see it then come back.

So The Dark Knight Rises marks the last Batman film to be directed by Christopher Nolan with Christian Bale as The Caped Crusader. If you've read my review of the movie you know that I loved the heck out of this movie a lot. It's always a special event for me when Christopher Nolan comes out with a new movie, the guy is my kind of director/storyteller. Sure, he may have his flaws, but he can craft one hell of a movie despite that. The Dark Knight Rises is by far his biggest movie to date, and it delivers a satisfying conclusion to the Dark Knight legend. However, that conclusion now leaves us wonder where we go from here.

It's obvious that Warner Bros. has no intention to put away the cowl and cape for any extended period of time. It doesn't make any logical sense why they shouldn't, Batman is really their only successful superhero vehicle, apart from Superman who is getting a reboot with Man of Steel next year. Then there's The Avengers...

With the success of The Avengers it's only logical to think that Warner Bros. is looking to get a slice of the superhero team up pie with their line of DC superheroes in a Justice League film. The only issue with that idea is that Nolan's Batman has just finished and if the studio is looking to do a reboot they'd need at least five years (which is around the same time the first Spider-Man came out before the reboot). However you slice it, though, whatever their plans are for Batman they've got a lot to live up to in order for it to succeed.

First, you have Nolan's Batman movies, which have become the ideal that every filmmaker strives to when filming their own superhero movies. Numerous times, Iron Man 2 was said to be the "Dark Knight" of the Iron Man movies. However, I don't remember Batman getting drunk and eating doughnuts in a giant doughnut... The fact of the matter is that there are few people who can fill Nolan's very talented shoes, but that won't stop people from trying to fill them. With luck, they'll get someone with ambition and a creative flair to make the next Batman movie, someone who is willing to take risks and not just play it safe and make a watered down version of The Dark Knight.

Second, you have The Avengers. It's very obvious that The Avengers have influenced how superhero films are made, it's not just about the one superhero living in his own bubble anymore, it's the entire universe that character inhabits as well, and the other superheroes and villains that live in it as well. It would be too easy for Warner Bros. to just copy what the Marvel movies did, i.e. make entertaining fun "summer" action movies with little substance and character. Now, don't take this the wrong way. I loved The Avengers, and I rather enjoyed the Marvel movies that led up to it. However, if Warner Bros. dares to be smart, they'll steer clear of making "Marvel movies with the DC logo stamped over it" and instead make their own cinematic universe with it's own tone and feel. This is where I take you to how, I think, they could go with Batman and a DC Cinematic Universe.

1. Don't reboot Batman, make it a sequel.
The Dark Knight Rises is the end of Bruce Wayne's journey as Batman. Both Nolan and Christian Bale have expressed this very clearly. Bale won't return as Batman, and Nolan isn't directing another Batman movie. However, The Dark Knight Rises does leave the story open ended with the promise of a future.

That future is John Blake, aka Robin John Blake.
Joseph Gordon-Levitt's character in the film inherits the Batcave at the end of the movie. The last shot is of him discovering the Batcave in a similar manner to how Bruce Wayne discovered it in Batman Begins. Don't believe me? Well check out this video from youtube user mavman1994 who compared the two scenes here.

The film builds up the idea that Blake is Wayne's sort of protege, like all the Robins that have appeared in the comics. The scenes of him and Blake discussing the nature of Batman as a symbol and the fact that literally anyone could be Batman is important because it sets up the potential for Blake to become the next Batman. In the very comic books that inspired the film, when Bruce Wayne is horribly injured by Bane, it's Robin who is then tasked to take on the mantle of the Batman in his stead. So it makes logical sense that this "Robin" will do the same thing here.
But he could just be Robin, or even Nightwing, you ask? Do you really expect Warner Bros. to make a movie for just Robin or Nightwing? If that doesn't convince you then how about another scene from the movie?

Remember how Commissioner Gordon discovers the bat-signal has been repaired at the end of the movie? Well it certainly wasn't a bird signal was it?
With this in mind, and the fact that Joseph Gordon-Levitt is quickly becoming a big star and a go-to guy for action movies these days, it'd be much easier, and better in my opinion, for Warner Bros. to just do a sequel series to The Dark Knight trilogy with Gordon-Levitt as Batman. While we've already seen how Blake inherits the Batcave we have yet to see his transformation into the Dark Knight himself. That would be and interesting origin tale to explore in a potential sequel with Blake struggling to become the next Batman. I'd sure as hell watch that if they made it.

2. Set the other DC characters in Nolan's Dark Knight Universe.
You know what makes Christopher Nolan's Batman movies so distinct from other comic book adaptations? It's dark and gritty. Yes, I used those words, the words every Hollywood executive likes to throw around when they're talking about rebooting Spider-Man or The Fantastic Four. It's just a simple description for a more complex idea: the fact that Nolan made a world that has a guy who dresses up as a bat and beats up criminals in the late hours of the night but still feels like it's no different than our world.

Sure, it is still ridiculous when you look at it, but every Nolan movie still has that level of spectacle that makes it larger than life. However, it is much more serious than any of the Marvel films. Where Nolan's movies feel like they're grounded in real life, the Marvel movies have their heads in the clouds. Bruce Wayne is like Tony Stark, both are billionaire playboys who are heroic underneath, and both are willing to sacrifice themselves for the greater good. However, Bruce Wayne is a serious man who takes his duty as Batman seriously, Tony Stark is Robert Downey Jr. chewing the scenery. Both are good in their own right, but you'll never hear someone say Christian Bale should have acted more like Robert Downey Jr. That's what make both series of films so great and unique.

So let Marvel make the fun, popcorn flicks full of over the top action and Whedonesque dialogue, they've made their claim to that form of storytelling. However, Warner Bros has their own format that can make them stand out against the Marvel movies. It's already evident that they're doing this with Superman, the Man of Steel is being produced by Christopher Nolan, and looks a heck of a lot like a Nolan movie even thought it's being directed by 300 director Zack Snyder. This a good thing, because if they can pull off a Nolanesque Superman movie then you can easily place him in the world of Nolan's Batman.

So what does that mean for the other DC superheroes like Wonder Woman and Green Lantern, who aren't really the most grounded characters in the DC roster of superheroes? Well, for the Green Lantern movies the only ideal plan seems to be a reboot like how the Hulk got a reboot in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. No one liked Green Lantern, and if Warner Bros is able to ground that character in the Nolanesque world of Batman and Superman, which is a tall order indeed but workable considering the fact that if Superman can be grounded in the world why can't the Green Lantern? Wonder Woman presents less of a challenge because it would be very easy to make her an engaging and interesting character. There was already an attempt to make a television show for the character, which was sadly scrapped, but perhaps it was to make way for the silver screen?

In any case, I'm certain that grounding the characters in Nolan's Batman universe is possible, but incredibly difficult.

3. Still be fun.
The Dark Knight Rises proves that Nolan's Batman universe is more than capable of being fun despite being set in a very realistic and gritty world. Every Nolan movie had its share of fun moments, like Gordon's admiration of the tumbler in Batman Begins, The Joker's pencil trick in Dark Knight, and all the hilarious character moments between Selina Kyle and Bruce Wayne in Rises. I never expected a Nolan Batman movie to hang a lampshade over Batman's knack for a dramatic exit by having him turn to talk to Catwoman only to have her disappear on him. And all he says is "So that's what that feels like..." in a slightly amused tone.
It was a little bit of brevity that didn't take you out of the film, and it was very much appreciated.

4. Focus on characters and theme.
Every Nolan movie was full of deep and memorable characters. Batman Begins gave us an interesting look into Bruce Wayne as a horribly damaged person who is angry due to the loss of his parents. He learns to focus that anger, and fear, and turn it against his enemies. The Dark Knight had The Joker, the epitome of chaos and anarchy, who clashed with Batman's ideology of order and logic. The Joker just wants to see Gotham burn, not because he believes it's the right thing to do, but because it's what he just does. Even at the end of The Dark Knight, Batman tries to rationalize The Joker's plot to blow up the ferries as an attempt to "prove everyone is as ugly as (him)." However, we will never know if this was true or not because The Joker is insane, and insanity needs no logic. The Dark Knight Rises brought us back to Bruce Wayne and his dilemma of a life after Batman and his desire to protect his city, while also bringing in Bane who is the exact opposite of Batman in every way.

For any other Batman movie beyond The Dark Knight, if they go with my proposed route, John Blake's transformation into Batman and exploring his drive to fight crime would be great to focus on. For Superman, it looks like Man of Steel is looking to explore Clark Kent's feelings of being an alien from another world with superpowers, and where he belongs in life. This could be a great change of pace for a character who is really boring, in my opinion. When you're bulletproof and can shoot lasers from your eyes it's hard to really get invested emotionally.

For Wonder Woman and Green Lantern, well, until we see what happens we'll just have to wait and see what they do...

It's going to be interesting to see where the future takes us, I'm just hoping that it doesn't suck like Green Lantern did...

"The Legend Ends" The Dark Knight Rises review

The time has come once again for the last installment of director Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight trilogy. Undoubtedly one of the best comic book film series of all time, Nolan and company had a lot to live up to after the ridiculous success of The Dark Knight. So does The Dark Knight Rises fall prey to dreaded threequel-itus? No chance in hell!

The Dark Knight Rises is one of the best films of the year. Everyone in this movie was at the top of their game and it shows when you watch this movie. It is safe to say that this is Christian Bale's best performance as Bruce Wayne, a vast improvement over what we got in The Dark Knight (I always felt like The Joker stole the show). Whether he is in the cowl and cape or not Bale was always great to watch.

That isn't to say the other members of the cast weren't great as well. Michael Caine gives a heartbreaking performance as Bruce's butler Alfred. Marion Cotillard is masterful at playing the multiple sides to her character, Miranda Tate. Gary Oldman gives us a Jim Gordon who is plagued by the guilt surrounding the lie about Harvey Dent's death. Morgan Freeman is always enjoyable as Lucius Fox. However, it's Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Tom Hardy who truly give memorable performances as John Blake and Bane respectively.

Gordon-Levitt continues to become one of my favorite actors and John Black quickly became one of my favorite characters in this film. Obviously his best scenes are with Bale as the two characters' relationship is one forged out of an understanding about the anger that comes with losing a loved one. Blake sees through everyone's BS, including Bruce Wayne's, and is determined to do what is right.

Tom Hardy is down right terrifying as Bane. Every scene he is in he carries a gravitas that only a few movie villains in the past have been able to pull off, including Darth Vader. From the very get-go Bane is a force to be reckoned with. The movie builds up the inevitable first confrontation between Batman and Bane, and when it finally goes down you know Batman doesn't stand a chance. Every scene with Bane beating people up you see the brutality behind every punch. I'd even go so far as to say that Hardy's Bane surpasses The Joker as one of the most terrifying villains in The Dark Knight movies. This is because, while The Joker is a great mental foe for Batman, Bane is both mentally and physically superior to Batman.

Speaking of fights, this movie has a ton of 'em! Each and every one of them more grander than the last. There is one between Bane and Batman which I consider to be one of the best fight scenes in a movie for a very long time. It's clear that Nolan has definitely taken some of the criticism about previous Batman fights to heart. You feel each and every punch, hear Batman struggle to land solid blows on Bane with all of his might, and it is all so epic!

The story is an interesting mix of Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. There are tons of aspects found in Begins that is here in Rises. In fact, the only thing that really returns from the previous film is the lie about Harvey Dent. Everything else feels like a much grander version of Begins, and that is perfect for what this movie needed to be. While the film can sometimes jump around rather quickly, leaving some slightly confused, it doesn't detract from the story all too much.

However, of all the Christopher Nolan Batman films this one is notable in not feeling like a Nolan movie. Sure, his touch is visible in every frame of film and the IMAX shots are astoundingly beautiful. However, the story is not what I've come to expect from Nolan. This is slightly a good thing because it gives The Dark Knight Rises a very unique identity like the previous films had.

This movie seems lighter than the others, despite how dark the story is, and that can be attributed to how epic the movie feels. But it's not just that, there are numerous scenes in this film that are genuinely hilarious yet don't stand out as being brevity for brevity's sake. My favorite joke is one between Catwoman and Batman, if you've seen the film you know the one I'm talking about, and it was a great joke.

I wish I could go into more detail but I don't want to spoil the movie for anyone. So I'll move on to another subject: the effects.

This is the most special effects heavy Nolan movie we have seen yet. We have Batman's new vehicle, aptly named The Bat, buildings and bridges being blown up, and of course that football scene. And every single one of them looks great. Not once did I catch myself thinking everything was CG, I was in the moment for the whole movie.

Of course, Nolan likes to keep things practical, and the practical effects in this movie are a spectacle to behold. The prologue with Bane, which everyone has no doubt seen by now, hijacking that plane is something straight out of a Bond movie. The hordes of people battling in the streets of Gotham while Bane and Batman duke it out on the steps of the courthouse. It would have been so easy to go CG for such complicated scenes, yet every single person you see on those streets is real and it conveys the epic scale of this movie like no movie, not even Lord of The Rings, possibly could.

So what did I think of the ending? Was is fitting, was it good, was it bad? Was it Mass Effect 3 all over again?

No, the ending of The Dark Knight Rises is a fitting end to Nolan's Batman trilogy and you will be pleased, and at some points positively surprised at how this movie ends.

Go and see it, you will not be disappointed.

I give The Dark Knight Rises 4 Batarangs out of 5 for a fitting end to one of the best comic book movie series of all time.

Netflix Reviews: "Ink"

If there is a must see movie on Netflix, it is Ink. If I had to choose one movie in all the movies on Netflix for you to watch it would be Ink. This is one of those films that transcends being just another movie and is a genuine experience to behold. It is right up there with films like Lo as being one of the most memorable movies I have ever watched. It is original, simple yet complex at the same time, and at its core has an emotional anchor that manages to ground the fantastical elements in this movie and make them matter.

To call Ink one of the best movies I have ever seen is an understatement. To call it a masterpiece is like calling the Mona Lisa a painting. To put it simply: Ink is why I watch movies. Of all the gems on Netflix, Ink is the crown jewels. There isn't enough good things I can write about this film.

Of course, despite this movie being one of the best films I have ever seen, the particulars of how I came across it is rather ironic. Ink was put into my queue with the intention of riffing on what seemed like yet another lackluster science fiction fantasy movie. It didn't help that during my first time watching it I was actually going out of my way to riff on this movie in the most horrendous way possible. Of course, at first glance, Ink doesn't really have much going for it in the looks department.

Most of the special effects in this movie could be easily recreated on my bootlegged copy of After Effects. That isn't to say that the effects in Ink are terrible. On the contrary, they work for what the movie is going for and are actually rather imaginative. It's the simplicity that gives them its charm, even if they do appear cheap they work.

The biggest hurdle to overcome however are the makeup effects in Ink. While they aren't horrendous the titular character Ink has one glaring aspect that is bound to make anyone laugh at first glance. Ink has the largest nose ever created for film that looks like someone tried to recreate Mr. Burns' vulture-esque snout in real life. It was the crux of many jokes I made about this movie on my first viewing. However, as the story progressed and I began to learn about Ink's tortured past, the large nose became a part of the character and showed just how twisted Ink's spirit had become through self-loathing and despair. Once again, it worked because it made sense in the context of the story.

The story, in of itself, is the main reason why I love Ink. It is original yet simple despite its more mind-bendy ideas. The premise revolves around the existence of spiritual beings known as the Storytellers who bring good dreams to people as they slumber and provide them with positive emotions to help them live better lives. The Storytellers aren't alone, however, there is another group called the Incubi who are their polar opposites who spread despair and nightmares with their very presence. The battle between good and evil here is played out while we sleep with the Storytellers standing guard over us.

Into this world arrives Ink, a lost soul who has been twisted by despair and has become a force of evil who desires to become an Incubus in the hope that they can relieve him of his never-ending pain. In order to become one, however, Ink must kidnap the soul of a little girl and bring her to the Incubi. However, the Storytellers are hot on Ink's trail as they try to rescue the girl from his clutches. The only hope the little girl truly has, though, rests on the shoulders of her estranged father whom the Storytellers realize is her only hope to wake up from the nightmare world of the Incubi.

I won't go any further into the plot because I hope to have piqued your interest enough to watch this movie. Needless to say, Ink is a very unique film to behold.

The idea of the Storytellers and Incubi isn't so much as told to us as it is shown. The first scenes in the movie show us the basic rules of the world of the Storytellers and how they work. It is clear enough to visually understand that you really don't need exposition. That doesn't mean that there isn't exposition to help people understand. There is just enough for people to understand how this world works.

There are some aspects in the movie that are kept in the dark until you get much further into the movie. One example is the introduction of Jacob the Pathfinder. Jacob is a very interesting character because he comes off as a sort of Yoda-like character with an infinite amount of wisdom who is wrapped in a layer of crazy. He is effectively blind, shown via the electrical tape covering his eyes, but is able to sense what he calls "the beat of the world" which allows him to navigate and is also the source of his powers. However, all of this is left for the audience to make sense of as time goes on because there is no one in the movie to explain exactly what a Pathfinder is. It can be irritating at times though by the end enough is shown to understand. In the end, you come to like Jacob because he has some of the more interesting lines in the movie and is an integral part of one of the film's more memorable scenes.

However, the most important characters in the movie are Ink, the little girl Emma, and her father John. All three of which are skillfully portrayed. Then there is Leiv, a Storyteller who comes to Emma's aid and tries to understand Ink's motivations and dissuade him from delivering Emma to the Incubi. Their journey is the emotional heart of this film and the primary reason why it manages to be so successful.

Follow this up with some really well shot fight scenes that carry weight and drama behind them and you've got a movie that manages to stand up next to great science-fiction/fantasy films like Inception. While it may not have the same budget and spectacle like a film like Inception it has what matters: heart and emotion.

This is the only movie that has ever made me cry, and that is something to say after I watched Wall-E without shedding a single tear. I'm the kind of person who doesn't cry at the end of Old Yeller because it just seemed like the logical next step after a dog gets rabies. When I watch Titanic I'm angry, not sad, when Leo Dicaprio freezes to death because he didn't have the common sense to find his own piece of floating debris to sit on. So understand that when I say that Ink managed to make tears stream down my face and pull the cobwebby strings on my heart that that's saying something.

That is why I think Ink is one of the best films I have ever seen and that is why I recommend, no I demand that you put it in your instant queue.

Netflix Reviews: "The Darwin Awards"

Have you ever heard ridiculous stories about people and the hilarious ways they managed to kill themselves? Like the guy who willingly slammed through a window and fell to his death because he believed the window was unbreakable? Or the the experienced parachutist who forgot his parachute? Have you ever caught yourself thinking that the poor folks who are dumb enough to commit such mind meltingly stupid acts are actually helping improve the overall stock of the collective gene pool by removing themselves from it?

Well author Wendy Northcutt seems to think so! Northcutt is the author of the Darwin Awards and creator of darwinawards.com, which celebrate individuals who have died as a result of extremely ridiculous circumstances. These people and their stories have been seen on numerous shows over the years such as Mythbusters because some have taken on urban legend status. These stories have resonated so strongly that they even had a movie made about them which happens to be on Netflix for your viewing pleasure.

The Darwin Awards is a 2006 comedy film that stars Joseph Fiennes and Winona Ryder and is inspired by Northcutt's work and the stories they entail. The film also has some very entertaining appearances by actors like David Arquette, Juliet Lewis, Wilmer Valderrama, and even the Mythbusters themselves Adam Savage and Jamie Hyneman. The film is presented as a documentary being filmed by a college student as he follows Fiennes' character, Michael, a detective who loses his job after failing to catch a serial killer because he faints at the slightest sign of blood. Michael struggles to get back on his feet and decides to use his detective skills and encyclopedic knowledge of the eponymous Darwin Awards to help an insurance company profile individuals who may fall under the category of a Darwin Award. After impressing the company he is partnered off with Winona Ryder, who represents the more sane half of the duo and they travel the country investigating numerous deaths that are unorthodox to say the least.

Most of these cases are ripped straight out of the Darwin Awards website and anyone who watches Mythbusters will definitely recognize a number of the cases the duo investigates. While the stories may be familiar to anyone who likes shows like Mythbusters, The Darwin Awards manages to add clever, and sometimes very dark, humor to these stories to make them seem more original. However, the cases are only a minor aspect in the film.

The primary focus of the film is about Michael and his obsessive nature which is the root to his obsession with the Darwin Awards. He meticulously plans out his routine and goes to extreme lengths to keep himself from becoming one of the many Darwin Award stories he finds so fascinating. Of course, his overly cautious nature usually backfires, and nearly does kill him, such as when he attempts to take a shower in a hotel bathroom and uses bungee chords to keep himself from slipping only to get himself stuck upside down. Winona Ryder's character, Siri, is always annoyed by Michael's obsessive nature and tries to get him to loosen up.

 There is also a sub-plot focusing on Michael's continued search for the killer he let slip away. Every so often we see him pouring over newspaper clippings tied to the case and the film actually shifts from the Darwin Award investigations to the murderer near the climax of the film. While I didn't really find this sub-plot to be as interesting as the Darwin Award stories, it's function within the story makes sense in context.

 There were numerous things I enjoyed about this movie, and some things I felt indifferent to.The documentary style of filming seems a bit unnecessary because the film isn't always filmed in the documentary style. There are numerous scenes that are shot traditionally, mainly when the story shifts to the actual Darwin Award stories, so the inclusion of the documentary style is a questionable one. However it does provide a number of hilarious scenes where, during moments where Michael and Siri are in trouble, the camera man will not help them because the rules of a documentary include non-interference. However, even then, this film is shot rather professionally and clearly.

 The acting is fairly solid. Joseph Fiennes comes off as a genuine odd ball with little social skills and pretty much carries the movie all by himself. Winona Ryder is, as always, Winona Ryder. I find that she never really changes much from character to character. The other actors do very well with what little screen time they have and managed to provide numerous laughs as a result.

 Overall this is a solid comedy. I enjoyed the grim humor and this film never stops being funny. There are numerous comedy set pieces to be found here that will keep you laughing. However, the best, and most hilarious, part of this movie is the inclusion of Mythbusters Adam Savage and Jamie Hyneman. While I won't spoil to you what their role in the film is, needless to say it was a great pleasure seeing them appear, especially considering stories like the Darwin Awards are what they use to make their show. Their appearance alone assured that I would enjoy this movie.

 I enjoyed this movie, more than I expected, and I certainly recommend you add it to your queue.

"It's Always Worse With Bears" My review of Pixar's "Brave"

I love Pixar. Let's just get that out in the open right here and now. Since day one with Toy Story, to their "stumbles" like Cars, and their masterpieces like Wall-E I have followed their work wherever it takes me. I love the simple yet groundbreaking stories they weave and the amazing animation they use to tell them. Just take a look at Toy Story, which was released back in the late 90's and it still can hold up against most animated films distributed today.

Pixar has, by nothing short of a miracle, managed to maintain a soul in the face of the corporate world that film and animation exists in today. It is their defining characteristic, as well as the reason, I believe, why they're so successful. Like anything people do, whether it be crafting stories to serving fast food, it shows when a person has a passion for what their doing. With a studio like, for instance, Dreamworks you can see some passion has indeed been put into the films they've created. However, think about how many Shrek and Madagascar films there are, as well as sad attempts to cash in on Pixar's success (such as Shark Tale to Finding Nemo...). It's just not the same. There's a visible difference between Pixar and Dreamworks films, and I believe it's the heart the Pixar puts into their work that is the reason for this difference.

So it's no surprise that I liked their latest film, "Brave." I've reached the point where simply knowing something's a Pixar film is a promise of instant enjoyment. They have managed to earn that from me after years of impressing me with their work. Brave continues to prove my faith in Pixar isn't misplaced.  It's a great, hilarious, and imaginative fairy tale that never fails to deliver on an emotionally engaging story about a girl and her mother and how they learn to accept one another for who they are and grow as a result.

To start, I'd like to begin by talking about the Pixar short before the movie. The Pixar shorts are one of my favorite aspects about a Pixar film. It's a simple little appetizer to whet my appetite for the feature presentation. In this case, Pixar's short film was called "La Luna." La Luna was a beautiful short about tradition and how traditions evolve from generation to generation. It was clever, imaginative, and I loved every moment of it.  Now, onto the actual film itself.

The story and characters in Brave are everything I've come to expect from a Pixar film. The story is simple, yet tells an original and emotionally engaging story that will make you laugh and pull at your heart strings. The characters feel three dimensional and believable, at least the primary cast does. The most stand out character being Princess Merida (voiced by Kelly Macdonald). Merida is by far the most interesting, and human, protagonist Pixar has ever presented. She feels like a real person with her own thoughts and feelings yet isn't perfect. She is also selfish but that doesn't make you hate her. You root for her, you understand her problems and feel for her. She is a free, and wild, spirit. This, of course, doesn't sit well with her more reserved and "queenly" mother who is at her wits end with her daughter's insistence on being free to make her own path. This conflict is the heart of the film. As the film continuously has the two women butting heads for what they think is right. Eventually, Merida storms off and discovers a witch in the woods who gives the princess a spell that should "change her mother." Of course, this spell does more than Merida is hoping for and she must find a way to break the curse before it's too late.

It's somewhat standard fare for a fairy tale but that doesn't matter. Pixar manages to make everything feel new and interesting thanks to clever writing and lovable characters. The second primary character of Brave is undoubtedly Merida's mother, Queen Elinor (voiced by Emma Thompson), who, despite wishing her daughter would be more lady-like and less of a free spirit, doesn't come off as a bitch. That must have been the most difficult thing to pull off because it would've been so easy to make Merida's mother less sympathetic than she is in the movie. Elinor truly believes she is doing what's best for her daughter, she clearly loves her, but you also feel her frustration when Merida is being rebellious. The true root of the conflict between mother and daughter is the fact that neither one understands the other. There is no true antagonist in the movie (apart from a bear that is part of a sub-plot) but if there is one it is the differing perspectives Merida and Elinor have.

There is also Merida's father, King Fergus (voiced by Billy Connolly). King Fergus is probably one of my more favorite characters in the movie. He is a humorous, jovial, king who obviously passed his passion for adventure, and his carefree attitude, to his daughter. Despite the fact that Merida constantly defies her mother's wishes, Fergus simply laughs it off and finds his daughter's free spirit to be endearing. The banter he and Merida share during the archery competitions reflect this really well, as well as shows how he is no help to his wife who scoffs at him every time he enables Merida's behavior. You also have Merida's younger brothers, fiery haired hellions who provide a number of laughs, and the three other clans in the kingdom all of which have their own unique characters who share numerous hilarious scenes together.

I also loved the movie's soundtrack. I've always had a soft spot for bagpipes and Scottish music in general and the film's use of traditional Scottish music as well as the songs sang in Gaelic by singer Julie Fowlis really got to me. Another spectacular aspect of this film is just how beautiful it is. Pixar continues to be the pioneer of computer animation and Brave is definitely a sight to behold. The most notable technological marvel of the movie is Merida's fiery mane. Her meticulously animated locks are one of the most important aspects of the film because represent her fiery spirit. Her hair is an extension of her character as well as her predicament. She desires to be free but her mother insists she be more reserved, this is clearly represented by the rebellious strand of fiery red hair that Merida allows to fall from the confining headdress that is attempting to keep the wild spirit at bay. It's the first thing you notice about Merida and you have to commend the job Pixar did bringing her hair to life.
In fact, you have to commend Pixar on making yet another great film. It's not every day you find a new and original fairy tale full of colorful characters that has an engaging story. There's really nothing bad I can say about the film.

In summary, Brave is another great Pixar film with interesting characters and an interesting plot that doesn't disappoint. I give Pixar's "Brave" 4 arrows out of 5.