Review: Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets

When I saw the first trailer for Luc Besson's Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets, I was excited. I loved The Fifth Element and have watched that movie so many times its ridiculous. I was really looking forward to seeing Valerian.
All that said, when I walked out of Valerian a while ago, I was left feeling vaguely cheated.
The movie is visually stunning. The previews, amazingly enough, do NOT give away the plot. Rihanna's performance is amazing.
All that said, the movie has some things working against it: its plot, its actors and their characters.
The plot in Valerian isn't convoluted, it's barely there. A large portion of the movie is taken up by a sidequest where Valerian has to save Laureline from cannibalistic aliens.  That bit was interesting, but not really essential to the main story. It didn't really add anything, but window dressing.
As for the actors? I have no idea who Dane Dehann is or what other films he's appeared in. He seems serviceable enough in this film, as done Cara Delevigne, but neither of their performances was stellar. Clive Owens simply plays his in-stock character. At this point, you could drop the man into any film and he would be playing the exact same character. Rihanna's performance was quite nice, although her character was essentially pointless.
And that is where this movie fails so utterly. The characters of Valerian and Laureline, our protagonists, the people we're supposed to relate to and cheer for, are a couple of dicks.
Seriously.
Valerian comes across as a smugly arrogant little bastard while Laureline is just bitter. We're supposed to believe these people are in the military? Neither displays anything approaching military discipline or decorum.  You know you've got a problem when the most likeable characters in the film either (a) die or (b) are a cannibal-chef.
I've read that Luc Beson had been plotting to make this movie for years. Well, I hope he enjoyed what he made because I'm not sure how many other people will.
On a scale of 1 to 5, I'd give Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets a 2. Although its visual spectacle might shine on the big screen, the unlikability of its central characters forces me to consign this film to the on-demand queue or DVD bin.

The Mummy (2017) - A Review

The Mummy (2017)

The Mummy is a deeply flawed movie. 

Intended as the first in a shared monster universe, The Mummy  stars Tom Cruise and Sofia Boutella. Cruise plays a self-involved soldier-of-fortune, while Boutella plays the title character.  Cruise walks through his role, while Boutella sinks her teeth into her's.  Despite this, despite the presence of Russell Crowe as Doctor Jekyll, this movie is bland and unoriginal.

The biggest problem with the movie, in my opinion, is that there's no one to route for. Cruise's character is just too unlikable, while Boutella is clearly the villain.

On a scale of 1 to 5, I would give The Mummy a 2; wait for this one to come out on DVD or On-Demand. Give the theater a pass.

POTC: Dead Men Tell No Tales - A Review

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales opened this past weekend to a massive $324 million opening. So it's a real pity that the movie is such a clunker. None of the performances are particularly good, the story is a rehash of the same old, same old and the villain of the piece is completely two-dimensional.
Johnny Depp returns to familiar territory with Captain Jack Sparrow, but his performance in DMTNT is completely lacking in interest or the zest that the character had in previous installments.
Javier Bardem's Captain Salazar had the potential to be genuinely creepy, but his performance was so ham-fisted and blunt that any menace was removed by the slightly constipated expression the character maintained throughout the production.  And honestly, considering what he had to work with, constipation may have been preferable to other reactions.
Brenton Thwaites is one of the newcomers to the franchise. He plays Henry Turner, the son of Will Turner and Elizabeth Swann.  He's certainly good looking, but he brings absolutely nothing to the role besides pouty lips and puppy-dog eyes. The role of Henry could have been played by any other vaguely hot blonde actor working in Hollywood. Yes, his character is that bland.
The other newcomer to the cast is Kaya Scodelario, who plays Carina Smyth. There's actually some interesting things about her character, and she does play a linchpin role in the movie. However, the character is never really utilized as anything more than a nag and a piece of set dressing.
And finally, we have the return and exit of Geoffrey Rush as Captain Hector Barbossa. I'll admit, I have an enormous affection for Barbossa's character. I was secretly hoping that he might get a spin-off movie, but chances seem slim that it will happen now.  Rush does what he can with the character, but even Barbossa feels stilted and ineffectual in this movie. Mores the pity, considering it's probably his last appearance in the franchise.
As for the plot? Its a paint-by-numbers plot that feels squashed, as if they were trying to cram three movies worth of ideas into a single film.  It doesn't drag. Quiet the opposite. DMTNT rushes from one scene to the next with a sort of spiritless energy that's more tiring than exhilarating.
There were some nice special effects, but the movie didn't even have the benefit of gorgeous scenery. If you're filming in Australia and New Zealand, why not take advantage of the scenery?
So, is Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales worth seeing?
In my humble opinion, I would say 'No.' I would skip going to see this in the movie, and maybe catch it on DVD or on-demand.  On a scale of 1 to 5, I'd probably give this film a 2.
And, in all honesty, at this point they should either kill the franchise (unlikely given the cash it's made so far), or spin it in a new direction.

Fantastic Beasts & Where to Find Them

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them is the latest cinematic child of world-famous author, J.K. Rowling.  Best known for her Harry Potter books, Fantastic Beasts is set in that same world, but seventy years before the events of the Potter books and across the ocean, in New York City.

I wanted to like this movie a lot more than I did. Although not a Potterhead, I did enjoy most of the Potter films.  Fantastic Beasts? Not so much.

The cast is talented. The settings are lavish. The creature effects are really quite wonderful. However, the story is not so great. The first sign that things are amiss is the opening; there's no buildup. The viewer is simply dumped into the story, which proceeds to move along in a jerky, disjointed manner.  There's no real character development and we can spot the big bad coming from a mile away.

The film isn't bad, it's just not that great. And it is obviously meant to set things up for the rest of the franchise series.

Bearing all that in mind, I have to give Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them only 2 stars out of five.  It's matinee worthy, but, really, you should just wait for it to come out on video.

DOCTOR STRANGE

I went and saw Doctor Strange the other night and thought it was okay.
Just okay.
Like most of the Marvel movies have been 'just okay.'
On a scale of 1 to 5, I'd give it a solid 3.
And that, gentle readers, is somewhat disappointing to me.
To me, Doctor Strange felt like any other Marvel movie. And it really shouldn't have, because while the other movies and their characters have mostly been grounded in Science Fiction or Fantasy, Doctor Strange should have fallen more into the Horror category.
Since the character deals with threats from beyond the universe, you would think the producer/director would have gone for a more Lovecraftian vibe. Instead, they went for a weirdly generic origin story with generous lashings of kung-fu and a slim veneer of generic magic.
Don't get me wrong. I think it's definitely worth paying full price to see, but I think it could have been so much better.

SUICIDE SQUAD

I just got out of seeing Suicide Squad and thought I would do a quick review.  The movie has a decent cast but a generic plot.  Character development is given, predominantly, to Harley Quinn and Deadshot. The other characters remain undeveloped.  Unfortunately, even the developed characters in this film are boring.
For those of you unfamiliar with the Suicide Squad, they are a group of super-villains from the DC Comics Universe, press-ganged by a woman named Amanda Waller into running clandestine black ops operations for the U.S. government.  In exchange for completing these operations, the group gets time shaved off their various prison sentences.  To ensure their compliance, each member of the group is fitted with a remote-controlled explosive that can be activated by Waller or the squad’s field commander, Colonel Rick Flag.
Many people, after seeing the film, have compared it to The Magnificent Seven. This is not an accurate comparison, in my opinion. No, the Suicide Squad would more accurately be compared to The Dirty Dozen.
Both films are about convicted criminals recruited to carry out a suicide mission, but the 1967 film does a much better job of telling a story. Suicide Squad’s story is hampered by its cast of unsympathetic characters and a predictable story that, to be honest, drags at times.
I think the cast tried to work with what they were given, but that wasn’t much. And some of the performances are just flat-out bad.
Margot Robbie certainly has Harley Quinn’s look down, but not her ephemeral zaniness.  Will Smith plays Deadshot like he plays every character. Jai Courtney’s Captain Boomerang was serviceable, but unspectacular, while Karen Fukuhara’s Katana remains pretty much a cypher throughout the movie. Adam Beach’s Slipknot makes no impression at all, while Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje and Cara Delevingne’s Killer Croc and Enchantress both make terrible impressions.  Adewale because he doesn’t do anything at all, while Delevingne’s character, who is central to the plot, is plastic and two-dimensional.  Joel Kinnaman’s Rick Flag is an atrocious stereotype while Viola Davis’s Amanda Waller is not so much menacing as simply ponderous. The only performance that stood out to me was Jay Hernandez, as El Diablo, who managed to make his character seem genuinely repentant, if not very sympathetic. As for Jared Leto’s Joker? The phrase ‘chewing scenery’ springs immediately to mind.
So, was Suicide Squad a good movie or a bad movie?  Well, while it wasn’t as bad as I thought it might be, it was nowhere near as good as it could have been. This movie might have been much better if it had just been a balls to the wall action romp, without any attempt at character development to make the bad guys more sympathetic.  Also, I’m curious about how much better or worse the movie was before cuts were made and reshoots were shot?  Did it flow better?  I suppose we’ll have to wait for the DVD release.
For now, on a scale of one to five, I would give Suicide Squad a two.  Skip the theater for this one, and catch it on Blue-Ray or Netflix instead.  You’ll probably thank me later.

Ghostbusters (2016)

Good afternoon, gentle readers.

Today, I decided to take one for the team and go and check out the reboot of Ghostbusters.  Now, like many of you, I do not live in a dank cave beneath a bridge with trolls for neighbors.  So, I'm going to assume the majority of you are aware of this movie on some level.  More than likely, you've heard of the outrage from fans of the original movies and Sony's less-than-spectacular attempt at spin.  

You may have heard that this movie is not good. You may have heard and possibly believe that the majority of its online critics are a bunch of whiny, man-babies who hate women.  You may also have heard rumors that Sony basically bought good reviews of the movie from professional reviewers.

Ladies and gentlemen, you may have heard all of these things, and you may believe them.  I heard these rumors and stories, but tried to keep an open mind.  So, after its initial opening weekend, I decided that I would go and see Ghostbusters for myself.

Which, gentle readers, has placed me in a bit of a quandry.

Specifically, I'm wondering how to call this movie a big turd without sounding like a complete asshole.

Because, ladies and gentlemen, that's what I think this movie is. 

A big, cold turd.

It just kind of lies there, in your way, impossible to ignore.  It's not smelly or hot, so you could probably brush it aside with your shoe and nothing would stick to you.

That is probably the best thing that I can say about Ghostbusters 2016.  It will not stick with you and after a little while you'll probably forget all about it.

The writing in this movie is atrocious. The only part that I genuinely enjoyed was the opening scene at the museum, and even that had its issues. (What museum docent is going to just walk away, leaving a fallen object on the floor?)

After that, ladies and gentlemen, it is all down hill.  A slow tobogan ride to boredom.  

The characters are flat and lack chemistry.  McCarthy and Wiig's characters are meant to have a history together, but that never comes through in this movie.  Their relationship is plastic and fake, ultimately making one of the final scenes in the movie feel the same way.  Kate McKinnon's character is just annoying and I can't figure out why Leslie Jones's character would even stick around with the other three?  As for Chris Hemsworth? Eye candy can only do so much.

The villain, played by Neil Casey, is just as bad.  There's nothing particularly malevolent about him. Everybody says he's a weird guy, but outside of his interaction with Leslie Jones's character, we get no sense of that.  We get no backstory, no real motivation for why he's doing what he's doing.

Now, in fairness there's been a lot of commentary that all the men in this movie are portrayed as idiots or dicks.  This isn't really accurate; everyone in this movie is a dick, men and women. If there were kids or dogs in this movie, and I didn't notice either, they would probably have been dicks as well.

Overall, this movie was just a big bore.  It is two hours of your life that you will NEVER GET BACK.

Spare yourself that, please, gentle readers.

You'll thank me for it later.

X-Men: Apocalypse

I grew up reading the X-Men comics, so when Fox announced they were doing a movie, I was excited.  Sadly, the franchise that the X-films have become no longer elicit excitement; instead, they made me wince.  Sometimes, I even cringed.
The latest movie, X-Men: Apocalypse, just makes me sigh.
The movie is dull and ponderous. There is no real sense of excitement or anticipation. It never really feels like the cast engages with their characters, or their audience.
As for Apocalypse?  He’s a stock villain with an end-the-world plan and a plethora of super-powers that just make him feel like a cliche.
On a scale of one to five, I would give X-Men: Apocalypse a three.  It’s not a bad movie, but it’s not that good either.  Honestly, I felt like I was watching a better quality Syfy Channel movie than a cinematic release.

Minions

Today, I went and saw Minions.
In a nutshell, it's pretty much the story of how the little yellow guys wound up meeting Gru. There are, of course, interesting diversions along the way.
Overall, I thought the movie was okay.
There were some funny bits, including an homage to a certain famous album cover and a once-upon-a-time controversial musical. A lot of that humor, I think, will go right over little kids' heads, but there's still enough slapstick humor in the movie to make the kids giggle.
I will say that the movie does deserve its PG rating. Some of the humor is a little dark and there is some cartoonish violence, but nothing really bad.
However, I feel I have to say that I think the minions works best as minions. I don't think they're dynamic enough characters to warrant another minion-centric movie. Instead, let's see them in their natural habitat, working devotedly and slavishly for Gru.  Or whoever is going to take Gru's place, once the minions realize he isn't really a villain any longer.
Overall, I would give Minions 3 out of 5 stars.  It's a pretty decent movie, but nowhere near as funny as it could have been.

Inside Out

Good evening, gentle readers.
How's your day going?
Mine's been kind of blah.
It's hot here, where I live; the high was about 101 fahrenheit today, so to escape the heat I went to the movies and saw Inside Out.
Now, I'm not the demographic this movie is targeting. To be perfectly frank, these days I feel like I'm never going to be that demographic again, not that most mainstream movies really light up my Christmas tree in the first place.  However, that's another blog post.
Today, I'm going to talk about Inside Out.
The premise of the movie is that we get a glimpse into the emotions controlling an 11-year-old girl's mind: Joy, Sadness, Anger, Disgust and Fear.  They're all having a pretty good time until Riley has to up and move from Minnesota to San Francisco and, well, hijinx ensue.
The first thing I have to say about this movie is that the character of Joy is seriously irritating. Also domineering and pushy and a generally unpleasant person. I think part of my dislike might have been from the voice acting; I'm not a big fan of Amy Poehler.  Her voice is akin to nails on a blackboard to me.
The second thing you need to know is that I've seen this sort of thing before. Way back in the 1990s there was a sit-com on Fox called Herman's Head, where we were given glimpses inside the mind of a fact checker named Herman.  Amazingly, the series lasted three seasons. Go figure!
The third thing you should know, ladies, is that if you want to see this movie, don't take your gentlemen with you.  This is, very definitely, a woman's movie.  Most guys are gonna be bored stupid by it.
Dads who are taking your little ones to see this movie: I salute you!
The animation in the movie is all right; Pixar has done it's usual good job on that front.  And, overall, the voice talents were fine.  The story? I thought it was bleh. Too pat. Too predictable.
Overall, Inside Out is an okay film.  It's family friendly.  It's nice and safe.  On a scale of 1 to 5, I'd give it a three.
Personally, though, I'd rather go back and rewatch old episodes of Herman's Head.

Why Susan Cooper Pisses Me Off

Good afternoon, gentle readers.

I just got in from the movies, where I watched the new Melissa McCarthy comedy, Spy.

I really wanted to like this movie.

I did.

However, not long after starting, the film just touched one of my trigger buttons. Not a trauma-trigger or anything like that, but my I-Can’t-Believe-They’re-Still-Doing-This-Shit trigger.

After a less than stellar dinner date with a guy, Melissa McCarthy’s character is having drinks with Miranda Hart. McCarthy’s character bemoans her life situation, complaining about her career path and how she’s single and forty and then I just sort of lost track of the movie behind the veil of red rage that descended over my vision.

Why?

Because I’m single and in my forties and I love my fucking life.

Honestly!

Hollywood, buy a goddamn clue already! Hell. Not just Hollywood, but the whole goddamned world needs to buy a clue!

Being a single adult does not automatically make someone miserable. Or even slightly sad.

That dream we’re spoon-feed as children and teenagers, that a marriage and kids with dogs and the white picket fence does not automatically equate happiness. Don’t believe me? Look around you. Take inventory of your friends and family. How many of them are married? How many of them are genuinely happy with their life situation?

It seems to me that I hear married people bemoan their situation all the time. Men in particular. I know too many guys who have said that if they had the option of doing it all over again they would NOT get married.

I worked with a gentleman once who had a string of ex-wives behind him. After the second marriage didn’t work out, I wanted to ask him why he kept going at it? Was he looking for that magic someone? His soul-mate? Was he just a hopeless romantic? Or maybe he just didn’t think it was okay for him to be single.

Because that’s what the world tries to tell us.

That if you’re an adult and you’re single and you’re not making the effort to get married or have children then you have somehow failed. That there is something wrong with you.

It pisses me off.

The other day I was speaking to an acquaintance on the phone. He called me up and we started talking about his brother, who is around my age. My friend, Jason, told me that his brother was working himself into a lather because he was single and unmarried and if he didn’t have children then what sort of legacy would he leave?

Then Jason, who is married with children, just casually said, "You must be feeling the same way."

Ladies and gentlemen, the red veil descended and I kind of exploded.

"Why the hell would I feel like your brother? Your brother is weak. The only reason he wants to get married is to have children to carry on his ‘legacy’ which isn’t a fucking reason to have children in the first place!"

The conversation kind of went downhill from there and I may or may not have accidentally ended a marriage. However, that’s a story for another post.

This post, I guess, is a plea to the world: stop bullying single people. A lot of us are single by choice. We like our solitude. We like not having to come home and deal with irrate spouses or crying children or yappy little rat-dogs that our significant other thinks is wonderful. We genuinely like our lives.

Stop trying to make us like you. What makes you happy, what fulfills you, probably won’t work for everybody else in the world. If you’re in a committed relationship and you’re happy, I’m happy for you. Be happy for us.

Stop trying to fix up your single friends.

Parents, stop saying stuff like, "It would be wonderful if you got married, so your nephews could have some first cousins to play with."

Hollywood, stop telling everyone that singleness equals misery.

It doesn’t.

Really.

And for those single people out there who are not happy being single? Take heart. You’ve got Hollywood on your side.

Movies That Never Were

Good morning, gentle readers.

Creativity sometimes takes us down peculiar paths.  Occasionally, it inspires us to create things that are just  . . .  odd.

So, with that in mind, I now present, for your entertainment, a selection of movies that never were.  

It should go without saying that the various properties presented belong entirely to their respective owners and that these images are created simply for fun.

Recast: Ghostbusters!

Ghostbusters is a classic '80s movie.  We'll all pretend that the awful, awful sequel was never made, shall we? Hmmkay?  But what if they were to reboot the movie today? Who better to cast in it, I thought, than the cast of one of the most prominent reboots in recent years? The performers from the 2009 reboot of Star Trek! So, who ya gonna call?

Recast: X-Men

X-Men: Days of Future Past sounds, to me, as if it's going to be a real clinker.  Please note that I'm basing this off of a few trailers and the general nasty taste that the last X-Men movies (First Class and Wolverine) left in my mouth.  So, I sat down and started looking at movies and actors and thought, Hey! What if I recast an X-Men movie using actors from another movie? Like, say, the Lord of the Rings trilogy?

And away we go!

Man of Steel, Feet of Clay

I just saw Man of Steel and I can’t decide if I like it or not. Going into the movie, I didn’t have a lot of enthusiasm to see it. Odd, I know, considering the fact that I work in a comic shop surrounded by people who can’t stop talking about this particular movie. Honestly, I didn’t plan on seeing it in the theater at all. I was going to wait for it to come out on video, because I just didn’t care that much about it.

Having seen the movie, I have to admit that my ambivalence for the film remains firmly in place. Don’t get me wrong. The movie is engaging. It’s a long movie but it doesn’t feel like a long movie. The pacing is fine.

Director Zach Snyder’s imprint is apparent throughout the film. It is not The Dark Knight but the film feels somber. This is only enhanced by the starkness of the cinematography; colors are muted and washed out, there is a preponderance of black and white in the pallette. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the scenes of Metropolis and Krypton. These two locales appear to be grim, joyless places. Overall, visually, I found the movie dull and flat.

The story is interesting. The plot is cohesive. Scenes are engaging. I felt that the performances, though, were uneven.

Henry Cavill portrays Superman/Clark Kent as the outsider and he does this very well. However, there is a rigid plasticity to his performance that I felt did not jibe with the character.

Lois Lane, in this movie, actually has a brain. Amy Adams does an admirable job of bringing the character to life. However, I think Adams is still too much the ingenue to really portray Lane accurately. She’s a little too wide eyed, a little too accepting of Superman and she falls for him far too quickly.

Michael Shannon’s General Zod is written as a complex character and Shannon’s performance, I think, stands out in this film as superior to his co-stars. As the villain of the piece he could have taken Zod completely over the top, but that does not happen until the last part of the film, when it felt appropriate.

The movie is full of action and if I have a major critique of that, it is that the ultimate battle between Superman and General Zod is shot too quickly. It all just happens in a blur of CGI fisticuffs.

Overall, the movie felt very slick. However, I think it lacks depth. As a foundation movie for a trilogy, I can see it working. As a stepping stone to a Cinematic DCU, I think it will accomplish that goal admirably.

But, on a purely personal level, Man of Steel lacks heart. It is entirely two-dimensional. You don’t care about any of the characters, not because they are unlikable, or because the actors in the roles do bad jobs, but because the characters remain two-dimensional.

And that, I think, may be Man of Steel’s greatest weakness. It’s a visually impressive movie, but it takes more than special effects to make a good Superman movie. It takes heart and soul and a sense of wonder that, I think, is lacking in this film.  It uses big budget CGI fights to conceal the fact that Man of Steel is a joyless experience and one that I have no desire to repeat.

A Review of Oz, The Great & Powerful

I have a complicated relationship with the Land of Oz.

As a child, I remember reading Baum’s books and liking them. They didn’t blow me away like Madeleine L’Engle’s Wrinkle in Time, but they were okay.

As an adult, I read Gregory Maguire’s Wicked quartet with relish. He reinvented Oz and its residents, making them much more three-dimension, much more interesting.

After reading Maguire’s work, I was curious to see how the Oz books would hold up, so I started rereading them. Very quickly, I came to regret that decision. The characters were priggish, the narrative was spotty and there were continuity gaffs. I suspect if I were ever to meet Dorothy Gail I would be extremely tempted to give her a smack and tell her to quit being such a little madame!

So, I didn’t have high hopes when I went to see Oz the Great and Powerful at the movies. Alas, I knew within the first fifteen minutes of watching the movie that I had made a horrible, horrible mistake.

Most of the actors are hands-down godawful. James Franco’s performance in this movie has managed to eclipse Hayden Christensen’s awful performance as Anakin Skywalker in the Star Wars prequels. That’s not an easy thing to do, in my humble opinion. Mister Franco has lowered the bar for actors everywhere.

The other performances are simply serviceable and easily forgotten. Which will probably be a mercy for most of their careers.

The less said about the dialogue and script the better.

It seemed to me that most of the money on this movie was sunk into the CGI and special FX. The Land of Oz looks suitably impressive, colorful and vibrant. It’s a great pity, then, that it’s inhabited by a bunch of dull, flat characters who are about as charming as case of influenza.

On the Media Scale of Movie Love, I have to give Oz the Great and Powerful 2 out of 10. Don’t waste your money going to see this clunker at the theater. Don’t rent it, don’t stream it. If you must watch it, wait for it to come out on basic cable and make sure you have a lot of booze on hand to blunt its raw awfulness.

A Review of Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters

Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters is a fun little romp of a movie. The story is a reworking of the classic fairy tale about two children abandoned in the forest by their father. They discover a house made of candy, owned by a witch who takes the children captive. She goes on to fatten Hansel up while making Gretel work as a drudge. Ultimately, the children overcome the witch, shoving her into her own oven, burning her alive.

The movie tells what happened afterward. How Hansel and Gretel went on to become famous witch-hunters. Their reputation leads them to a town, plagued by witches, where they encounter a hostile sheriff and, eventually, uncover secrets from their own past.

This movie is a joy ride. Honestly, I want to compare it to Sam Raimi’s Army of Darkness. It has that same mix of adventure and humor.

The performances in this movie are surprisingly good. Especially Famke Janssen and Gemma Arterton, who steal every scene in which they appear. I strongly suspect that both ladies had a ball with their respective roles.

Alas, the same thing cannot be said of Jeremy Renner. He has almost no presence onscreen, and seems to be sleepwalking through the role of Hansel.

My only other complaint with the movie is that some of the fight scenes were too dark. It was difficult to make out what was happening in some parts of the movie.

And for those of you who are interested in such things, I did not see the 3D version of this movie. Three-Dee gives me an enormous headache and, honestly, I refuse to pay extra money just for cheap visual effects. I saw the 2D version and, like I said, had a thoroughly enjoyable experience.

On the Media Scale of Movie Love, I give Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters, a solid six out of ten. It’s well worth a full-price movie ticket and I think it would stand up to additional viewings.

A Review of The Man With the Iron Fists

On the hunt for a fabled treasure of gold, a band of warriors, assassins, and a rogue British soldier descend upon a village in feudal China, where a humble blacksmith looks to defend himself and his fellow villagers.

That’s the description for The Man With the Iron Fists, possibly one of the most dreadful movies that I have seen in recent memory.

The characters are boring, the story drags, the performances are simply atrocious and even the fight scenes are awful. Not even the presence of Lucy Liu and Russel Crowe can redeem this piece of crap.

The Man with the Iron Fists gets zero out of ten. This movie is simply so God awful that no one else should have to sit through it. Don’t go catch a matinee, don’t rent it, if you see it advertised on cable or network television avoid it. Avoid it like the plague!

A Review of Wreck-It Ralph

Once again, gentle readers, I think I am going to be out-of-step with the mainstream.

This weekend I went and saw Wreck-It Ralph, and left the movie feeling perturbed.

The basic premise of the movie is that a video game villain, the eponymous Wreck-It Ralph, wants to be a hero and sets out to fulfill his dream. However, his quest brings havoc to the whole arcade where he lives.

Personally, I thought the movie sent mixed messages. On the one hand, it encourages people to accept who they are. However, on the other hand, it repeatedly tells people not to buck the system, not to try and change themselves because it’s impossible.

This last is a crap message, especially to give to impressionable little kids.

What? You’re in awful circumstances, so you shouldn’t do anything about it? Your parents are beating you, your teacher is touching you, but don’t make a fuss. Don’t rock the boat. Just endure because that’s what people are supposed to do.

This is a bullshit message to give to little kids, but it’s pretty much the idea that I got from this movie.

Was the movie entertaining? Eh. It was okay. Nothing to really write home about. The animation was standard, the voice cast was okay. The story felt predictable, and, at times, I thought it dragged.

On my Media Scale of Movie Love, I’d have to give Wreck-It Ralph 3 out of 10. Between the message and the content, I don’t really feel like the movie is theater-worthy. Wait for this to come out as a rental.

A Rant About Looper

I was going to post a movie review of the film, Looper, here, but forget that.
Looper is the reason that I usually avoid movies involving time-travel like a plague.
The premise of the movie is that in the year 2074, if the mob wants someone killed, they send them back into the past where assassins called 'loopers' carry out the executions and the disposal of the bodies.  Eventually, every 'looper' is retired by being sent back into the past and killed by his younger self.
And I'm fine with this concept until the producers start doing things that screw with cause and effect. For instance, a young looper hesitates to kill his future self, leading to that future self's escape. So, what does the mob do? They take the young version and start systematically mutilating him.  They cut off his fingers, his nose, his tongue, his legs.  As they perform these mutilations, the older version transforms into a noseless, fingerless, tongueless, legless thing before getting blow away.
Only, if the guy was mutilated in his past (the present) how could he arrive from the future hale and hearty one minute and seriously mutilated the next?  It is a paradox.
Paradox, ladies and gentlemen, is the cardinal sin of time-travel.
Looper is guilty of this sin in spades, and that utterly ruined this movie for me.
I would rather sit through one of those awful time-travel episodes from Star Trek: Voyager than sit through this movie again, let alone recommend it to anyone.
The whole paradox thing just pisses me off that much.
Which is why this is not a review, but a rant.