To Rome with Love

To Rome with Love, more like To Rome with a lot of questions.  This is how I felt after watching Woody Allen’s newest film, To Rome with Love.  This film features many familiar faces throughout its 112 minute frame: Alec Baldwin, Penelope Cruz, Jesse Eisenburg, Ellen Page and Woody Allen, himself.  All of these people were integral in this film about…umm…well…mmm…hmm…oh crap, I have no idea what this film was about.  Let me look up its synopsis online…one second…WHAT?!  Even the almighty internet cannot direct me to a source that can explain this movie to me.   Why is that?  Oh!!  It’s because this film makes no sense, good I’m glad I figured it out, otherwise this review was doomed from the start. 

This “film”, and I use the term very loosely, follows not one, not two, not three, but four completely separate never intersecting stories.  Why Mr. Allen decided this is beyond me.  None of the four stories get to fully develop within the film aiding to the mass confusion that was going on in my brain.   Literally, once the credits rolled, I said outloud, “What the F*** just took place?”  That’s when I went onto the internet to look up the synopsis, I was in shock and wanted clarification as to whether my brain stopped working and that’s why I didn’t understand.  Well, the good ole net was just as confused as I was.  I think the only person who could have explained that film was Woody Allen himself, and probably no one else.

Even the different stories within the film made no sense.  For those of you loyal readers of Popcorn or Snore know how much I disliked a certain 1960’s Aston Martin in a certain spy film, well, I feel that this car could have made an appearance in To Rome with Love, and I wouldn’t have even batted an eye.  No joke readers, these stories just happened, no explanation, and worst of all the actions within the world weren’t explained.  NOTHING WAS EXPLAINED! 

One story follows a normal middle class man as he becomes an overnight celebrity, think Kardashian.  This was easily the most enjoyable of the stories to watch, however, much like the rest of these stories the viewer was left in the dark as to what was really happening.   Day after day would go by, and this “normal” man would be swarmed by news cameras, fans, and paparazzi who would ask him pointless questions like what he ate for breakfast and what kind of underwear he wears.  Everyday would be more and more of the same thing, meaningless questions and answers about his normal middle-class life.  What the viewer can take away from this story is Allen's satirical view on overnight celebrities and how easy it is for them to be famous one day and then forgotten about the next.  Regardless of Allen's opinion on the topic, it is hard for a viewer to even understand his opinion because they are too busy trying to follow this impossible-to-follow story line.  

Another story follows a newly engaged couple, whose parents are from Rome and America.  As can be guessed by the title, this film takes place in Rome, so the American Parents, anchored by Allen, fly to Rome to meet the future in-laws.  As their interactions proceed, Allen, a former musical director, discovers that the father of his future son-in-law is an incredible opera singer.  Allen encourages him to pursue his talent by introducing him to the opera world, and discovers that the man cannot sing to his full potential unless he is in the shower.  This gives Allen the idea to put on an opera where the man, his discovery sings from a purpose built shower on stage.  What?  Pretty asinine if you ask me.  The man even received favorable reviews.  I guess anything can happen. So again, Allen left the viewer in the dark, not allowing them any insight or explanation for anything.  

The third story follows a newly wed couple who move down to Rome to start their lives together.  The husband has a job lined up with his uncle and he and his wife are to meet them for a business lunch.  Well, through a series of wrong place, wrong time events this meeting never happens according to plan.  Instead, a confused prostitute is mistaken for the man’s new wife and is then brought along to the lunch and meetings.  Meanwhile the real wife stumbles upon a film set and becomes entranced by some famous Italian actor.  As this part of the film plays out, both newlywed husband and wife end up sleeping with a different person, unbeknownst to one another.  At the end of their segment of film they reunite, never telling the other about what happened, and decide Rome is not for them.  What what what?

The final installment was possibly the most confusing.  This one stars Baldwin as a vacationing architect, who runs into a current architect student who happens to live in the same area as Baldwin did when he was younger.  What makes this portion the most confusing is that Baldwin keeps hanging around throughout the days of this story-line, and it is unclear as to whether he is a ghost, a vision, or if this is a memory of some sort.  Other characters keep engaging him in conversation, and he seems to be assisting in the forward progress of their relationships; but who is he? 

As far as I am concerned this film should be burned at the stake.  It should be held accountable for the pain I incurred during the viewing of this abysmal production.  Do yourselves a favor, do not waste your time on this one, it’ll only bring heartache and pain. Allen did one thing consistently throughout this film, confuse the viewer.  If that was indeed his goal, then job well done.  

Final words: Unless you enjoy not understanding what it is you are giving your attention to, I would strongly suggest this movie goes into your "not now, nor ever" column.
 
Until next time, happy viewing!

Review Rating : Based on popcorn sizes; small, medium, large, extra-large
                           When films get a snore zzz... worth skipping  

Silver Linings Playbook

Silver Linings Playbook very possibly could get upgraded to Gold!  This  film was powerful to watch from the very first minute to the last.  Silver Linings Playbook director David O. Russell is no stranger to deep, powerful films.  He was the Academy Award Nominated Director of The Fighter.  As was the case with The Fighter, Silver Linings Playbook follows not just one but two characters who are struggling with psychological disorders.  Bradley Cooper (The Hangover, The A-Team) and Jennifer Lawrence (The Hunger Games) play the two characters, Patrick and Tiffany whose difficult lives capture the viewer.

These two struggle throughout the film with their own personal demons to ultimately end up saving one another from pain, loneliness and the law.  Russell did an outstanding job with these two talented actors allowing them to fully take control of their characters and shine. Throughout this film there were numerous sequences where one or the other or both, Patrick and Tiffany, have break downs; these scenes are almost too difficult and painful to watch because the characters and their emotions are so real and raw.  The struggle to watch wasn't only due to the performances of Cooper and Lawrence but also due to the performances of Jackie Weaver (Animal Kingdom, Picnic at Hanging Rock) and Robert De Niro (come on, who doesn't know De Niro?), and their struggle trying to accept their son, Patrick's illness.  This struggle for acceptance leads to a few exchanges both verbal and physical between the family; lots of tears and heart ache.  When these break downs occur the viewer really feels the tension and anguish their characters are suffering from.

Now, this film is by no means a cinematic masterpiece.  In my opinion many of the "low-light" scenes are grainy and un-smooth to the eye which takes away from the viewers experience.  What I mean by this is that due to the fact that the scene or sequence takes place in a dark setting, the camera had to over compensate for the lack of light, causing the quality and the look of the film to be lower then it normally would and should be.  This over compensation distracts the viewer and takes away from the overall viewing experience.  

Having said this, I still feel this film was very good, and even better done.   It was again by no means a light and airy film, however, the overall message is well worth the emotional investment: never give up on yourself and look for the silver lining in life.  This message is one that most people will find helpful in their own lives.  In fact during the film some of Patrick's friends and family were able to use his motivation and drive to help themselves through their own problems: marriage, money, etc.

Final Words: Large Popcorn.
Although this film is tough to watch at times, it is very deep and its overall message is one of self motivation and power.  Not good for younger children, but very good for the rest of the population.

Until next time, happy viewing!

Review Rating : Based on popcorn sizes; small, medium, large, extra-large
                           When films get a snore zzz... worth skipping  
 

Dark Horse - Dark Shadows

I just finished watching Dark Shadows, a film by Tim Burton.  As you would expect from any Burton film, Dark Shadows stars Johnny Depp, as well as Burton's long time love Helena Bonham Carter (Les Miserables' Madama Thenardier).  The cast also has Michelle Pfieffer (Batman Return's Catwoman) and Jackie Earle Haley (Watchmen's Rorschach).  So needless to say, this cast has a long history of very deep and sophisticated character acting; and with respects to Dark Shadows, did not disappoint.  Now, I feel it necessary at this junction to point out that I am an interesting Tim Burton fan.  For me Burton has always been hit or miss and never in-between.  I like Edward Scissorhands and the original Batmans.  I also like Beetlejuice and The Nightmare Before Christmas, and let's not forget since I already wrote about it, Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter (producer).  Having said all this some of his films I don't enjoy so much are the new Alice in Wonderland, 9 and Sweeney Todd.  To me Burton either captures my attention and intrigues me, or he pushes me away with boredom.  No offense Mr. Burton, I'm assuming you are reading this (more like hoping).  

As for Dark Shadows, I would put this film in with the like group.  In fact I would put it in the "very much" like group.  This film was very well done; the cinematography is stunning in many sequences, as well as all the make-up and special effects. Usually, I don't like over the top special effects, I find them cheesy, but in this film they were a lot more subtle putting me in a state of ease instead of a critical mess.  Literally, I was blown away with how much I enjoyed this film.  Mission accomplished Mr. Burton, my mind was officially blown.  BOOM!! 

This story follows Depp who plays a vampire named Barnabus Collins, who has recently returned from a 200 year imprisonment in a coffin to the 1970's where he clearly does not fit in, nor recognize anything.  Barnabus finds his distant relatives living in his former estate, and begins a relationship with them to reclaim his family's legacy.  Unbeknownst to him, he finds himself living the same story he left 200 years prior except in a new time period- the 1970's.  

The full circle of this story is engaging even though it is predictable.  From the moment you first see his downfall and the antagonist to his protagonist, Anjelique Bouchard (Eva Green -Casino Royale) in the 70's you know exactly what is going to play out; sometimes this technique works, sometimes it bites you in the proverbial buns; in the case of Dark Shadows, it works.  Even though I knew how the story would finally unfold, I didn't feel cheated, instead I was captivated by the path the story followed to reveal its known ending. 

One of the aspects of the story I really enjoyed was the opening sequence (about 15 minutes) where the story shows the historical happenings which lead to the "future" happenings the film follows.  Those first 15 or so minutes really helped pave the way for the rest of the story, and gave a nice flash back feel to the overall film. 

Despite what the previews and commercials may lead you to believe, this film was a classic Tim Burton dark comedy.  For the most part the story was meant to be serious, with few comedic reliefs thrown in by Depp, usually out of his ignorance to the 20th century.  One of the funniest lines was when he referred to the rock icon Alice Cooper as "Miss Cooper" and mentioned she was the ugliest woman he has ever seen. 

Overall I was very impressed by this film on all accounts: acting, cinematography, make-up, story, special effects.  I would recommend this film, maybe not for those of a younger age group as to the fact there is some blood and gore, and sexual sequences.  However, for those of you in a more mature age group, I feel strongly that this film will entertain rather then disappoint. 

Final Words:  By all means go and Red Box it, or catch it on T.V.  Who knows, some of you may even purchase this film and add it to your collection, it wouldn't be the worst purchase.

Until next time, happy viewing! 

Skyfall or Skyfail?

Dum dum dumb, dum dum dumb, du dumb du du dumb.  This is what hit me like a ton of bricks, or better yet, 007 hitting any and all bad guys, when I watched Skyfall.  This was surprising, because after all, this James Bond, Daniel Craig, is arguably the coolest.  No?  Disagree?  Well he definitely is the most believable and realistic James Bond to date! Booyah!  Argue with that reader.

DISCLAIMER: THIS POSTING WILL SEEM MEAN AND NIT-PICKY.  PLEASE STICK WITH IT, I PROMISE IT’LL COME AROUND…OH YA, SPOILER ALERT! 

Why did this improved song come to mind (for your information, that first sentence should be sung to the Bond tune)?  It’s because Daniel Craig was upset that unlike his predecessors, he has not received “Bondesque” devices: car with guns, ejector seats, jet packs, laser watch, etc., etc., etc.  Well Daniel Craig, look no further, it has been decided that you will receive your wish, in the form of a 1960’s Aston Martin DB5!  Wait, what?  You mean the car Sean Connery drove in Goldfinger?  Yes, the very one.  But why, you ask?  Well it’s because MGM and others wanted to have a little wink and nod to the origin of the franchise; I mean Skyfall is the 50^th anniversary film, so why not give a little something to those who have loved these movies since the beginning.  Well I have one reason: it makes no sense in the Daniel Craig timeline.  There I said it.

My problem with this car is that it is a cheesy addition to the story, and worse, it wasn’t a quick little “tah-dah” flash the ride and away with it.  No!  Instead it had an integral part in the story playing out.  ??????  Literally when I saw this I was lost.  I was so on board with the film up until that point, and then suddenly like a cheap magic trick this car appears and worse than that, it saves the day.

Now, if you have been kind and followed me to this point, I too will be kind.  I really did enjoy the majority of the film and all the scenes without the car. In fact, I will go further and say that I would have been totally fine with the car being there if the car had been established in Craig’s Bond world.  All they would have needed was a minor sequence of exchanged words a.k.a. dialogue where Bond explains the car’s origins and the gadgets - that’s all I ask.  See the problem is this, we as viewers understand the significance of the car on film; however, a screenwriter’s job is to tell us what is happening.  We can make minor assumptions and jumps in thought, but this car was a major character!! Hello??  What if they never explained the new ”Q”, or explained who “M” was or even explained who Bond himself was?  You as the viewer would be confused and annoyed.  If you as the viewer had to go and explain those people - key characters - to yourself or someone else, you would stop before starting.  This is why I was flabbergasted.  The main rule behind screenwriting is to establish and explain when something or someone is important to the story, i.e., how this car came to be in Daniel Craig’s Bond timeline.

Now I know this sounds like I’m being way critical, and believe me I am.  However, something such as this needs to be explained, because up until the point the car arrived, I was really enjoying the film.  I’m really blown away too, because “M” knew what all the gadgets were, and made a reference to the ejector seat button.  Well, if we are supposed to believe that Daniel Craig is the one and only James Bond, then where did this car and the knowledge of it come from?  “M” has never talked about the MI6 gadgets before, yet she knows about the gadgets on this car.  This doesn’t make sense to me.  They literally could have simply had Bond say, “the new ‘Q’ hooked me up with some gear, this car has been in my possession for awhile and we recently modified it,” or something along those lines. Sounds pretty simple, doesn’t it? It would have taken all of 15 seconds of screen time.  As I continue thinking about this car, I remember that Craig (Bond) won a classic Aston Martin from a civilian in Casino Royale – albeit one without any spygear and gadgets; this was presumably the same as the Goldfinger era Aston.  Since the decision was to bring this Aston into Craig’s universe when they did, we are then left to believe that sometime between Casino Royale and Skyfall, “Q” (or someone else) modified the car Bond won with gadgets known to the head of MI6.  Here is the question I’m posing to you readers: why would the gadgets installed in the current day be antiquated 1960’s technology instead of the latest, most fantastic, modern technology?  The answer is, they wouldn’t! Looking at it the other way around, if this “quaint” technology were still around in Craig’s universe, why wouldn’t his sweet new DB9 (Casino Royale) or DBS (Quantum of Solace) have used it? Where were the machine guns behind the headlights, or ejector seats in his more modern rides?  It makes no sense at all.  In fact, the more I think about this car, the more I hate that it was introduced as nothing more than comic relief, plopped down in the middle of the plot, without any real explanation. This kind of device has its place in a plot when explained – audiences are fond of a cheap smile in the middle of a lot of action. Here, however, I was left frustrated by screenwriters playing down to their audience. ARGH!!!

Let me ask you a question.  In “Back to the Future”, Marty McFly goes from 1985 to 1955 in a time machine.  When he gets to the past, people look at him and inquire about his strange clothing.  Marty’s response was that he was from somewhere else. The same thing happened later when he was playing Chuck Berry’s “Johnny B. Goode”, then suddenly transitions into a heavy metal solo, telling the audience who are looking at him questioningly, that  where he comes from, music like that is a hit.  The screenwriters included those lines as comic relief, of course, but also to provide “cover” for the fact that Marty wasn’t of their time; it all played into the plot, gave the audience a laugh, and “allowed” the 1950's characters to accept Marty, if still somewhat questioningly. Imagine if those lines hadn’t been included, no one questioning the strange clothes or music. It wouldn’t have worked because the audience needed to know that the people of the 1950's timeline found something about Marty that wasn’t quite right. The audience would see it, and they would wonder why the characters in the film did not. This is exactly my problem with the inclusion of the classic Aston and its 1960s tech in “Skyfall”; without explanation, it makes no sense within Daniel Craig’s Bond timeline. Fun to see the old car? Sure; I’m not immune to a joke. In this case, though, the joke was on the audience, because within the context of the film, no real explanation for the car’s existence was ever provided. Beyond that, of course, there are those viewers unfamiliar with the '60s era Bond films, perhaps only seeing the Daniel Craig franchise, or even just this film. To them, the classic Aston, no explanation behind it, isn’t even much of a wink and nod.

To this I say: EPIC SKYFAIL!!!!!

All right, the rant is over, here now is some praise. 

In spite of it all, I thought this was a very good story; I thought the villain, played by Javier Bardem, although incredibly awkward, was perfectly intense and terrifying, and also enjoyed how the story introduced Moneypenny.  That’s a throw back to the Bond days of old that I felt was acceptable and fun.   The cinematics were very sharp, and the fight sequences were easily followed and very realistic.  I wasn’t happy to see them killing off Dame Judi Dench’s character (M), but it was handled very well; for all I know Dame Judi may have requested a write-out, wanting to retire from the franchise, she has been in the franchise for a while.   There were some odd plot points, such as Bond’s “death”; I didn’t understand why he stayed in hiding for so long without letting anyone know he survived. Then there was an “interesting” scene between Bardem and Craig where Bardem had an almost romantic or sexual interaction with Bond; nothing wrong with that, except that it, too, was never explained (shame shame screenwriters: Neal Purvis, Robert Wade and John Logan.)

I wish I could have enjoyed the car; maybe I need to watch the film again, and just relax.  This isn’t a cinematic masterpiece by any means.  This is not “Gone With the Wind”, “Saving Private Ryan”, or even “March of the Penguins”.  So please reader (I promise I will eventually remember each and every one of your names) don’t hate me for this post; embrace the screen writing knowledge I imparted to you, and leave a comment or two.  Let’s have a discussion.  Full disclosure, I have been reading up on this car and found that it has been in Pierce Brosnan’s Bond franchise; while I don’t recall this fact, that’s what the net told me (and if it’s on net, it can’t be wrong, right?).  All right, so maybe I’m being hypercritical and just hating on something that is only in the film for those who have been watching Bond films for almost 50 years.

The bottom line is that I will be watching this film again.  I am actually looking forward to it!  Perhaps my mind will be un-blown (in the bad way) and re-blown (in a good way) and I will revise or make an addendum to this posting.  Please everyone, see this film for yourselves and remember that my problems were strictly from an over-analytical perspective; you may love the car and think I’m being too strict.  I apologize in advance for you who liked the car aspect - I am sorry!  Yes I know I am a big person to admit my faults.

Final words: Medium Popcorn
I know I will be watching this again, and most everybody should find this film enjoyable.  So the medium popcorn could be more like a large; you decide! 

Until next time, happy viewing!

Review Rating : Based on popcorn sizes; small, medium, large, extra-large
                           When films get a snore zzz... worth skipping 

Gangster Squad

Today, I went to see Gangster Squad, and to be honest with you, I was a little disappointed.  Now don't get me wrong, it was a cool movie, the cast was solid and it was entertaining throughout.  My problem with it was that the film did not live up to its trailer.  I felt that the trailer made the film look hands down spectacular; I've seen better films and have written about them.

Don't get me wrong, again this film was entertaining.  I literally was just saying the other day that I feel movies revolving around real life events are some of my favorites and should be made more often.  With Gangster Squad it definitely was that, a film about real life gangster Mickey Cohen (Sean Penn) and the group of misfit LAPD who went after him and his racket.

This film was very graphic in all of its action sequences, it seemed  like a combination between Sin City and Casino.  The feel of the film was almost comic-booky, and the "gore" was very intense.  I realize that this day and age the average viewer accepts graphic violence better then in years past, but still, some scenes were a little intense and graphic at times.  I really enjoyed viewing a film about Los Angeles during the golden age.  Seeing the old "Hollywoodland" sign, and the historic buildings before they turned historic was an aspect I enjoyed.  It was like looking at a book of images taken from 1949 L.A.  and placing them on the big screen.  All of the old cars and outfits were very appropriate and worn well by all characters.

The cast was very strong: Sean Penn, Josh Brolin, Ryan Gosling, Emma Stone, the list goes on.  Every one in this film gave a very convincing performance as either: gangster, cop, or accessory.  Penn proved his acting chops are as sharp as ever in his performance as Cohen, and Josh Brolin was very convincing as a strong willed and determined "good" cop waging war against the mob.  And of course we can assume that when there is a film starring both Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone there will inevitably be a steamy romance, especially when Emma Stone's character is connected to Mickey Cohen.  Can you say love triangle?

One of the problems I have with this film was that there were some scenes which seemed to begin and end without being properly established in the story and/or the scenes never fully developed.  There was a montage sequence depicting the law taking down criminals, but some of these scenes just sort-of stopped; left me scratching my head.  Another issue I had with the film dealt with the lack of information given to the viewer.  I don't want to spoil anything, but I was confused as to where Cohen and his goons got their information from in order for them to wreak a little havoc.  If you want to know exactly what I am talking about email me, popcornorsnore@gmail.com.

Final words: Medium-Large Popcorn
I would recommend seeing this film, assuming you are of a mature age.  It is entertaining, and most likely will not disappoint, especially at matinee or rental costs.

Until next time, happy viewing!

Review Rating : Based on popcorn sizes; small, medium, large, extra-large
                           When films get a snore zzz... worth skipping 

Argo

You should Ar-Go!  Why is that you say?  That is a very good question reader, it's because Argo is a fantastic film by a fantastic director, Ben Affleck (Academy Award winning writer of Good Will Hunting).  What Mr. Affleck did in this film was something so rare- it was magical.  Mr. Affleck was able to keep the suspense level of this film constant throughout.

From the moment the suspense began to the last few minutes of the film, the suspense and tension never faltered- in fact it kept escalating!  Every proceeding minute of this film was more intense than the minute preceding it.

Argo was based on real world events, the Iranian Revolution in 1979.  6 American embassy employees hid from the local radicals while Iran was crumbling around them.  Mr. Affleck plays in this film a CIA agent who conceives and initiates a risky plan to go into Iran and bring out his fellow Americans.  As a viewer I knew how the film was going to end, (hello?! history?!) yet Mr. Affleck was still capable of instilling so much fear throughout the theater; this was where he was brilliant in his craft.  

Where many films have intense sequences that put you on the edge of your seat, they then usually fizzle out and you are returned to a normal state of mind.  Argo took the viewer and never let go.  You are never able to calm down and relax during this film until literally the last few minutes.  Mr. Affleck, mission accomplished!

One of the best aspects of this film was the fact that the rescue plan was to make the 6 stranded Americans part of a film crew on a location scout, and for a Canadian production company no doubt.  This was especially fun for me to see since it's always great to see the inner workings of Hollywood, in fact this idea was the focus of many hilarious jokes about the film industry, "You want to come to Hollywood and act like a big shot without doing anything...you'll fit right in."

Mr. Affleck surrounded himself with a stellar cast: Alan Arkin, John Goodman, Brian Cranston.  Having classic old school actors lends itself to the validity of a fake fake movie (double fakes are intentional).   Argo is one of those films that is a necessity for movie lovers, and everybody trying not to repeat the past.  It is a good example of what film making is about: inspiring others.  This film will not let you down, I guarantee you that! I would be surprised if Mr. Affleck does not get numerous Oscar Nominations: actor, director, and picture.

Final words: Extra-Large Popcorn
This film is a must, not the best for kids because of the theme and intensity, however, everyone should see this film at some point.  Mr. Affleck keep on making masterpieces my friend, this is only the beginning!


Until next time, happy viewing!

Review Rating : Based on popcorn sizes; small, medium, large, extra-large
                           When films get a snore zzz... worth skipping  

Premium Rush

I would like to start my snore alerts off with a movie I thought could have been a candidate for the Dark Horse, Premium Rush.  This film follows New York City bike couriers who defy death daily whilst traversing the narrow passages between city cabs and buses  (yeah that's right, I have a college degree!!)  The main character Wilee, played by Joesph Gordon-Levitt (Inception, Looper, Dark Knight Rises) gets himself into trouble with a psychotic cop over a highly sought after package.  When visualizing this film it's not hard to predict the repetition of the events which take place.

Now, I would like to say that the film started out promising, hence the Dark Horse thoughts, but very quickly became boring.  The movie starts off with one of the coolest Rock n' Roll songs, Baba O'Reilly by The Who, so before any image was on my screen I was instantly loving this film, then the images started and I was hooked.  Fast paced cuts and biking sequences followed by clever CGI of GPS route mapping and slow-motion crashes.  Premium Rush had the makings of an intense film which captures the viewer.

About 17 to 20 minutes into the film I soon realized that this was going to be the same thing over and over and over.  Literally if you were to watch the first 20ish minutes of this movie you would have seen basically all that is worth seeing, afterwards your attention becomes drained; you can only watch cycling for so long until you want to change the channel (which is why the Tour de France is only shown in short segments and not in it's entirety.)

So in the end I give this one a snore, just not worth it; however, if you are waiting to be picked up or there is literally nothing better to watch on TV, (and I mean nothing, not even infomercials about the magic bullet) I would pass on this one folks.  Trust the Zzz's, they don't lie.

Final words: first 20ish-minutes!!!!!!!!!! everything else-zzzzzzzzzz....zzzzzzzzzzz
Sorry Joe, I like your work but I don't think you should mention this one in conversations...

Until next time, happy viewing!

Review Rating : Based on popcorn sizes; small, medium, large, extra-large
                           When films get a snore zzz... worth skipping 

Dark Horse - Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter

Well, I recently had the opportunity to view the film Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, and to me this is a perfect film to start the Dark Horse with.  This film was fun, hands down.  Was it a film I would climb the nearest mountain top to scream its magnificence to the rest of the world...no.  However, it's worth seeing for a fun time, especially out of RedBox (I wouldn't want to pay more then a buck for this one).   One of the things that was fun about this movie was just the idea of a figure so prominent in U.S. history doing something which has been such a hot topic in cinema for so long.

Think about this, what made Cowboy's and Alien's so entertaining?  For me it was seeing an alien movie not taking place in modern to future times.  It seems so often that when there is an alien movie it takes place in space or in modern times, but where Cowboy's succeeded was taking a notion that aliens existed and putting them into a time period no one has ever touched on.  Why wouldn't aliens be around in early America?

Now back to Lincoln killing vampires.  Take the previous mentioned equation, and change aliens to vampires.  When we see vampire movies they are either in modern times( Twilight, Blade, Underworld) or for the most part in very ancient times (Bram Stoker's, Nosferatu); Interview with a Vampire was similar to Lincoln's time though.  The difference is that someone as Prominent as Abraham Lincoln killing vampires!!!!????? Sweet deal.  Look, I'm not here saying that this movie was gold, but again worth watching.
Now this movie is a bit graphic, but Civil War vampires deserve getting their butt's kicked all up and down Gettysburg.


Final Words: watch it, eat some pretzels or chips, have a beer.  Sit back and relax.  

Les Miserables

What can I say about this film?  How about, GO SEE IT!!!!  Les Miserables for those who have been living under a rock their entire lives is an opera.  Not just an opera but arguably the best opera of modern times, if not ever.  A classic tale of the oppressed rising up to their oppressors (hello, French Revolution anyone?)  Les Mis was adapted for film by director Tom Hooper (Academy Award winning director of The King's Speech and director of a personal favorite The John Adams mini series).  The film did not disappoint when compared to the immaculate stage version.  There were some things this film had which are not present on stage: large lavish sets and non-professional singers.

Hooper didn't rely on these extravagant sets and scenery, instead his emphasis was on the singing and the message which came through the songs.  In the gut wrenching scenes, Hooper forced the viewer to focus solely on the individual singing.  The way he was able to do this was rather simple: close-up camera angles, and a shallow depth of field.  For those not educated in this world of smoke and mirrors, what I mean by camera angles is a camera shot straight on the character showing chest to head with a little room above.  By shallow depth of field, I mean that only the character is in focus while the background is soft or out of focus.  This technique made the sequences far more powerful.  By utilizing this camera technique Hooper allows the viewer to attach themselves to the individual singing thus empathize with them.  He only used this camera trick on songs where the message was that of sadness/weakness.  So, instead of your eye wondering and placing your attention elsewhere on the screen you are forced to stare right into the face and eyes of this emotional person.  This really pierces the heart.  As for the scenes depicting violence or strife, or love and happiness, his camera is much less severe allowing the whole scope of the scene take over your mind.

Now as for the non-professional singers, I'm sure there are those out there who loathed the idea that this beautiful opera has been tarnished by fakes and wanna-be's, well in this reviewers opinion, you can bite it.  The singing from every actor was top notch, not to mention the fact that all the singing was done live on film.  That's right! No lip singing, or looping.  Hooper and his genius did what was absolutely necessary for the sake of art and had these actors sing live on camera, a very costly and difficult thing to do.  For starters it takes multiple cameras in order to capture enough angles to make live singing worth while, since cutting away to a different angle is sloppy for sound (Hooper knew this and instead utilized many long takes and single cut sequences).  The result on film was flawless, and I mean flawless.  The emotion which live singing conveys is a lot more natural then that of studio recordings.  You could hear every whimper and waiver in these actors voices as they sang and cried and emoted all throughout the film.

As I sit here writing this I cannot help but think back and try to find weaknesses or issues I had, and to be totally honest with you, none stand out at this point in time.  I have to say that all the actors were exceptional, top notch performances all across the board from key actors to support.  Having said this, Hugh Jackman by far stood out as the most stellar performer within this film from start to finish.  No one ever came close to his performance.  I'm sure I am not the first person to make this suggestion, but I smell an Oscar coming Mr. Jackman's way and very possibly Mr. Hooper's way as well.  

Final Words: Bravo!!! Bravo!!! 
Extra-Large Popcorn -  Take my word, this is an excellent film and deserves to be seen!

This movie takes up an afternoon, almost three hours of your time, be prepared.  It is definitely worth the time.  

Review Rating : Based on popcorn sizes; small, medium, large, extra-large
                           When films get a snore zzz... worth skipping

Zero Dark Thirty

Zero Dark Thirty, or how I will call it from this point on-Zero Wow Thirty!  This film was solid in all ways, shapes and forms, which is especially incredible due to the fact that it is based on the real life accounts.  Granted, I'm a sucker for military anything, and despite what this film's trailer depicts, Zero Dark Thirty spends about 30 minutes of its entirety focusing on the fast paced aim and shoot tactics of Seal Team 6.  The majority of this film follows one character: CIA agent Maya.

Maya is the agent who spent her first 12 plus years at the agency pooling together leads from all angles to track down Osama bin Laden's courier.  She gathered this information from testimonials, family history, phone calls, etc.  She spent countless hours to years looking through cold case files, and obsolete forms; in the end Maya not only found the courier but bin Laden himself.  The film follows her emotional roller coaster as leads dry up, and new ones spring forth.  The film was a little slow throughout, but was intended in that aspect.

Kathryn Bigelow (Academy Award winning director of The Hurt Locker) uses the slower tempo to feed the viewer heaps of information; the viewer feels the pain and anguish Maya feels throughout the film.  I'm not going to go on a limb and say I was in suspense the whole film, however looking back, the experience left me more uneasy then calm.  As is expected with any and all encounters with terrorism, this film kept the audience and myself especially jumpy in its many suspenseful sequences.  When Maya finally gets her "green light" to raid the compound she traced the courier and bin Laden to, one can not help but feel the butterflies and anxiousness Maya and the Seals must have felt when the helicopters were taking off and the mission was a go.

Kathryn Bigelow did not disappoint in any facet of this film.  She did a remarkable job weaving this story so that each viewer felt a specific emotion when required and then want to jump for joy when the credits rolled.  This film was very detail oriented from start to finish, including very graphic images of the Seals take downs.  I do not suggest this film for viewers who are squeamish to such sequences of graphic violence and gore.  However, I feel that this film should be a requirement for all to view so as to never forget what unknown Americans do every day so that we can be safe and blind to the dangers lurking throughout the world.

Final words: Extra-Large Popcorn, GO SEE THIS FILM!!!

Parents - not a movie to bring the children to.  I was very surprised myself to hear the cries of children in the theater, I had to disconnect myself from the movie to realize that the cries were not from the film, but from the audience members themselves.

Review Rating : Based on popcorn sizes; small, medium, large, extra-large
                           When films get a snore zzz... worth skipping