Pain & Gain but little brain

Pain & Gain is the newest film to help fill out Michael Bay's resume.  As we all know Bay was the "mastermind" behind many popular box office hits such as the Transformers trilogy, the Bad Boys duo, and let's not forget Pearl Harbor...okay let's forget Pearl Harbor.  As we should forget the atrocious love story associated with Pearl Harbor, we can remember the exciting action packed sequences which Bay has been known to regularly exploit, and for these we say thank you Mr. Bay! Let's face it world, when it comes down to an action movie, regardless of if it is following alien robots or renegade Miami cops, all we expect and count on is that everything is expendable and hopefully will explode at some point during the film's entirety.  In regards to Pain & Gain the explosion factor wasn't in full force, however that doesn't mean this film was short on intense chase scenes, gun fights, or any other heart-racing, adrenaline-pumping, super-charged, mind-blowing, face numbing, something-else happening intensity we have come to know and love from any and every Michael Bay film: past, present, and in the future!  (That was a very long sentence, you're welcome!)

Pain & Gain was both different and similar to Michael Bay's usual repertoire; unlike many of his films, Pain & Gain centers on reality, no the transformers are not real.  This film follows three characters in the 90's: Daniel Lugo (Mark Wahlberg), Paul Doyle (Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson) and Adrian Doorbal (Anthony Mackie), all of whom are body building muscle mountains posing as real life members of society.

I don't think it was necessary for me to mention the decade this escapade went down; sweet fanny packs and wardrobes gentleman!

These three men (again this a true story) conceive an "evil plot" where they kidnap a rich sleezebag and force him to sign over all of his assets: money, home, business, etc.  Their next step in the plan is to murder the guy which will cover their buns...happily-ever-after!  Or not.  Since this is a true story I will spare most of the details (this also means no spoilers people) as to the fact any of you can go and do an internet search for any of these people and get the low-down.  What I will tell you is that as with most evil plots afoot, this trio spared no expense for their deed or time to actually plan it out.  Most of their actions were spur of the moment types of behavior, on the fly, mainly stemming from the fact that even when they had a plan, inevitably one or more blew their specific duty (usually The Rock's character) causing the entire scheme to collapse.  This forced them to have to "run and gun" so to speak, providing a more entertaining yet head shaking time for we the viewer.   This "amateur hour" stuff helped drive the plot to be more twisted than Princess Leia's braids, even more eviler than Skeletor

I'm so evil, and just as buff as any of those guys up above!

and about as gross as a Baby Ruth floating in a swimming pool.  About the only difference between this films plot and any plot from Quentin Tarantino is that in Pain & Gain the over-use of blood was not as present.  All of these really vivid analogies offered up by Pain & Gain leads to a fantastic visual ride with superb acting from all players key and ancillary.

It's really tough to analyze a film's story when it is based on reality.  How can one say, "I felt this characters motivation seemed forced, or it didn't seem natural to have said that or done that" when in fact it most likely happened in real life?  Of course it is safe to say and remind everyone that writers and directors are allowed a little bit of wiggle room when it comes to making films about reality, but when the viewer is reminded at the bottom of the screen that this is a "true story" we can assume that the scene in the movie was more real and less fictitious.  The dialogue is most likely different from reality, I mean I highly doubt they recording all of their conversations, and I'm some of the locations are different, there could even be a different order of events; all-in-all though the real life version holds the reigns rather tightly on the film makers when it can, so for the most part what you see is what they got.  

Another difficult hurdle to pass for me in regards to this review is that there is no character you want to root for; there's no Rocky Balboa.  Naturally, the viewer wants to get behind the characters played by Wahlberg and The Rock- I mean come on they are the stars of this film!  The problem lies with the fact that morally speaking we want to steer clear of these delinquents.  We know deep down inside that what we are watching them do is bad, frowned upon; so where do we turn?  As the viewer who do we want to identify with, who do we want to see succeed and win?  Where is the triumph we are seeking?  The answer is: nowhere.  This lack of "hero" coupled with the plot restrictions makes for a rather interesting yet difficult film making experience.  Mad props are due to you Mr. Bay.  Mission accomplished!

As with all Directors, there are some who are not fans of Michael Bay.  They feel as though his abilities are weak and his projects unworthy.  To be totally honest with you, I can't think of a film he has influenced with his gritty action filled style that I haven't liked, other than the obviously weak story behind Pearl Harbor; but come on people, we already had an amazing "biopic"-esque film depicting that infamous day at Pearl Harbor; I am of course referring to Tora! Tora! Tora!  So for Bay making Pearl Harbor post the above mentioned masterpiece, he undoubtedly needed to add a little flare to make it relevant and not just a duplication.  Sorry for the side-note rambling, back to my original main-point rambling. 

Michael Bay is actually quite the impressive film maker.  He is a good old fashioned American style director, the kind to make huge budget films which entertain, without necessarily motivating others; Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, and Martin Scorsese are some other big budget American styled film makers, yet you don't hear people complaining about them (Lucas is an exception).  I really am unsure where and why this anti-Micahel Bay campaign started, but hear it from me, he is on top of his game- so leave him alone.

One thing you can always count on from Michael Bay is his elaborate action; something which is constantly overshadowed, and just as expected and frequent, is his gritty camera work.  Bay has this niche for putting the camera right in the mix, be it hero cameras (cameras attached to the character showing up-close and personal images) camera cars (vehicles chasing and tracking along with hero cars) or one of my personal favorites, his 360 degree tracking shots.

"In motion picture terminology, the term tracking shot may refer to a shot in which the camera is mounted on a camera dolly, a wheeled platform that is pushed on rails while the picture is being taken; in this case the shot is also known as a dolly shot or trucking shot. One may dolly in on a stationary subject for emphasis, or dolly out, or dolly beside a moving subject (an action known as "dolly with").

The term tracking shot may also refer to any shot in which the camera follows a subject within the frame, such as a moving actor or a moving vehicle.^[1] When using the term tracking shot in this sense, the camera may be moved in ways not involving a camera dolly, such as via a Steadicam, via handheld camera operator, or by being panned on a tripod."

-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tracking_shot

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUZ9qAOaN5Q
(this camera move was used in Pain & Gain)

Michael Bay did not disappoint one bit when it came to his signature cinematography and choice of camera moves.  One thing this youtube clip shows is his ability to keep the audience engaged in the action sequence.  It allows you to see exactly what is happening during the mayhem, and bring the audience in on the action.  This same scene could have been shot using Shot Reverse Shot shooting/editing, meaning a shot starting with character A, a cut to a shot of character B, then back to character A.  

This process can be repeated as many times as is necessary; this is a very common editing style used throughout all forms of media:television, film, interviews, etc.  So why does Michael Bay go through the painstaking process to make these continuos 360 degree shots, the answer: because he can.  When he does he gets a much more memorable result and his rating as director goes up, plus the shot looks so much cooler!  

As for Pain & Gain, his abilities and vision aid in this psychotic world of body building con-men.  Mix in Miami's own flamboyance and abundance of beautiful people, 

you got yourself one stimulating visual explosion of color and exuberance that will leave you on the edge of your seat.  This film, although quite long in run-time (130 minutes), never leaves you hanging.  All the blanks get filled in, and within a proper order and time-frame.  We the audience are given what we need when we need it without any hesitation.  This film truly earned its "R" rating as well as its exhilarating reviews.  Pain & Gain will leave you properly satisfied and rather creeped out. You will learn life lessons about humility and desperation, while laughing and enjoying this film. 

Final Words: Large Popcorn.

This film was completely over-the-top in cinematography, plot, action and comedy. This was a put together, well-made "documentary" type of film.  The cast was excellent and even though there's no character you can get behind, it still is quite the entertaining film.  No kiddies on this one folks, many graphic scenes and language and mild nudity.

Until next time, happy viewing!

Review Rating : Based on popcorn sizes; small, medium, large, extra-large

                           When films get a snore zzz... worth skipping

Oblivion left me Oblivious

Since this is no longer a secret I will just come out and say it, I saw Oblivion and it was awkward to say the least.  For a film being raved as this year's best picture (which always annoys me when that's said, um hello it's only April?!) this one hit pretty far off the mark, in fact so far off the mark that it left me rather flabbergasted as to the point of it being made.

Oblivion, stars Tom Cruise (Jack Harper), a future human who is only on this earth to repair drones and clean up after some war.  This "war" was never really described or explained thoroughly enough; to put it into comparitive terms Tom Cruise's character is WALL-E, he even finds a plant and has a random collection of earth artifacts.  Planet Earth is destroyed beyond inhabitable conditions, so humans must venture elsewhere to live, in the case of Oblivion they moved to two locations: Titan, which is one of Saturn's moons, and the Tet, which is some weird looking triangular space station.  The clean-up team is composed of Jack Harper and Victoria (Harper's mission director, played by Andrea Riseborough).  The reason Earth is still necessary is because the Tet needs the Hydrogen generated from the ocean's of Earth, and these generators are protected by drones which are thusly repaired by Cruise...you following?

Even though earth is "uninhabitable", there are creatures known only as Scavs and they are of course trying to wreak havoc whenever and wherever they can, causing the need for drone repair.  Are we on the same page?  I hope we are, because this plot is awkward! 

I will not get too deep into the story because I hate spoilers and I would dislike writing them,  if you want to know what transpires throughout this film,  email me, or tweet me POPCORN or SNORE as for the rest of you, maybe you should go forth and see this, in RedBox or on cable.  Don't waste spend the money on viewing this in theaters, not worth it.

My issue with this film is straightforward.  For those of you dedicated readers you will know that the most important aspect to making a great film is a solid script, in the case of Oblivion, the script was about as solid as an uncooked egg, and there was no reason for this weakness.  Oblivion had so much potential coming out of the gates.  It had blockbuster written all over it!  With a solid team of writers...oh wait, nevermind.  This script was "penned" by a three man team: Joseph Kosinki (who doubled as the Director), Karl Gajdusek and Michael Arndt.  I want to share something with you I found to be alarming.  Of the three men I listed just prior to this sentence, only Michael Arndt has real writing credits to his name.  In fact he was the writer for: Toy Story 3, Brave, Little Miss Sunshine, as well as some films not yet released: The Hunger Games:Catching Fire and Star Wars: Episode VII.  Unfortunately, what this tells me is that you had one guy with experience and two guys with the desire.  The problem is that what they presented to the world in the form of Oblivion was abysmal.

Oblivion hurts further than all of this in that it had so much potential for being awesome.  Even though there was a high presence of CGI in the film it didn't have that horribly fake look, it actually looked really good.  During the films struggle to keep anyone's attention there were multiple plot twists, and I mean serious plot twists.  Things that even the most avid film goer may not predict.  Normally, this is what helps make a film, in the case of Oblivion it made the film sink faster than the Titanic...too soon?  Every plot twist and turn fell as flat as the rest of the film.  Instead of taking these little plot point spikes, in the otherwise flat lined story, and grow with the incline towards the spectacular, they were let go and left to fizzle out.  The viewer was given tidbits of information which move along the story and should help elevate our interests, but they were never utilized the way they should have been.  At any of these points in the story, the film could have sat up and exploded towards an exciting resolution...not the case. Ughhhh and to think I saw this in IMax.

In the end I realized that Oblivion was none other than a fan boys interpretation of what Sci-Fi should be/already is.  There were far too many coincidental characters, story lines, and ideas to be anything other than that.  The Scavs in this film resembled Darth Vader and the Sand People from Star Wars;

Cruise's character was WALL-E; the final outcome utilized Independence Day's attack on the mother ship; a flash back of space exploration had a very Star Trek feel to it, minus the captains log; even the ultimate baddy in Oblivion looked like Hal 9000 from 2001: a Space Odyssey.

Even a space craft from one of Cruise's flashbacks was named the Odyssey.  I know it's been said that there are no original scripts out there, no original stories left, every rock has been overturned, every nook and cranny exploited, but come on here guys!  You couldn't have made this any less similar to the other movies out there?  You even had Tom Cruise dog fighting in his "plane" against the evil drones... Top Gun anybody?  Look at the movie poster for crying out loud, what's that about?

By the way, Morgan Freeman was also in this film, woopty-do!!!  He wasn't in the film long enough for the viewer to understand and connect with his character, which is another reason as to why this film was a flop.

The weak story as I have mentioned is the ultimate bad guy in this film.  It's rough because I felt as though the acting was rather good.  Sure some of the dialogue was odd and out of place, but as I've been saying people, when your script blows like the Santa Ana's then you are bound to have fall-out elsewhere.  I'm not going to lie about this one here readers.  I am on the fence about the score.  There were moments when I was more entertained and less bored, as well as those plot twist moments when my brain wanted to say, "Boyhowdy let's do this!" but sadly I must stick to my guns, and shoot this film right between its eyes.  Please see below for the final words.   

		Final Words: zzz. The look of the film and the direction in which it was heading were neat, even the acting was fine, but the lack of story drive and pulse kept this film grounded.  If you decide you must see this film skip the theaters, or at least find the cheapest tickets. Until next time, happy viewing! Review Rating : Based on popcorn sizes; small, medium, large, extra-large                            When films get a snore zzz... worth skipping

The Perks of Being a Wallflower

As with all decisions made by a two person party, choosing a film on a given night is just as difficult as is any and all "major" decisions.  While at RedBox the other night the vote came down to a heads-up, face-off between my choice, Lincoln, and my CEO's choice, The Perks of Being a Wallflower.  I'm sure you are all attentive enough to have noticed the title to this review thus answering the burning question in your minds.  Yes.  We rented and watched The Perks of Being a Wallflower, and to be totally honest with you all, I'm glad.

This film pleasantly surprised me because let's be honest, it doesn't exactly scream testosterone explosion military awesomeness.  In fact, for those who have seen the trailer, what oozes from the dark images is some rather depressing footage.  I'll put it this way, this film is no light-hearted comedy or raucous buddy flick; this story is a very deep and thought provoking drama centering around something many of us can sympathize with: being the outcast.

Can't you just feel the loneliness?

The story centers around Charlie (Logan Lerman, Percy Jackson) the new freshman face in high school trying to survive the halls, counting down each day until his graduation, only 1,385 days to go, WOOHOO!!  Charlie has a social setback because he had spent a significant amount of his recent time in a hospital dealing with a mental breakdown following his best friends death, so when he arrives for his first day of high school he is already tarnished because of the stigma behind being hospitalized as well as the new guy; to his fellow schoolmates he is damaged goods.  Health issue+new guy issue+smarty pants= X, solve for X (Hint: not popular).  As is the case with most stories fictional and non-fictional, Charlie soon discovers a group of people whom embrace his personality and quirks; one of whom is none other then Emma Watson (Hermione Granger).

As I'm sure you can guess, Charlie and Sam (Watson's character) become very close, and in a few instances are romantically close.  The only problem is that Sam and Charlie's other friends, an eclectic bunch of rag tag individuals, are all seniors.  This makes the story more straightforward in that we know, and so does Charlie, that this friendship will split apart as the older group moves on to college.   It is safe to say that the "romance" between Charlie and Sam, although not made-up or one sided, is in fact limited, especially since Sam seems to be dating some older guy.  Three sides equal a triangle!  This part of the story was a little far-fetched; even though it's not uncommon for a high school senior to be dating a college student, it is however strange for that same high school senior in that same college-guy relationship to be romantically involved with her freshman friend.  Given that this is an eclectic bunch they seem to be more accepting of the idea of a senior girl having feelings for a freshman guy and vice versa, however, I don't know how high school was when this film was set (the '90s), all I know is that when I was the freshman, this did not seem to be happening all too frequently or for that matter, ever.  Oh, how the times they are a changing, take it away Bob Dylan!

Instead of relying on crazy technological or intricate camera moves or sequences, magical CGI forests, hi-speed fight scenes or a bazillion gallons of blood and gore, this film stuck to basic camera and editing tricks.  One such thing this film did, which is nothing "new" but also not that easy to do, is "matches on action".  A match on action occurs when the camera cuts from something like a hand putting a communion wafer into ones mouth, to the same hand placing a strip of Acid into one mouth.  What we the viewer sees is one movement, which then transitions into another scene.  When the camera pulls away we see that Charlie is no longer in church but instead at a party.  This is utilized with similarly shaped items or similar motions: a close-up of a face screaming to a close-up of a face yawning.  Similar looks but two completely different meanings within the story.  This technique aides itself to the carry-over of one idea to another; keeps the flow of time moving, preventing it from becoming slowed or chunky.

Note the bone and spaceship are similarly shaped.  So to cut from the bone to the spaceship denotes similarities in the objects as well as continuity within the story line.

Besides using "classic" transition techniques, The Perks of Being a Wallflower was one solid story from start to finish.  It relied on a masterful script to engage the audience which allowed the characters to connect to the viewers, and since this film was adapted from the novel of the same name, one would expect the story to be powerful.  The dialogue was very crisp and proper for the situations, nothing was forced or awkward, certainly no Chasing Mavericks.  The story had numerous plot twists throughout, and yet by the time the credits rolled I was left with no questions.  When this film ended my CEO asked me what I thought of the movie, my brain was temporarily frozen as I searched for something negative to say.  After this brief moment of silence I came up with, "It was amazing!"  This was a rather amazing moment indeed, because I went into this film fully expecting to be blown asleep, not blown away, and to be honest, the word amazing isn't exactly being used to describe most movies flowing out of Hollywood these days.

What is a great script without a great cast? I would have to say that the cast of this film was rather spectacular as well.  I was reluctant about Percy Jackson and Hermione Granger starring in such a deep adult film because, they seemed "soft" too "Disney".

I mean come on! You can't Expelliarmus out of the fact that neither of these two pictures make you think serious adult dramas are possible, am I right?

Even though the cast was initially a little suspect, those hesitations disappeared relatively quickly from this film.  It's weird because this group of rebellious teens seemed almost too generic on the surface: a stoner, a goth girl with half shaved head and piercings, a gay guy, an outcasted awkward kid, Hermione, etc. but once their individual characteristics came forth and they were allowed within the story to become a specific part of the group, they really turned into a very well-rounded circle of friends.  Each character/friend had their own personality traits which when brought to the surface of the overall story helped add to the others, thus strengthening and ultimately morphing everyone else so that their personal boundaries became softer and more easily penetrated by the others; a cohesive unit.  As I said before, this story was very solid, and there were no stones unturned come the credits; all questions answered, thankfully.  

The Perks of Being a Wallflower really was the complete "heroes journey".  The hero, Charlie, went from being a social outcast- to being a part of a group of individuals where each person shines a little different- back to being alone in high school again.  This second time around Charlie is wiser, and more experienced making it easier for him to cope with the idea of being without the friends he has grown to love.  Even though in the end of the film all of his friends have gone away to college, you no longer feel sorry for the guy, instead you feel happy for him, almost proud of him. This film is smart, smart, smart.

Final Words: Large Popcorn.

This film was a complete film from start to finish, the only part of this film that was overly flashy was the story.  It will make you think, maybe cry, but most importantly leave you satisfied and not looking for more.  I recommend this film for when you want something that doesn't push the pace, or for date night.  The only regret I have for this film is that I didn't see it earlier.

Until next time, happy viewing!

Review Rating : Based on popcorn sizes; small, medium, large, extra-large

                           When films get a snore zzz... worth skipping

Life of Pi

I know that it seems as though I'm late to this party, but what can I say, I've had other films to watch and write about for you all.  So, without further adieu I present to thee... Popcorn or Snore's official review of Life of Pi.

This was the most recent film to come from Academy Award winning director, Ang Lee.  The minute I heard he was nominated for Life of Pi I knew he would be adding another gold statue to his shelf-I swear.  It's no surprise that Ang Lee has the correct recipe to make a feature so impressive that the Academy practically throws these Oscars at him.  In all seriousness however, Ang Lee does have the special ability to achieve exactly the right amount of emotion from his actors.

During this film I never once felt that any emotion or character direction was inappropriate.  It is the responsibility of the director to harness his actors talent in front of the camera, to that I say, "Bravo, sir!"  It is also due to the fact that the actors used to play Pi at the various ages shown in this film were on top of their craft.  Suraj Sharma, who plays young Pi, and Irrfan Khan, who plays older Pi, were both incredibly good in the role.  The interesting aspect behind these two actors is that their list of roles prior to Life of Pi is nothing to dote on.  Khan has been in more films than Sharma, but seems as though his roles have been part of rather "small" features, not many blockbusters; and Sharma has played one character in a feature, Pi Patel. I have seen some top notched actors stink it up from time to time so the fact that these two men were able to come into this film and knock it out of the park is extremely impressive.

Life of Pi was a complete film from start to finish, every hole was filled and question was answered; the acting and directing was not overshadowed by the incredible plot, adapted from a book.  This story revolves around Pi, a young man from India.  His family owns and operates a zoo, but due to some financial garbage, the city decides it wants back the park in which their zoo inhabited.  So, Pi and his family pack up their belongings, including their animals, and board a Japanese freighter bound for Canada.  As is popular in all films utilizing sea crossings, there is a massive storm which pounds the freighter causing the ship to capsize and nearly all the crew and gear aboard sink as the vessel descends to its final resting place in the unforgiving sea.  Cue some sharks and some fast-paced sequencing, now we find ourselves on a life boat inhabited by Pi, a Zebra with broken legs, an Orangutan, a Hyena, a Rat and last but not least a Bengal Tiger.  Talk about your reunion from hell.  Needless to say, this is not the ideal setting for a sea rescue.

The entire rest of the film revolves around Pi struggling for survival in this life boat, bobbing around the Pacific, encountering all sorts of sea life from whales to phosphorescent krill (observe below). As each day passes Pi occupies his time strategically planning on how to keep himself and his "friends" alive.

Pi continuously encounters fantastical happenings throughout his adventure, which includes landing on a human shaped island.  Realizing that this island will eventually kill him, he leaves and ultimately hits land in Mexico.  He is rescued by some locals and hospitalized.  The film ends with Pi telling his story to Japanese officials as he is the only survivor from the lost ship.

One of the coolest plot points was that this film and its perilous journey were not happening currently, but from a narrated memory; we were looking back into the past, but not like Back to the Future.  In a present time period a writer is being told about this adventure from a grown-up Pi.  The film cuts back-and-forth from present day to the past multiple times allowing for the roller coaster ride to find a smooth spot here and there as we can only watch Pi and the tiger fight so many times.

I have addressed that Life of Pi is a standout film, solid from start to finish: story, acting, directing, etc.; my problem however, and you had to have known this was coming, is the excessive use of CGI.  I know, I know, why do I have this issue? Again it's simply because in a film which already has an unbelievable story,  the enhancement from CGI makes things less palpable, meaning that it's even less likely for the viewer to follow/connect with your film.  Often times in these films I find myself more caught up with trying to discern between what is real and what is fake than fully encompassing the viewing experience and getting lost entirely in the film.  It is distracting to try to figure out how these scenes could have been accomplished in real life.  To help prove my issue, I have supplied production stills with before and after looks of the film.  Enjoy!

Maybe this doesn't mean anything to you, and I can admit that it shouldn't bother me the way it does, but I just cannot help the disgust.  I truly feel that CGI is making our films less valuable.  Ask yourselves this, "How would this film have been made 40 years ago?"  The answer: place the actor in a boat in a lake or the ocean.  Maybe the tiger would be real, maybe it would be added later using multiple exposure,

"In photography and cinematography, multiple exposure is a technique in which the camera shutter is opened more than once to expose the film multiple times, usually to different images. The resulting image contains the subsequent image/s superimposed over the original. The technique is sometimes used as an artistic visual effect and can be used to create ghostly images or to add people and objects to a scene that were not originally there. It is frequently used in photographic hoaxes."
                                                                 -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_exposure

at least using real scenery and props; what you're seeing is what you get.  Think of the film Jaws.  Jaws was shot in the ocean, on a real boat, with real sky behind them and real water.  Now, of course the shark was an animatronic, but they had no choice once the shark's manager declined the job following unsuccessful contract negotiations.  I literally can go all day about CGI and its horribleness, but I shan't, at least for now.  Look y'all CGI is for some and not for others.

I understand why film makers "love" CGI.  It allows them to make their vision of the film's world into a reality, okay, I will give you that.  Some directors have mentioned that they didn't like their pre CGI film because the landscape or special effects didn't look the way in which they envisioned.  James Cameron had a complete script for Avatar years before he filmed Titanic, however, he sat on that script for over a decade because he knew that at the moment the script was ready that the CGI he required for his vision was unavailable.  He waited for the technology to be up to his standards to film Avatar.  I can agree that CGI helps film makers achieve their desired look, I just wish it was used sparingly.  Besides, without CGI Lord of the Rings would be no different from Deliverance, well almost; I don't remember any banjos in Lord of the Rings.

Readers, as you expand your mind by reading this material, and as you undoubtedly have read all my other reviews numerous times, I'm sure by now you are either tired of my jawing, and/or are thinking to yourself, "Is Popcorn or Snore ripping this film a new one?"  Well to answer your question I say...


Final Words: Large Popcorn.

Even though this film relied too heavily on CGI, I was still impressed with the look of the film and more importantly the story.  I highly recommend this to you, world, and know that most of you will agree that this story is very powerful.  This film should be shown to the young sparingly, but none-the-less.  

Until next time, happy viewing!

Review Rating : Based on popcorn sizes; small, medium, large, extra-large

                           When films get a snore zzz... worth skipping

G.I. Joe: Retaliation

G.I. Joe: Retaliation is the newest film to have fallen prey to a Popcorn or Snore rating.  In this years sequel to 2009's G.I. Joe : The Rise of Cobra, many things are in play: bad and good.  For those of you who have lived your life without every being privy to the Hasbro world of G.I. Joe, than I say, " that sucks".

As a child growing up, I was not only witness to, but a fan of the cartoon as well as the action figures, both 12" and 4"ish versions (that's right I made up a word/phrase, sue me Merriam-Webster).  For those who don't know, the G.I. Joes were an elite military fighting force hand-picked to fight against the evil Cobra Commander and his minions.  The Joes were made up of all walks of life: gender, ethnicity, creed, etc., and in turn so was the evil Cobra force.  Basically, it was the Burger King Kids Club all grown up and enlisted throughout the world with a few doppelgängers thrown in for fun. Retaliation and The Rise of Cobra followed these same principles, and applied them to a multi-million dollar film franchise, only without the same necessity or success.

(see, the resemblance is uncanny!)

The original G.I. Joe cartoons, and possibly the comic books which span way back (like 75 years back, which is further than my cognizance extends), dealt with morality and conquering societal issues, more than just fighting Cobra.  In fact, every episode ended with a little Public Service Announcement ranging from what to do when presented with a bloody nose, to how to deal with bullies or even downed power lines.  Gee, Thanks Joes!!  This segment even had its own slogan, "Knowing is half the battle! G.I. Joe!!!"  Man, what a wholesome program.

Now, as far as these cinematic endeavors go, this notion of taking charge of the youth and the population to inform and motivate was lost long before the script made it to Paramount.  Sorry guys, but these films aren't wholesome and don't end with a "moral to the story".  The only motivation these two films gave me was the motivation to never make a cheesy predictive film.  The acting in this film was better than the first, but still pretty weak.  It was difficult to make a strong connection to any of the characters, good or bad.  Most of these issues were due to the fact that the script was flat throughout.  Every time it seemed as though there would be a breakthrough, or there actually was a breakthrough, the outcome was less than spectacular; and for this I say, "Not Cool!"  If your film fails at the most basic level of story telling, then what do you have left?  Even if you get the most top-notch actors available, you still have "a pile" of a film.

As a matter of fact, Paramount fired the director of the first film because the pay-off was one of Paramount's smallest in their recent history.  Question for you: whose fault is that small pay-off?  The director, or the screen writer?  Paramount should have spent more time and resources to acquire a more interesting script.  Instead, they point blame in the direction of the man who had no control of the agreed on script. A film can only go so far with fancy action sequences and huge explosions, however, if the script is missing a good plot, a complete story, and big-screen worthy dialogue, then movie will be a snore.

Retaliation and The Rise of Cobra are relatively entertaining regardless of the lame scripts; the second one of them (Retaliation for those not keeping track) more so with a better cast and slightly better plot.  There were points in this film which left you scratching your head as to what was happening, and sometimes as to why it was happening.  In Retaliation, Channing Tatum (Duke) was quickly replaced (spoiler alert) with Dwayne "The Rock " Johnson, I don't know how a film about the Joes who are led by Duke doesn't then revolve around Duke.  Instead of Duke leading the charge, Road Block (The Rock's character) leads a small thrown together team in the hopes of stopping the villain from destroying the world.

This film delayed its release date by a whopping nine months!  This normally does not happen in Hollywood, which is why I expected this film to be better than the first.  They were re-shooting scenes, adding to the plot, converting the movie to 3-D, we hoped they would address and fix the awkward plot issues, but unfortunately it seems that they did not.

Another awkward plot issue was that Cobra Commander, the leader of Cobra, seemed to also have a drastically decreased role in this film.  How can the two leaders of their respective sides not be overly present in a film revolving around the ongoing battle between the Joes and Cobra? The lack of many of the characters from the first film and the inclusion of new characters requires new back stories, as well as new actors; actors whose names were about as unfamiliar to me as I hope none of you are in regards to the order of the two films.

(Quick Test, answer aloud! Hint: the answers are in this review)

1. Name the first G.I. Joe film:
2. Name the second G.I. Joe film:
3. Name the third G.I. Joe film:
4. Number 3 is a trick question...for now!
5. Name not the first G.I. Joe film:
6. Name the other film:
7. Name any remaining films:

Score :    /35

Congratulations!  This concludes the impromptu "G.I. Joe Sequencing" test.  

If your desired score was not achieved, please contact your local Popcorn or Snorer for a rescheduled date.

Now, I know what you're thinking, "Damn that test!  I thought I was going to be a spectator, not a participator!" Popcorn or Snore says this to you, "You're welcome!"  You see planet Earth, not everyone can get by on their good looks or witty rants about films good and bad, sometimes you have to jump into the fray with both feet, and fight off the torrents of garbage films (Ghost Rider anyone?).  There's a diamond in the rough people, we just gotta find it; and with G.I. Joe:Retaliation, we all better start, because there's a whole lot of rough...dig in!

At this point I would like to point something out, both of the Joe films use far too much CGI (remember my CGI knowledge bomb from the Oz review? Here! ) for my personal taste, but if I was to grade this film solely on CGI, than there are maybe not enough "zzz's" to fit that bill, so instead I will only use that issue as support.  Back to the write up...

As with the first film, the second had its Diamond moments!  Retaliation had some entertaining moments thanks to its predecessor film.  Most of it was a yawn, but there were some moments of excitement which usually surrounded, two characters as well as a big name "surprise" actor.  Brendan Fraser in the first, and a cameo by John McClane (Bruce Willis) in the second.

Ever since Encino Man, Brendan Fraser has been one actor whom I personally enjoy, no matter his poor choices in gigs, and come on...Die Hard?  Need I say more?

(what's not to love ?! ok, maybe not the best choice of picture, oh well)

So look, to make this point seem as though there is a direction, I will say this as clear as possible because I feel as though I've been on the fence about this film, these films stink but they are fairly entertaining, especially if you see the film with younger people (age or maturity); the key to enjoying yourself with these is to suspend all disbelief until the credits roll and don't invest too much thought into them.  Neither of these two films, and I'm saying this first, right now!, nor the rumored third installment, will find any glory within the ever "wise" Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.

I know it seems weird that this review wasn't focused solely on G.I. Joe: Retaliation, but I truly feel that since the stories continue into one another, that I couldn't make a fair evaluation about one without also evaluating the other, I found it appropriate to speak about both; besides they basically were cookie cutter films anyway, just add water...BINGO!

Final Words: Small Popcorn.

I bagged and bagged all day on this film, but when it comes down to it, I would probably watch it again, on t.v. for free!  I know I've said it's pretty bad, but as long as I don't expect much from it, then I cannot be disappointed.  As for audiences:y our semi-young children would probably get a kick out of this, especially in 3-D.  Other than that, this film is no gem.

Until next time, happy viewing!

Review Rating : Based on popcorn sizes; small, medium, large, extra-large

                           When films get a snore zzz... worth skipping

Evil Dead

This film kept me bouncing back and forth: watch it, or pass?  I'm sure you can assume based on the fact you are reading this right now (good reader, keep it up) I decided, rather last minute (20 minutes before the start of the picture), that I owe it to you, and the Evil Dead legend, to watch and ultimately review 2013's remake of Evil Dead.  Here I go: AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!  Yes, just as the entire ad campaign for this film states, this is quite the terrifying endeavor.  Now, is this the scariest movie you will ever see?  I highly doubt that.  I mean some of us have seen Ghost Rider starring Nicholas Cage.  The difference, Evil Dead is supposed to be scary and Ghost Rider is only scary bad.

I feel as though I need to start by saying one thing in particular, I LOVE the original Evil Dead series.  Evil Dead, Evil Dead 2 and who doesn't love Army of Darkness?  Okay, back to the 2013 remake.  This version was directed by Fede Alvarez, who prior to this film directed...um....well...not really anything, 4..... 4 short films.  For those of you counting, this means that Fede Alvarez has 1 feature length film under his belt, Evil Dead.  Why did Sam Raimi (Director/Writer/Producer of the Original Evil Deads, and Director of the first 3 Spider-Man films, Director of Oz: the great and powerful) decide that Alvarez would be a good fit for remaking his breakthrough film?  The answer to this is rather unexpected.

Originally, Sam Raimi approached Fede Alvarez because Alvarez had made a short in which a robot terrorizes a city, called Panic Attack.  Raimi liked this short so much that he contacted Alvarez to make his short into a full length feature.  As it goes so often in Hollywood, that idea was squashed long before it had the chance to take hold. It turned out Alvarez had another idea up his sleeve.  Apparently he was a huge fan of the original Evil Dead films, and told Raimi that he would like to remake/update Evil Dead.  And that ladies and gentleman is how we got to this place.

As with many remakes, this Evil Dead did not follow Raimi's to the letter.  Instead, Alvarez had his own original characters, back-stories, and happenings allowing this Evil Dead to be more of an homage to Raimi's rather than a remake.  I'll put it this way.  Alvarez's Evil Dead is to Sam Raimi as J.J. Abrams' Super 8 is to Steven Spielberg.  The two films side by side have similarities, and a general over-all theme, but the way it plays out and who it plays with is not the same.  This was both a gift and a curse.

The gift was that it seemed more original.  It allowed the story to have twists which us "Deadites" would be unfamiliar, however, the curse was that the story in certain instances seemed extra unbelievable.  I would love to get into details, but I feel that to spoil anything in this film beyond the necessary for this review, would not allow other fans, new and old, to see this film in their own eyes.  I know it seems contradictory for me to write a review then say, "go make your own opinion" but I have said this before and will keep saying this, 

"I am one man!

I am one opinion!

I insist, for the most part, 

that you all go see a film,
 regardless of my rants."

I am by no means saying that this film is not worth seeing, especially if you enjoy the originals, or just simply enjoy scary films.  However, I do have some warnings; do not see Evil Dead:

1. If you don't like scary movies.
2. If the sight of extreme, and I mean extreme, gore disgusts you.
3. If you are under the age of 17 (sorry young readers, this film is rated "R" for a good reason)
4. If you hated the original Evil Dead (let's be honest, who hated those MASTERPIECES, am I right?)
5. If you have heart conditions.
6. If you enjoy secluded cabins.
7. If you get squeamish.
8. If you are prone to gagging.
9. If the scariest movie you have seen is Harry Potter.
10. If you are running low on underpants.

I feel that this list should be a requirement for a film of this magnitude.

For those of us who dislike the CGI, and who enjoy throwing out otherwise perfectly good underwear once the credits roll, then you will love this film.  Fede Alvarez and his Producers, Sam Raimi and Mr. Bruce Campbell (the best mother f***ing actor on this planet-HIRE HIM FOR EVERY ROLE! and the star of the Original films)

(See I told you so)

decided that it would be best to do this the "good ole fashioned way", meaning no CGI gore.  All the blood, and nastiness was "real".  The blood was movie blood of course, and any and all limb cutting was done with prosthetic pieces.  What I am getting at is that instead of taking the easy road which looks lame and too fake, they took the road less popularly traveled these days in order to give this film a more realistic look to all its horror, a real throw-back gift to the original and its fans.  They deserve all the credit in the world for putting the "ory" in "gory" and saying "kiss my bunz" to the computer graphics.

One of the coolest things this film offered, besides the special effects, was something most people would never notice: its sound.  I was told by a (in)credible source, that the sound of this film was layered with the sound from the original film.  How did they do that? is what I'm sure most of you are thinking.  The answer-digitize.  What these film minds did was take the original 1/4 inch sound recordings from the original film, ran it through a reader which turns the physical sound into a computer file.  This then allows them to alter the sounds, whether they slow it down, speed it up, or in the case of this film, layer it beneath the sound captured and recorded specifically for this version.  What this does to the film is gives it a much deeper audio perspective allowing for the sound effects to register on multiple levels; if you love the original film then the sound will trigger your memory of it.  The other thing it adds to the film is a certain "bad-ass" appeal.  Just another unique feature to go along with the special effects.

I'm sure at this point I have you all curious as to who this mystery person feeding me information is, well I suppose it won't hurt to fill you in.  My inside guy is none other than Bruce Campbell himself.  Don't believe me?  Observe. 

(Here I am meeting the Almighty Bruce Campbell one week ago, and might I add that he is one stand-up Groovy guy!)

                        
Now do you believe me?  

So all in all this film was pretty cool.  It looked cool, sounded cool, and the story was cool (although not as cool since it didn't have Ashley "Ash" J. Williams).  Yes, this film is over-the-top gory and creepy, but what would you expect from a film called Evil Dead?... Bunnies?



Final Words: Large Popcorn.
For its genre this movie deserves a large popcorn.  I know I had a lot to say about this film, some bad but most of it was good.  Believe me this was not a hard score to give.  Please see this film if you enjoy a good fright, parents do yourselves a favor and don't let the kiddies see this one.

Until next time, happy viewing!

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

Chasing Mavericks

Chasing Mavericks is the film in which I had a lot of hope for prior to viewing it.  The reason for this was due to the fact that Chasing Mavericks, originally titled, Of Men and Mavericks, was shot in my home town's back yard!  That's right reader, it's no surprise that I am from The World Renown San Francisco Bay Area, in fact, I even have family who live in Santa Cruz.  Back in the day, I surfed a little down in Half Moon Bay; so the location and setting was something I was expecting to be fun and reminiscent.  As I said before I had a lot of hope this film would be good.

This film is based on a true story of Jay Moriarity (Johnny Weston), who was a local surfer from Santa Cruz California.  From an early age Jay was more interested with surfing than in reality, and this was overly evident in his daily routine.  He would wake up early to go surfing or train in order to be a better surfer, go to school, faint in class (from holding his breath too long, again in order to be a stronger surfer), and went to work at a local pizza spot to make some cash to help out his mother. The viewer can see his true calling and identity belonged to the ocean, not to the daily grind.

Jay idolizes this local surf legend and neighbor named Frosty (Gerard Butler), and the two form a strange bond.  Their "friendship" starts out when Frosty realizes that Jay is secretly following him around, including to his super secret surf location in Half Moon Bay known as Mavericks.  The reason Frosty even spends time with Jay is due to the fact that he is training/conditioning Jay to become a strong enough surfer in order for Jay to surf the omega huge swells which frequent the Half Moon Bay area.  (How huge of swells?  Look below!)  These two guys have things in common deeper then the ocean; Jay's father abandoned him when he was little and both of Frosty's parents died when he was a child.  It is nice to see Jay and Frosty bond through their common abandonment issues and love of surfing, very "reality television" of them.  As one would expect from two people sharing common family issues as well as other common interests, Jay and Frosty become closer and closer eventually leading to a father-son relationship, which was touching and very predictable.

 

How huge you ask?  Well let's just say these waves typically reach around 25 feet, with the potential of maxing out at over 80 feet.(This is the actual image from the real-life Jay riding Mavericks; Jay was 6'2" so you can imagine how big that wave was.  Sadly, he died 7 years after that picture was taken, hence the "was".)...So as I was saying, omega huge swells.  Look Back up!

Now down to the nitty gritty.

Films are made up of various elements: acting, screenplay, directing, etc.  Where this film excelled was a much narrower list of elements- one to be exact: appearance.  What I mean by this is not only its cinematography, but also, and more importantly, its locations or settings.  Any surf film worth its sea salt should have most of its scenes in the water, and Chasing Mavericks did not disappoint.  Chasing Mavericks had shots both above and under the water; Small waves and BIG waves; it had surfing shots and diving shots, even some Sea life: seal and great white shark; it had wipe-outs and spectacular rides; it also had an extremely tense, nerve racking viewing experience.

(This is a production picture, notice the camera operator on the red jet-ski; very impressive locations)

How could you not want to look away at these mega waves?  All of the scenes involving the Mavericks swells were difficult to watch at many points, especially if you have a fear of the ocean.  The shear magnitude of how minuscule a human is to a 50 foot wall of water is very humbling.  Each time these dare-devil surfers paddled up the face of these immense walls of water I found myself holding my breathe; literally having miniature panic attacks during those instances.  I'm sure a lot of us know what it's like to hammered by a wave, and some of us know what it's like to submerged for longer than we feel comfortable (we've all gone into the deep end of a pool without the gills needed to survive long periods of submersion).  One can only imagine how terrifying it must be to not know if you are going to be swallowed up by the unforgiving sea, or granted a pass over it just before it crashed down in the space once occupied by us mortals.

Where this film lacked was unfortunate, because it was basically everything else.  The script was very sub-par, and the acting wasn't all that much better.  I felt that the majority of the lines seemed forced and overly cliche.  A lot of the dialogue seemed as though it was taken directly from other cheesy films.  There were a few scenes that seemed emotionally genuine, but as a whole it seemed like it was shot at the first script read.  One thing that stood out and actually made me LOL (laugh out loud for those who aren't obsessed with online/text lingo) was when Frosty and Jay embraced after Jay caught his wave at Mavericks, and Frosty told Jay that he loved him.  I'm sorry, some people would find that endearing, and usually I would too, however, based off the previously flat emotional enthusiasm, this seemed almost comical.

I wouldn't really recommend this film, unless you love surfing or the ocean.  This is at the most an easy going film to have on in the background while you go about your daily life i.e. read Popcorn or Snore, DO IT!!!!!



Final Words: zzz.
This film looked amazing from start to finish,  all water scenes where visually spectacular, however, the film lacked far too much for its prettiness to make up.  Skip this terrifying thrill ride, you won't miss any zzz's if you do.

Until next time, happy viewing!

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