Men in Black III (2012) Review:

After MIB II came out, it seemed like for the longest time that MIB 3 wasn't going to go anywhere. Both movies were treated the same way as the Ghost Busters franchise: the first, everyone liked, and the second just totally faltered and had fewer fans than usual. The first film had a nice intro that brought the audience to grips with its characters and story. However, the sequel didn't bring anything new to the screen. The character roles were just switched and a new villain was inserted and had the same intentions of invading earth. But by comparing this film to the first sequel, the first sequel is nowhere close to this one story wise.

Coming back to the screen is Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones as the alien crime-fighting duo. Both actors retain their personalities from the previous films, which is always a good thing. Their mission? To stop a Bogladite named Boris from returning to the past and killing Agent K. If Agent K is killed in the past, a Bogladite invasion will begin on Earth in Agent J's time because there is a certain key that will be missing that allows Earth's protection from a Bogladite invasion. Returning for another run is composer Danny Elfman who provided the music to the last two films. However, the score has a little more guitar in it. I'm not complaining though. The music still sounded great, it just sounded a tad different.

Jemaine Clement as Boris "The Ani'mal"

Jemaine Clement plays Boris, which is weird because every time I saw Boris, I saw Tim Curry. I guess because of the way he spoke? I really can't explain it but I felt like I was watching him and not Clement. But all that has to be said for this character is that this is one tough villain. Boris is not just ugly, he's fierce and unforgiving and that's perfect. It was even funnier when the future Boris met with himself from the past; even he wasn't nice to himself. Watching Boris recalled to how the villain from MIB 2 just wasn't good enough. The character of Serleena played by Lara Flynn Boyle just didn't seem make her character mean enough. But this is only one character of the film.

Audiences will find Michael Stuhlbarg as Griffin, quite and interesting and funny character because of his range of probability fortune telling. And then you have Josh Brolin who gives an undeniably excellent performance as playing young Agent K. Brolin's mannerisms, facial expressions and word use show how long Brolin studied the character of Agent K. However, the only thing wasn't pleasing was that some of the characters from the first two movies didn't reprise their roles for this film. But why? These were the characters that helped make the first one a hit and the second a mild hit (for some). A few characters were explained to why they didn't show up, while others were just totally unmentioned. Where was director Barry Sonnenfeld when that happened?

Josh Brolin as younger K & J

The action, dialog, and sci-fi effects are still great to look at in this film. But the idea of going back in time was an interesting take. It was fun to see what kinds of things MIB used back in the mid 1900s. I got a big laugh when J was about to get an "eye exam", compared to what it was like in the first movie. This kind of material shows how ridiculous and over the top MIB was as a growing corporation and it's funny to watch, especially the way J handles the issues. The best thing about this movie though, is the story. The plot explores so much of the two main characters. It explains to why K is K. Even more interesting is how it reaches into the background of J, which is new because MIB 1 & 2 didn't bother to dig into this area before. In the end, I was almost just as satisfied watching this film as to the first. I guess waiting 10 years or so can really turn a franchise around.

Men In Black 3 is far better than MIB 2 because of its in depth story line and how it focuses on its characters from a different perspective. However, it is not as good as the first because it lacks the supporting characters from previous installments. But after watching this second sequel, viewers will understand much more about the MIB duo than the first two films could ever try to explain.

Points Earned --> 9:10

Men in Black II (2002) Review:

In the first Men in Black, the audience was introduced to new concepts of how life can take on different forms. That people are not always human beings. So either this sequel is trying to still convince us that this idea remains the same or the screenwriters thought that no one remembered what happened five years ago when the first film came out. That's the disappointing part, however, the good part is that most of original elements are kept the same with some different features.

J tries to help K remember certain things...

Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones are back as the Men in Black, well at least they both are when half of the film is over. That's right, what could've been a great follow up movie from start to finish, ended up being an OK sequel. The story revolves around that Smith needs information from Jones, the problem is that Jones' memory was wiped from the first one. So did the producers of this film think reviving Jones' memory was a new idea? If that was the case, they never should've erased Jones' memory in the first place. There's no logic behind the thinking here.

What really makes the first half of the film really silly is how Jones is portrayed. The first Men in Black (1997) was great because Jones came off as a callous, unforgiving mentor and it was funny to see Smith try and figure out what was going on. Now the roles are switched, Smith knows what he's talking about while Jones is lost amongst the clouds. I'll admit there were some funny parts but there weren't enough. In a way, this film could've played as the first one (if the other had never been released). Some of the scenes even resemble previous ones too well. Plus some key things that made the first one funny were left out. For example, the "Noisy Cricket" Smith used, made him fly backward. In this film Jones uses it (more than once) and he doesn't go flying anywhere. Alright, who forget to keep things the same here?

Lara Flynn Boyle as the villain

What did work in this film are the special effects, the dialog, the music and the last half of this film in general. Since the budget was ramped up on this sequel much of the special effects look even better than of the first one. The creatures are more interesting to look at too. My favorite alien is Jeff the subway worm. Nothing can get scarier than that, especially if you're unfamiliar with Men in Black! The dialog is kept the same as the first one, which is great. Smith still has all the cool funny sayings while Jones has all the intellectual funny lines. Even Zed has a few comedic moments unlike the first one.

Finally, just like the last soundtrack, Danny Elfman composed the music for this film. I'm glad not everything had changed. It still has its science fiction feeling to it. As for the last half of the movie, its just great to watch because things go back to how they REALLY used to be from the first film. For the most part, keeping the formula the same in films is a good thing. There are exceptions to the rule but this finally catches up with itself in the last half. That's when this sequel truly looks good.

Its story is uninspired for the first half of its running time but once it passes that mark, things go back to the way they originally were. Hardcore fans will enjoy it but to expect something really entertaining for regular audiences will be setting a standard that is too high for this sequel to reach.

Points Earned --> 6:10

Men in Black (1997) Review:

Right from the beginning of this film, the story grabs the viewer's attention because the audience will have no idea to what is going on. It is not until minutes later when everything is revealed. Even then, the audience will have questions galore. No problem folks, all your personal questions will be answered when Will Smith enters the equation. Once that happens, things speed up real fast.

Tommy Lee Jones (K) & Will Smith (J) pair up in this funny
Sci-fi comedy

Starring as the attractive lead in this film is Will Smith. Smith is New York cop who does his best to be the cop that he is. He's much better than his fellow officers, that's for sure. I love the way Smith talks. It seems very natural for him to talk the way he did. This is funny to watch because Smith's character has a wisecrack for almost any comment or explanation. Tommy Lee Jones plays the mentor of Smith. What makes Jones a good teacher is how he describes things, how he reacts to things, and how he handles things. It's all very serious but in a way, Jones is always goofing around. I really don't think he intends to, but that's how he comes off; as a joker. For example when he hands out the hand guns to Smith, he says "Series 4 De-atomizer". Smith's response, "Now that's what I'm talking about", but instead Smith is handed the "Noisy Cricket" which is not even big enough for a hand, more like your ring finger. Is Jones being serious, absolutely, but Smith doesn't know that! I was amazed that in the script they didn't have Smith go crazy trying to understand the logic behind every reason that was given.

Vincent D'Onofrio as Edgar....
a bug with some serious skin problems

Playing the villain, Edgar, is Vincent D'Onofrio. Really though he's not a villain, he's just one ugly bug-like alien. He's my favorite character in this film. The reason behind this is how his character is in general. The personality of Edgar is just plain rude. A rudeness where he just wants to get what he needs in a very cumbersome fashion. One of the best characteristics I like about Edgar is the way he walks. It's a very choppy walk, almost like he has ants in his pants (pardon the pun). Edgar too, has some really funny lines. And that's is just three characters! There is so much to see here, it is unbelievable. So many aliens, so many weapons, so much fun.

To wrap things up, this movie does have action, but it heavily relies on science related material. So the viewer will see a lot of explosions but that's because the Men in Black always have little trinkets up their sleeves that's not done the old fashion way. It's almost like they make reference to Inspector Gadget (1999) with all the tools they have at their disposal. The difference is that none of those things come flying out of their hats or something like that. The other great thing is the music, provided by the talented Danny Elfman. The main title itself is very catchy. The music has a very science fiction tone to it, which is good, because that magnified the feeling of it.

Men In Black has witty humor and great characters that can make all the scenes a blast (sometimes literally). As for the special effects, they have their own uniqueness that makes it irresistible to only see one at a time.

Points Earned --> 10:10

Looney Tunes: Back In Action (2003) Review:

There's a reason why this movie was made. Director Joe Dante hated the idea of Space Jam (1996), so instead of involving the Looney Tunes characters in a sports match, he put them in a spy movie. This is why the name has "Back in Action". A sport wasn't "action" to Dante,...I guess. This movie does pay off nicely but it feels some scenes are loose, almost like there were explanations left out. I assume this is one of the reasons why cartoon adaptations don't always work. What does work is that the characters, cartoon or live, know they're being silly and they even mock all kinds of other films as well.

As you can see, the animation is crisp

Brendan Fraser stars as DJ, the son of wealthy individual Damien Drake, played by Timothy Dalton. Playing the evil villain (if he really is evil), is Steve Martin as the Chairman of the ACME Corporation. What's nice about this film is that it has all kinds of celebrities in it. They have a cameo from Jeff Gordon (famous racecar driver), and Matthew Lillard from Scooby-Doo (2002). Even Ron Perlman, who would star in Hellboy (2004) a year later has a very minor role. The vibe that I felt from Dante was that he was trying to make the environment feel like Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988), where humans and cartoons lived amongst each other. This is unlike Space Jam (1996) for the most part where humans and cartoons existed together, but in separate universes.

The comedy is executed well too. I enjoyed it a lot. It was smart of Dante to cast Fraser as the main lead because Fraser has done his fair share of movies that are off the wall. Fraser has a goofy presence and although he may not be in the most famous of movies, he does put on a good show. He even makes a reference to himself saying to Daffy Duck, "Did you see those Mummy Movies? I'm in them more than Brendan Fraser is". That's when the viewer should realize this movie is not really serious but that's the whole point of it anyway.

Steve Martin as the funny ACME boss

Still though, there are plenty of other scenes in this film that are funny. Much of these gags are either derived from the old Looney Tunes shows themselves or they are referenced from other films. One of the characters I like the most from this movie is Steve Martin's performance. The way he gives the ACME chairman's personality is great. It makes me laugh every time I watch his parts. The one thing that I could not connect with was how some scenes were done. Most of it went together with the story well but others where certain characters played other characters never really made sense to me. So if those individuals weren't who they were, then where are the real individuals? What I liked about Space Jam (1996) was that it tried to utilize all the main Looney Tunes characters. Dante doesn't do that here; even Porky Pick had a better role in Space Jam (1996) than what he had in this film. It was disappointing to see that.

Finally what helped make this movie realistic was how the cartoons were put in the film. Just like Space Jam (1996) and Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988), all the cartoons that were put into the film looked like they were really there. To me, that's always amazing to watch. Who wouldn't want their favorite cartoon characters living along side them on planet Earth? The music was composed and conducted by the late Jerry Goldsmith, which was his last film to write music for unfortunately. Although Goldsmith was a science-fiction composer for most of his life, I like the way he made the music for this movie. The music is jumpy, energetic and loopy which helps carry the characters through the situations that they are dragged into. I enjoyed it a lot.

It may not score as high as Space Jam (1996) but by keeping the action and dialog all at the same level, Looney Tunes: Back in Action is the next best thing. The gags are constantly fun to watch and soundtrack is well appreciated as the last recording of Jerry Goldsmith.

Points Earned --> 8:10

Leviathan (1989) Review:

After reading numerous reviews about this film I wasn't expecting to much. Many top critics have condemned this film like it was absolutely a waste of time. In my opinion, this film was worth the hour and half. The director of this film, George P. Cosmatos has been ridiculed for making some of the most mediocre films in cinema history. Well better mediocre than terrible! Leviathan isn't even really that bad as critics say it is. This movie has a really good cast and the special effects make it even more enjoyable.

Some of the crew:
Ernie Hudson, Hector Elizondo & Peter Weller

The cast of this film has actors from various genres. Peter Weller, Amanda Pays, Ernie Hudson, Richard Crenna, and Daniel Stern to name a few. Even though this film is sci-fi part horror, there are so parts of comedy under the mesh of genres. Same thing goes for Cosmatos' film Cobra (1986); a serious movie with some comedic moments. Weller and Hudson are fun to listen to. Mostly these two actors have all the fun lines to say. Amanda Pays is nice to watch too, mostly because people enjoy the scenes where she has barely any clothes on. For me though it's her accent and her eyes. She just has a very innocent character and she does it well. Even though the cast is not massive, I don't want to give away all the character's personalities. The viewer will be able to figure it out when they watch the movie.

The underwater scenes are also well done

The effects are the second best thing in this movie. Stan Winston who also did a series of other amazing creature effects in previous movies such as Alien (1979) provides the creature effects. For any horror fan that doesn't like things that squirm and wiggle, this will be a good movie to see. The only issue I had was how the characters were picked off. What I mean is how much gore was involved. Although this movie was rated R, it is mostly for language and some blood. There is blood but I felt that there could've been more. Either way it works well in creating tension. Jerry Goldsmith who I think did a great job composed the music in this movie. Never have a heard a movie soundtrack that has whale sounds in it; it's very eerie.

Finally what I like most about this movie was the whole idea. I don't really understand why but 1989 was year that underwater thrillers were the up and up. Along with Leviathan was Deepstar Six (1989) and The Abyss (1989). All three of these didn't really fair well but I feel that this one is the best, even though Cameron's Abyss is now the most famous. But the creature in this movie is like a hybrid of Alien (1979), and John Carpenter's The Thing (1982). Just like The Thing (1982), this movie uses flame-throwers and they look a whole lot meaner too! To some, this film is a cheap knock-off. This is not cheap knock-off, it is a well done knock-off. It has good effects and nice cast to back it up. It hurts to hear people scorn this film, all it is a mixture of previous ideas.

With the suspense from The Abyss (1989), the setting from Alien (1979), and a creature like The Thing (1982), Leviathan is a true knock-off. But what makes it better than other knock-offs is its distinguished cast, exceptional special effects and a murky soundtrack.

Points Earned --> 9:10

Lara Croft: Tomb Raider (2001) Review:

Ever since Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) entered cinema history, there have been film after film of directors trying to replicate the same formula. Most of them have failed but there are a couple gems that stand out from the rest. As for this film, it comes off as an Indiana Jones movie but with the lead being female, with a British accent and is one of the most attractive actresses in Hollywood. Besides it being a financially successful PC game, this film was a financial success and even spawned a sequel in 2003.

Jolie was a great choice to play Croft

Starring as Lara Croft is Angelina Jolie. She really brings sexy back in this action film because of how she moves. The way she leaps, rolls, jumps are all very exhilarating to watch. Mostly these moves look so great because of her agility and flexibility as a woman. Also starring with her is British actor Daniel Craig. It's funny to see Jolie who's American, play a British character while Craig who's British, plays an American character. In my opinion, that's pretty impressive because if I were acting out that scene, I would get confused with who I was talking to and speak whatever accent felt more comfortable; but they do it like they were born in those countries.

Craig as the American.....how ironic

What makes this movie like Indiana Jones is not because of the title, Tomb Raider. No, it's the substance involved in this film. Right at the beginning of the film, Croft is already fighting off a menacing killer robot that's packing some serious arsenal. Same thing with Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981); no robots but still trying to avoid all kinds of dangerous devices such as impaling walls and rolling boulders. Lara Croft is just more modernized since Indiana Jones lived in the 1930s. Either way both are trying to find sacred artifacts that could change the fate of mankind. And to do this, they must hunt for these objects by entering ancient architecture. All this does is add spectacle and wonder to the film and it works really well no matter if it's 1981 or 2001.

Making things even spicier in this film is what Croft wears. Whatever she wears in a certain scene is appropriate and sexy at the same time. It's almost like she's setting a standard for a next generation of archaeologists. As for the musical score, I didn't really care for it. I couldn't really feel anything from it and felt that maybe a different composer could have been hired for the job. That and the fact that although this movie was good, I just never felt any love for it. It was entertaining but it wasn't like much of the characters were memorable besides Lara Croft. That part disappointed me. As for the rest of the film, I really liked it and feel it's worth watching for good entertainment.

Even though this movie doesn't have many characters to connect with, Lara Croft: Tomb Raider is a fun action adventure film. Jolie plays Croft really well and it was wise of director Simon West to keep her as the main lead, otherwise, this movie might have flunked.

Points Earned --> 9:10

Knick Knack (1989) Review:

Pixar is known for making a lot of good short films. Out of all of them, Knick Knack is the best. Even though this film has no dialog, it is just so adorable to watch and laugh out loud at it. The story behind this film is that director John Lasseter noticed that his wife collected a snow globe after every trip they went on. Thus the idea of making a film about knick knacks were hatched.

This is what the Snowman sees......

Knick Knack is the story about a lonely snowman that's stuck inside a snow globe and wants to hang out with an attractive mermaid knick knack. What makes this film so cute is that the snowman tries from the simplest, to the most ridiculous ideas on how to get out of the snow globe. To make things even funnier is that none of these ideas work! I also loved the music, which was performed by Bobby McFerrin. The beat of the music meshes so well with the situation. It's a jumpy, goofy song for a jumpy goofy film. One last thing that I thought was cool was the year it was made. For 1989 computer animated feature, it looks great and I will note that their is a pre-Finding Nemo (2003) character in the end of the film. Once the viewer compares the differences, they will see how far of a distance Pixar has evolved.

& this is only the beginning to how he tries to get out!

As one of Pixar's earliest films, Knick Knack is considered to be one of the best. It consists of delightful characters and although it is fairly short, it will keep the viewer's eyes glued to the screen for the whole three minutes.

Points Earned --> 10:10

King of Kings (1961) Review:

For movies that depict religious figures, I can imagine it is hard to pick out the best actors for the job. For director Nicholas Ray, it seems like picking the actor for the portrayal of Jesus Christ was very accurate; if not natural. This movie along with Ben-Hur (1959) is probably one of the few that had special entrances, intermissions and end titles. It's an awesome feeling to watch movies like these because it really makes the viewer feel like they're back in the mid twentieth century. This is also one of the few movies that was made in color as well. Back then film were just starting to be translated into color.

Jeffrey Hunter as the Jesus

The actor who plays Christ is Jefffrey Hunter who I think does a magnificent job. To remember such quotes from Christ almost seems impossible because of the magnitude at how things were spoken back then. The things that will catch the attention of the viewer the most are Hunter's eyes. His eyes are neon blue and every time the camera focuses on them, it's like they're are looking through into the viewer's soul. As for the rest of the cast, all of them do great jobs at their characters.

Another appealing factor are the visuals. The movie itself is so surreal that it seems like this was filmed way back from the beginning of time but yet the viewer will be able to tell it was filmed in the mid 1900s. To make things even more massive and powerful is when Christ talks to his followers on the hills. Probably more than one thousand people volunteered to be apart of the crowd. In a sense this movie reminds me of Gettysburg (1993) because of the vast number of actors hired for the job, especially when more than half are volunteers.

Mary, Jesus' mother

The scenery also adds to this spectacle. Because the story of Christ took place in a time where cities did not have skyscrapers, mountains surrounded much of the cities. And although the viewer can tell which parts are matinée paintings and which are not, they still give a sense of power and purpose to this movie. What really makes this film so great though is how Jeffrey Hunter recites the words of Jesus Christ. He says he each word as if he were Christ himself; it's that good. Along with that is an influential musical score by Hungarian composer Miklós Rózsa. The music sounds so God like that it could be mistaken for church music. Either way you listen to it, it is a brilliant piece of music.

As the first motion picture ever to feature Jesus Christ as a main character, the direction of the movie is superb and the cast is outstanding. Adding to that are the powerful performances lead by Jeffrey Hunter, its beautiful backgrounds and a commanding soundtrack.

Points Earned --> 10:10

Judge Dredd (1995) Review:

Sometimes in movies, it is hard for the audience to like certain characters. And at first, I wasn't quite sure if I was truly going to become attached to the character of Judge Dredd. Even after the film ended, I couldn't fully side with the fact that I really liked the character. Unfortunately, this is all due to how the screenplay was written, credited to William Wisher Jr; not Stallone's acting. He was only following the script and the story line. That's the major thing that brought my approval down.

Stallone & Assante

Stallone is Judge Joseph Dredd. An elite officer who knows the law like the back of his hand. Speaking of which, this is an interesting trait. All officers are judges, which means there's no court sentence, the lawbreaker is assessed in the open and is determined to what will happen to them right then and there. Imagine if reality was like that? Things would actually be moving a lot swifter when it would come to courts! Plus it's cool how the officers can site immediately what the criminals sentence will be. Talk about photographic memory.

What isn't worth appreciating in this film is the screenplay. The character of Judge Dredd is so callous, that it'll be hard for the audience to really gain an understanding of why Dredd is the way he is. This is not explained until much later in the film. But even after that, the personality of Dredd doesn't change. It's almost like the idea of character development was totally left out of production. Either that or Michael DeLuca as a storyteller, really doesn't know how to tell a story. This is why I still can't decide whether I like Dredd or not.

Diane Lane...attractive yes?

Co-starring with Stallone is Rob Scheinder as Fergie, a goofy feeble computer hack who practically has all the funny lines. If Scheinder weren't in this film, I'm not quite sure I would have liked it as much. Diane Lane plays Judge Hershey, which the last name describes her nicely. She's candy to the eye. Everything about her face is very attractive. Playing the villain, Rico, is Armand Assante. As for him, I felt like Rico could've had a better voice. Assante's voice was too high-pitched and shrill to be a villain in this film. It just didn't fit.

For the most part, I did like the special effects. They all around looked well in their place. The judges' though bikes seemed a little bit over-sized, like they were riding Honda Gold Wings or something. Two characters that I thought were cool looking were Mean Machine and the ABC Robot. Mean Machine reminded me of Kroenen from Hellboy (2004), while the ABC Robot looked like an early T-600 prototype for the Terminator Salvation (2009),  just slightly clunkier and a little more loyal.

This whole area that this story takes place in reminds me of the first fifteen minutes of an earlier Stallone movie, Demolition Man (1993). The only difference is that the world is not futuristic, however it is still a mess. One thing I felt uncomfortable with in this movie was the city itself. Everything was too close together; in other words, there wasn't enough room for the audience to get a sense of position on the screen. As for music goes, which Alan Silvestri made the score too, there were some moments that just seemed overly dramatic. Majority of the time I don't have a problem with Silvestri's work, but this one bothered me a little.

Judge Dredd could have been a really entertaining futuristic cop movie but it ends up running by the book a little too often with Stallone being almost emotionless. Thankfully, the rest of the movie is held up with some fair action sequences, interesting special effects and a unique supporting cast.

Points Earned --> 7:10

Jack Frost (1998) Review:

From what I've read, critics think this film does absolutely nothing for them and that it was waste of their time. I'm really surprised that this particular film made no headway in becoming a classic. Although people would say this film is nothing like it, why doesn't anyone see the correlation between this film and John Carpenter's Starman (1984)? The only main difference is really the setting (a snowy environment). A man is lost in a tragic accident and is incarnated once more to give hope to his family members. Is that not the same?

Michael Keaton as Jack Frost (human form)

One reason why people blame this film for being so bad is that it uses cheesy puns that are supposed to make you laugh out loud; this is false. This movie is not supposed to be a hardcore comedy. Its puns are made to create small chuckles and to appreciate the fact the man who was no more is back to set his problems right. Michael Keaton plays Jack Frost, a father who gets sidetracked from his real passion, watching his son (played by Joseph Cross) grow up because he is too focused on kick- starting his rock band.

Sure so the name is cliché, but that's what makes it cute. Even Michael Keaton himself mocks the name. When he is in his snowman form, he says to himself, "Why me,...why a SNOWMAN? I mean, could the universe really be that unoriginal?" That made me laugh. If the main character recognizes that the name of this movie is silly then it shouldn't be as bad as everyone says. I feel that the movie's screenwriter, Mark Steven Johnson did a really nice job. Later on, he would direct Ghost Rider (2007), who I was not totally pleased with because a character as serious as Ghost Rider, should not have been so cartoonish. But here, the story of Jack Frost works well.

Joseph Cross & Kelly Preston

Another thing people bash this movie for is that it has a sappy screenplay. Like there haven't been sad movies before? This isn't new people. And how often does someone get a second chance to make up his or her life mistakes. Besides, it's not like this movie ends badly; Jack Frost rights his wrongs. It's not like he shows up just to make the audience cry. The alien who plays in Starman (1984) made audiences cry too; so what's all the hoot and holler about? As for the director of this movie, Troy Miller, I assume his career hasn't been promising when it comes to big screen movies. It's a shame some good things go nowhere.

As for the music, much of it is inserted when it comes to sequences of reflection. The only time the score of the film comes out when the camera is focused on Jack Frost (when he is a snowman). The score was created by Trevor Rabin who did a nice job but it disappoints me that I was not able to find the entire score digitally. One other thing I did not know was that the Jack Frost snowman was made by the Jim Henson company. I knew it looked like a Muppet somehow! It's a (pardon the pun) cool design and to make a movie look that good with a snowman must have been an interesting task.

As one of the very few films that are universally known by director Troy Miller, Jack Frost is a part of his better work. With screenwriter Mark Steven Johnson at his side, this film will capture the imagination with its cute story line.

Points Earned --> 8:10

Inspector Gadget (1999) Review:

I never knew of the original Inspector Gadget cartoon until I watched this movie. In that case, once I saw the original I can understand why fans were disappointed with the outcome. This movie is very sloppy and some of its characters don't even follow the original screenplay. But with a little help with the special effects and some funny characters, it doesn't turn out to be so bad as its claimed to be. As the old saying goes, if you leave your brain at the door and take it as it is, it's a fun ride.

Broderick as the Inspector Gadget

Playing as the dim-witted inspector is Matthew Broderick, who I'll say is an interesting choice because he does his job well. But for an actor who has played other characters with more intelligence, seems like the clumsy Inspector Gadget is not the right choice for him. Especially if ten years before, Broderick starred in Glory (1989), one of the most influential movies in cinema history. Another flaw in this film is sticking Dr. Claw in the light; so he is finally visible to the viewer. Who thought of that idea? If he was a concealed mastermind in the cartoon, why would he want to come out a decade later? Dr. Claw is played by Rupert Everett who I think does a good job although his voice sounds nothing like the original. But he does have his funny moments. Dr. Claw's henchmen are funny too, and they help add to the goofiness in the screenplay.

Rupert Everett as Dr. Claw

One thing I'm curious is to why director David Kellogg decided to have a love interest in this film. In the cartoon, Inspector Gadget had no time for a woman. Why does he need one now? Is it because it's a Disney movie and all Disney movies have to have romance in them? Love is not always needed to make a film successful. There were points in the movie that felt so cheesy when Inspector Gadget was talking to Brenda (played Joely Fisher). To me, that was one of the lower points in the film. I felt that it was unnecessary. The film already had enough female power in it, which was Penny, Gadget's niece.

As for the effects, it is fun to watch all the utilities that Broderick tries to call upon. I don't even know what half of them would be used for and how they pertain to being a detective but that's what makes the movie fun to watch. For example when Gadget is at a ball and decides to listen on Brenda and Dr. Claw's conversation he places his ear on statue and starts walking as the cord stretches. And no one notices? How much more ridiculous could that get? Well it does but at least the public does not surround him too often.

Another cool effect is the Gadgetmobile. Voiced by D.L. Hughley, the Gadgetmobile has a good number of wisecracks that'll keep the viewer laughing. This was one of the stronger points of the film. It was fun to see Broderick converse with the car. That car probably had the same amount of gizmos as did Inspector Gadget. As for everything else, the music was alright, there was nothing really special about it and the sound effects helped the film sound like it still was a cartoon (in a sense). For the most part I was satisfied with the end result. I didn't think it was a total waste, but there were some things that could've been left out and added in to make it better.

The live action version of Inspector Gadget has eye-popping special effects and is quite goofy; perhaps too goofy. Though overall, it works as a kiddy film, nothing will bring it up to par with its origin of roots.

Points Earned --> 7:10

Hollow Man II (2006) Review:

It's one thing to make a sequel with different characters but it's another thing to make a sequel with a plot that is so contradictory to its predecessor that it almost seems pointless to even watch. I was not the biggest fan of the first Hollow Man (2000) mostly because of its story. The same goes for this film, however, there a couple elements that still leave this sequel watchable.

Hollow Man 2 continues the story of the first film by involving its characters with an almost identical plot. After the failure of Sebastian Caine as a test subject to test the power of invisibility, the government decided to try out this experiment again. The difference is that they tested it on a well-trained soldier. And guess what; nothings changed! The test subject was Michael Griffin (Christian Slater) and now he's become uncontrollable for anyone to handle.

Peter Facinelli

Someone tell me why making a new invisible villain was such important thing to do? If the test didn't work the first time, what made them think performing the test on another unstable subject was a good idea? This is just another problem child.

To try and contain him, the government sends out task forces to try and capture Griffin but like we all know, predictable as ever, they won't. Along side this, Frank Turner (Peter Facinelli) is sent to protect the doctor, Maggie Dalton (Laura Regan) who performed the experiment on Griffin because now Griffin is after her. As the plot continues, Turner and Dalton will develop a relationship, which will allow them to be closer to each other than they thought they ever would be. But this kind of subplot is minimally explored due to its slimmed running time.

Griffin (Slater), the 2nd Hollow Man & Dr. Dalton (Regan)

The things that still held up during this add-on were the carnage and visual effects. It's no Paul Verhoeven film, but it still has some strong scenes of violence. And for a Direct-to-Video sequel, the visual effects are top notch looking. I'm surprised the crew could still do that with such a smaller budget. I was definitely impressed with that. And to not give the ending away, I'm curious to if there is hope for an invisible person, because maybe not all of them are unstable. Could this lead to a Hollow Man 3? Probably not, but it would be interesting if it goes that route.

For a Direct-to-Video sequel, the visuals are good and so is the violence but it doesn't add anything knew to the story. If anything, it ignores the first film almost entirely.

Points Earned --> 6:10

Hollow Man (2000) Review:

Invisibility has always been a neat idea. Some of it has been explored before and it has been used in many fashions. But to have it done in this particular way is another story. Becoming invisible in this world is a scientific reality; not magic. That's what makes this a cool concept. To actually come up with a formula that disguises the human body so that it becomes transparent with any light that is reflected off it is absolutely stunning. And that is what starts off our story here.

Sebastian Caine (Bacon),  a scientist in search for opportunity

Kevin Bacon plays Sebastian Caine, a scientist who cracked the code for making any biological organism absolutely transparent to the naked eye. The problem is that he has never tested it on a human body, until now. So to make sure that it actually does work, Caine decides to test it on himself. This is where the really cool stuff joins the screen. To become invisible, Caine is injected with the serum that will make him transparent. When this occurs, soon all of Caine's skin, then muscles, and organs start to appear. It’s as if the viewer is brought back to the days where there were charts of the human body hanging in the science classes.

Then there's the case of Bacon's character actually being invisible. A lot of is well done because of how delicate it is to balance between what is on screen and what actually isn't. Making a plastic face mold for Caine so the rest of his crew could see him was an incredible stroke. Let's not forget that Bacon has some fun with his character before he really starts to head off the deep end. It is from there that Hollow Man begins to become frustrating.

Caine.....currently invisible!

Soon after becoming invisible, Caine's crewmembers can't seem to figure out a way of making him visible again. Because of this, Caine starts to become restless and aggressive. Once he heads down this path, he doesn't return. Soon, he begins to disobey his co-workers and runs amok in the lab. It's actually quite disappointing to see because something different could have been done to make Sebastian Caine a little more interesting. Some audiences would have found his performance more appreciative if his character started doing good things out of the ordinary for other individuals. I for one would have enjoyed if he took that path; but that isn't the case.

Like any Verhoeven film though, the gore is definitely there. By the finale of the film, Caine is one sick puppy. Some of the weapons he uses on his victims and the way he uses them are just downright brutal. Even science fiction soundtrack master Jerry Goldsmith couldn’t help this film. He definitely had the sci-fi tones in his music but no real feeling in it. Come on Goldsmith!

It's nice to see Paul Verhoeven do amazing things with the power of invisibility. However, the character of Sebastian Caine isn't anything worth watching. Kevin Bacon tries to entertain but the story spirals down into one big mess.

Points Earned --> 7:10

Hercules In New York (1970) Review:

As a child, I have seen movies that really grab the viewer's attention and have lovable characters that make a lasting impression. Children's movies like Gumby: The Movie (1995), Thomas and the Magic Railroad (2000), and Space Jam (1996) all have the things a child could ask for. As for Hercules in New York, the film definitely made a lasting impression but on the weird side of things. Sponsored by the Tooniversal Company, this piece of cinema is fun to watch for nostalgia purposes only.

This is Arnold Schwarzenegger's first film debut as the man who is part god, and part human. The story starts off when he is up in Olympus where he wants to be sent down to Earth because he is tired of hanging around with the Gods. So he argues with his father Zeus, who gets so livid that he sends him down to New York. Wait a minute, Zeus didn't want Hercules mingling with humans, so why was he sent down to New York in the first place? Why was there even an argument? Whatever.

Yup,...that's a lot of nostalgia (especially for himself!)

Along with Schwarzenegger is Arnold Stang, who plays a character called Pretzie, a wimpy man who carries a basket of pretzels in the first part of the film that he's seen. From there, he no longer holds a bag of pretzels, what a surprise. I will say, the actors picked for the roles of each character were picked accurately, but I'm not saying their acting is good. Stang plays as good wimpy character, and is funny to see his eyes bulge. Even Schwarzenegger is good as Hercules, but that's because of his physique and I assume that's really all he needed. That is one of the nostalgic points in this movie; Schwarzenegger's muscles. It's amazing to see how big he really was in the 70s. The other part that is nostalgic about this film is to see what SOME of New York looked like back then, but that's about all the viewer will get.

What makes this movie so awkward are how the scenes are done. There are moments where Hercules is supposed to be doing something extraordinary. Instead what he does looks cheaply done and the sound effects don't help. Hercules knocks (more like love-taps) a man into a bay, and the splashing water makes it sound like a pebble was tossed. What? Who would have thought these brutes were made of confetti? There's even a scene where Hercules fights a bear. Yes a bear, and it doesn't even look like a bear. The viewer will be able to tell that this is not a bear, but a person inside a bear suit. To make matters worse, Hercules attacks the bear by slapping it; yes slapping it. Schwarzenegger slapping? It's really ridiculous to see The Terminator (1984) beat up a bear so poorly.

Yes, this is a real scene....& it gets weirder

As for the damsel in distress, Deborah Loomis, I have never heard so much screaming, almost as much as Kirsten Dunst in Spiderman (2002), if not more. My ears were ringing after hearing her. She even faints in once scene, and it didn't even look real. As for the music, which was composed by John Balamos, is not a whole lot better. I can't even tell what kind of instrument is used but it's not an orchestra I'll say that much. A lot of the music is the same and it sounds really corny. I'm really surprised Schwarzenegger has become such a box office hit by starting from this movie. This film obviously did not get him famous but if he had not auditioned for the role, we may not have any of the Terminator movies or Total Recall (1990), whatever. When the film finished, I was barely entertained and shocked to how bad the film was compared to its trailer. What shocks me even more is that the director of this film is still making movies today!

Hercules in New York is a very silly kid's movie that may not even entertain the smallest of ages. Much of the scenes in this film are stupid and the only thing that may catch the viewer's attention is Arnold Schwarzenegger's bulging biceps.

Points Earned --> 5:10

Gumby Dharma (2006) Review:

For the longest time I was curious to how Gumby became so famous. Now that I've seen this film, I know Gumby has a rich background, and his creator also had a troubled life. It is the sad truth in this story. Not all famous people have had good lives. Another thing and this are the only two reasons why I gave this documentary nine out of ten stars. With the story revealing about how creator, Art Clokey had went through life, I just didn't understand his logic. Then again I will never understand.

Art Clokey - Gumby's Creator

In this documentary, the viewer is told of how the story of Art Clokey unfolds. It really is interesting to see how Clokey's hobbies and interests turned into reality for him. As a child, he said that he loved to play in the mud and sculpt objects out of it. How intriguing that even at an early age, he already liked molding clay. Watching something like this made me think back and wonder what were my early hobbies when I was kid. Are any of the things I liked doing back then as kid still exist in my interests now?

It's also cool to see the people behind Clokey that helped him create the beloved characters of the Gumby show. He explains how he got the idea of making Prickle and Goo. Clokey's son even explains what each character of the Gumby show represents and it really shows once the viewer looks at the TV series with this perspective. What's even more interesting is how Art Clokey came up with the idea for Gumby's color. Hearing the reasoning for this just blew me away. I never would have guessed.

The two things I didn't like about this film were the way it was produced and how Art Clokey told his story. First about Art Clokey, watching the story being told, made me lose a little respect for him. Unfortunately because of how he acted in his life. I will give him credit for coming out and telling what he did wrong but it seemed like for a guy who made a show that was so innocent, would have such bad parts in his life. I could just never grasp the idea. It was almost like Clokey's dark side and I was not pleased with it.

This to show the scale that animators have to work with...

As for how the film was made, it felt like the film was half perfected. I say this because when certain clips would roll and then cut out, it seemed like the transition wasn't fully there. Like the filmmakers only wanted show certain parts. This didn't happen all the time but for the parts that did show, it seemed shady for an open documentary. I know it looks like I'm condemning this movie but I'm explaining what I felt when I watched it. Overall though, I enjoyed this film very much and feel it is an eye opening experience for any Gumby fan.

Gumby Dharma is great informational film that reveals the answers to any questions Gumby fans might have. Not only does it point out the good and the bad of Art Clokey, but it also makes the viewer realize that even the most famous of celebrities are not perfect.

Points Earned --> 9:10

Gumby: The Movie (1995) Review:

As a kid, I always enjoyed how creative Gumby had his adventures on the TV show. So much of it was just for pure fun. When I finally heard that there had been a movie released, I was super excited. And none to my surprise, Gumby: The Movie rocked my world. For any Gumby fan, this movie will be a great hit. Everything in this movie is kept the same and even includes some cultural references.

The Clayboys Band

Director Art Clokey, who directs his final Gumby film, has done a magnificent job. Dal McKennon is back as good old Gumby and several other characters. Even Art Clokey is Prickle and some other roles. All the animation is done by clay; how else would a Gumby film be done?! Most of the comedic parts are watching the silent Blockheads fight with each other. They're always doing something foolish.

The effects are great in this movie. Since stop motion cinematography allows you to make a special effect over time, much of the creations that are made are really quite stunning. This movie BARELY uses CGI for any part of the film. It's things like these that bring the viewer back to the time where CGI wasn't used very often and was only used if it was available. Now almost if not every movie studio uses CGI for anything they want and its gets tiresome to see the same effects used over and over again. Claymation is a sorely missed special effect that is now extinct in the movie making business at least from what I see now.

I really should not have put this up but see the reference?

The music, which was composed by Jerry Gerber, is great listening to. Because this movie uses dated effects, it's great to hear music that belongs from the same era. Unfortunately, the soundtrack to this film is inaccessible. I get flustered over that but it's still good that it used in the movie thank heaven. What's also great to see are the cultural references in this film. The Blockheads make robot duplicates of the main characters; sounds a little like The Terminator (1984). Another scene where Gumby fights his robotic clone with a light saber. Need to say more?

As the last film made by Art Clokey, Gumby: The Movie will please its fans and may gain interest in others who are not familiar with Gumby. For anyone who has never seen claymation at its best, this is it.

Points Earned --> 10:10

Groundhog Day (1993) Review:

What is it about these movies that star Bill Murray in and they are considered a comedy classic? By many, Groundhog Day is considered one of the greatest comedies, along with Ghost Busters (1984), to ever hit the screen. Either I am just hard to get when it comes to Murray's comedy or maybe Murray really isn't the comedian that he presents himself as. I found this movie to be funny but again, not gut busting funny. I think Bill Murray is a very competent actor but somehow his version of comedy is not as funny as Jim Carrey's comedy.

Billy Murray as the ungrateful news reporter

The story of Groundhog Day is more or less similar to It's A Wonderful Life (1946). Bill Murray stars as Phil Connors, a self-centered meteorologist who doesn't give about anybody's opinion but his own. In the beginning I was already disgusted with his character, he was such a drama queen. It was quite pitiful to see Bill Murray be that way, which is how convincing he was at being a jerk to everyone. I hated him just as much as his co-stars did for a while too. Along with Murray stars, Andie MacDowell and Chris Elliot as his news crew.

Andie MacDowell

As for the comedy element of this movie, many parts were funny. Obviously more of this comes out when Phil Connors realizes he is stuck in same day, everyday. Some of the best scenes are when he talks to an old school friend called Ned. It's funny because it seems like Stephen Tobolowsky enjoyed playing the part of Ned, who is such a weird geek I might add. Even the Flying Dutchman from Spongebob Squarepants has a role in this film. I won't point out who he is because his voice is easy to recognize.

The music was contributed by George Fenton who I'll admit although I've never heard his music before has some emotional parts to this film. It really does work especially when Connors is trying to explain himself to people and they won't believe him. What works out the best is how Phil Connors learns to appreciate life than scorning at it. That is the gift of gold from this movie. Even I as a viewer thought when the movie ended, "Wow, I'm lucky to be where I am right now", as should any other viewer when the movie concludes.

Groundhog Day has a good dose of hardy slapstick and a good cast of actors to help the chuckles keep on coming. Besides that, what makes it even better is the life lesson that is learned in the end.

Points Earned --> 8:10

Gridiron Gang (2006) Review:

There are always people that take a wrong turn in life. Some turn around by themselves, but many don't because they lack the encouragement and support. Watching Gridiron Gang shows that one person CAN make a difference in the lives of others. If trust, heart and soul are put into another individual, that individual should feel inspired to do something positive with that energy. And that's what happens in this story.

Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson as Sean Porter.....

Dwayne Johnson plays Sean Porter, a man with a tradition of doing things on his playing ground. What is he? A football coach, and what a great role it is for Johnson too. Johnson's build is perfect for that kind of character, especially since he's a tough character. So who does he coach? Convicts who are originally uninterested about participating in anything Porter offers. Why? Because these convicts belong to their own gangs on the streets. And without their brotherhood, they don’t have anything when they're locked up.

However, this all turns around when they learn what it's like to belong to a team where they're all in it together AND someone else believes in them.  The person who believes in them is Porter. This is what makes this film so great. The character development is so moving, no one will be disappointed when the film ends. The audience will really see the transition between what the characters used to be and how they turn out in the end. It's a gratifying feeling to see such a positive outcome.

...the coach who change a group of boys lives forever

All the actors in this film give great performances. The protagonists show their eagerness to help, while the antagonists do a good job at portraying their prideful sides. The screenplay is written brilliantly so it shows the problems that still go on in others lives while they try and cope with being locked up. It's all very realistic and it may come close to home for some viewers because every town has its problems.

The story is grounded and it'll stick to its goal to get its point across just like the football players in this film. The dramatization is superb and it shows that no matter what, everyone deserves a chance to redeem him or herself if they try hard enough.

Points Earned --> 10:10

Glory (1989) Review:

I was introduced to this film when I was in middle school. Of course, our class did not watch it fully; we were only shown a piece of it. It never came back into my mind of watching it again until I graduated high school. It was when I looked back on what I remembered, and I thought to myself, "I need to watch that civil war movie again". So I did, and it was one of the best decisions I've ever made.

Can't much here because it's such a powerful image

For its genre, which is drama, I can imagine it is hard to make something like the civil war so realistic and but no too overblown. What we have here is piece of cinema that digs down into America's past and gives the viewer an eye opening experience of what the civil war was like. Even more persuasive are the characters portrayed by the actors in this movie. Not many people recognize or even know of the African American Infantry who fought during the war and this is one of the best depictions of that. I didn't even know of any until I watched this film.

Matthew Broderick stars as Colonel Robert Shaw who is given the task of leading an African American division for the Union. Although Broderick has the voice of kid, he fits the part of Shaw well. Along side him is Cary Elwes who is Shaw's right hand man and good friend. As for the African American actors in this film, who are too many to list, make the movie have emotion in almost every scene. This is what makes the movie work. It shows the strife and the hard labor that the soldiers had to endure. The part I felt the worst about was when the Irish Commander was training them. There was no break with this guy.

Colonel Shaw (Broderick) commanding his troops

The reality of this movie is great too. Both big major budget films such as Gods and Generals (2003) and Gettysburg (1993) were not totally brutal with their killing scenes. On the other hand for this film, there is plenty of it. Soldiers with missing limbs, graphic stabbing and even heads blowing up are all in this. So if you want a civil war film that gives you blood and guts, this is that film.

Finally what makes this film so powerful is the soundtrack provided by the talented James Horner. If Horner had not composed the music for this film, I'm not sure if Glory would have become so popular as it is now. The way the music is inserted in certain scenes is so reflective. Horner's music brought me to reality of what military life was like back then. It almost brought a tear to my eye and that is hard to do. If you end up loving this movie, the soundtrack is the second best thing to have.

Glory is arguably the best American Civil War movie ever made. An amazing cast and distinguished musical score not only make this movie excel in its story but also makes the viewer understand what "glory" feels like.

Points Earned --> 10:10

Ghost Busters II (1989) Review:

Ghost Busters II is the only sequel I have seen so far where I feel my review is for the most part the same. To me, this movie wasn't really like a sequel. It was like Columbia Pictures decided to reinvent Ghost Busters (1984) by changing the visuals. Yes there are different things in the plot, for example, it's set five years later, Sigourney Weaver's character has a baby, and the Ghost Busters have to restore their names to New York by saving the city like they did five years before. But none of these minor changes made me feel like I was watching anything new.

The most well known cast known universally

For the cast of this movie, all the same the actors reprise their roles. That is a good thing, because replacing actors for the same character doesn't end well most of the time; but this is not the case. You would think though the writers to this film would do something extraordinary with the characters, but no. Instead we seem to get a rehash from the first film. I enjoyed the original Ghost Busters to a point. It was funny but I did not think it was AS funny as everyone "claimed" it to be.

As for the special effects, I felt that director Ivan Reitman had an ambitious concept and used it well. Although it still did not raise my interest of the movie to a higher level, it definitely kept me paying attention to what was happening on screen. Much of the effects in this movie deal with slime. Watching the slime ooze and sludge all over town reminded me of The Blob (1988), but in a less graphic sense. I'm curious if Dan Aykroyd borrowed this idea from that movie. I would like to know how they even cleaned the mess up. I can't tell which would have been more difficult; cleaning the mess in the first movie with the "Stay Puft Marshmallow Man", or the slime. I'd pick the marshmallow, at least you can eat that.

Hmmmm.......is that the Blob from 1988??

Finally, the parts in the movie that were supposed to be funny did make me laugh, but still, not enough. And although I cannot count exactly how many times I chuckled, it felt like the same amount of times as I did for the first film. It still was funny but I was hoping Ghost Busters II would have turned my opinion around on the first one. Instead, it left me in the same vicinity as the first one. I did like the musical score in this film. I might've even liked it more than Elmer Bernstein's soundtrack from the Ghost Busters (1984). I really can't explain why but it has a different feeling than the one before. In the end, Ghost Busters II was not two hours wasted, but it could have been done better.

Ghost Busters II will satisfy fans of the franchise but it's almost too close to the original. All the original characters are back, but it seems like nothing new was added; besides more slime.

Points Earned --> 8:10

Ghost Busters (1984) Review:

Ghost Busters is supposedly one of the greatest comedies ever to hit the big screen. I'll admit although the special effects are old, they still are a marvel to look at from so many years ago. I also enjoyed the actors who played in this movie I feel that they all did really well at their jobs. A lot of them had funny moments. My only complaint is that I did not have enough laughs. I felt that there were parts that were supposed to be funny but seemed liked they were out of place.

The original 3 Ghost Busters

Starring as the awesome four in this film are Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Harold Ramis and Ernie Hudson. Murray is good at being a smart mouthed "doctor". Aykroyd is good at making himself look like a complete science nerd with the way he talks. Ramis' character, although somewhat awkward is funny to watch too. As for Hudson, I've always enjoyed the way he makes his character look and act. Even Sigourney Weaver from Alien (1979) has some interesting moments.

Together these actors come out on top and make the film very enjoyable. The only problem I didn't seem to understand is the humor in this film. Yeah it was funny for the most part but some moments seemed out of context, or just plain weird. Either it's me because I'm from another generation or it's just that it wasn't that funny. I'm not sure. When I heard people talk about Ghost Busters I expected to have gut busting laughter. I did laugh but not a lot and not out loud. For a movie of this magnitude of fans, you'd think it would be hard to resist, but I didn't cling to me like it did to other viewers.

Slimer,...an iconic symbol of the franchise

I liked the music that was played in the background. Composed and conducted by Elmer Bernstein, it has jokey attitude, which helps this movie with its comedic moments. I liked how the tuba played as the main title came on. It was because of that intro, I got a better understanding of how serious Director Ivan Reitman wanted this film to be.

The special effects are still lovable in this film. Seeing the Ghost Busters' use their equipment, such as the beam guns, brings back fond memories of watching Disney's Black Hole (1979). My favorite moment is when Bill Murray's character has an encounter with a green slime ghost. It's fun to watch and to imagine of how at the time, something like that could have been pulled off. Of course there are parts that are much better than this but I don't want to give them away. Overall I enjoyed the film, even with the setbacks I had when it ended.

Ghost Busters is a funny science fiction comedy with some really unique special effects. Director Ivan Reitman picked a good cast for this film and they work well together to boot.

Points Earned --> 8:10

Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance (2012) Review:

Back in 2007, audiences were able to see first hand what the Marvel Comic book anti-hero, Ghost Rider, would look like on screen. Unfortunately too few people were pleased with the results. Nicolas Cage who played Johnny Blaze/Ghost Rider seemed uncomfortable with his character and didn't quite know how to bring out the true feeling of the movie. Adding to this were the ridiculous villains who barely did anything throughout the film's running time except for bad mouth other characters. Overall, the Ghost Rider of 2007, which was directed Mark Steven Johnson, was outlandishly cartoony and needed improvement on the script.

Fast forward to 2012, almost EXACTLY 5 years (just a day apart by release), the next story of Ghost Rider as fans would say - "Rides again". Call it a sequel or a remake, one could look at it both ways. Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance (GR2) was directed by the Brian Taylor and Mark Neveldine team and I give them a lot of credit for taking on this franchise. It's not easy to impress comic book fans, especially when the first one was more or less a flop. However, this Ghost Rider film, by far, surpasses its predecessor by a significant amount.

Cage being much more involved with his role this time

So what's better in this film - almost everything! Let's start with what I talked about earlier. In the first Ghost Rider, we saw a Nicolas Cage who really did look like he was comfortable in the shoes of Johnny Blaze. It was almost like after his father's death, he fell into a depression that left him absolutely non- emotional. It is much clearer now that the role of Johnny Blaze was made to be so Cage knew what how he had to act out his character. He clearly states several times, that he tries his best to hold back the evil inside him and it's not easy to do. And one must understand, because he has this force inside of him, something that powerful could make him go insane. Nicolas will go insane so don't be surprised when he does. This is the Johnny Blaze that should have been written into the first movie.

What's even better is that Cage is actually funnier in this film as Blaze. There aren't any awkward moments like there were in the first film. The script definitely received an improvement over the past five years. There isn't a love interest in this story, which is good because that's probably what was holding the character of Blaze back from 2007. This movie is solely about Blaze trying to take control of the curse he was given. Along with Cage are all different actors to fill the voids of new characters. Violante Placido plays Nadya, a mother who conceived a son (Fergus Riordan), whom now the devil (Ciaran Hinds) wants to claim and it's up to Blaze and a friend named Moreau (Idris Elba) to take on the problem. Moreau is another character who puts some comedy into this action/adventure, horror flick.

A much more intimidating Ghost Rider no? I think so!

As for action goes, GR2 has plenty, if not more than the first. And this time, Ghost Rider has some considerable opponents. In 2007, Ghost Rider fought off four demons, Blackheart and his three minions. I couldn't even count the amount of bad guys Blaze fought off...sorry wrong word; killed. Another thing I enjoyed watching. In the first movie, Ghost Rider was a hokey character who never really got to use his true hellish powers. Ghost Rider shows no mercy in GR2. Villains will burn, explode and disintegrate. Ghost Rider's penance stare is no longer the same either. My only complaint is that during certain scenes, there would be different camera shots inserted. Those different camera shots made me feel like something else was happening when really what was happening, WAS happening and not something else. The music is great too. David Sardy who produced the movie's score, has good sense of what this film should sound like and he did just that.

Lastly, are the special effects. The portrayal of Ghost Rider is much more accurate. Ghost Rider as a whole is totally charred. Even his jacket bubbles! Keep your eyes open for that because you can really see it, which is absolutely surreal. Making Ghost Rider look even more spectacular is the fire that he is engulfed in. It is no longer a clean flame that cloaked Ghost Rider in 2007. No. It is a torch that creates so much sooty smoke, that it's almost suffocating just to watch it on screen. This is what makes Ghost Rider, Ghost Rider. Something so grungy, that it looks like it came from hell. One other effect I like was one of the devil's helpers who had the power to decay anything he touched; except Twinkies! Ha!

For the first time taking on this Marvel character, directors Neveldine and Taylor nailed Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance. With a tuned-up script, better character dialog, accurate special effects, and an exciting score, this film plays better than the original.

Points Earned --> 8:10

Ghost Rider (2007) Review:

Ghost Rider was always a cool comic book character. So why not make it into a movie? Although this movie had a great financial success, its screenplay is actually quite sloppy. I'm surprised it did so well. I liked Ghost Rider. I liked the visuals, the action, and the villains (a little). But I felt things could have been polished. Mark Steven Johnson who directed and wrote the story for this movie could have done better.

Nicolas Cage as Johnny Blaze......being awkward

To start off, Nicolas Cage plays as the anti-hero Johnny Blaze/Ghost Rider. I really like the way they made Ghost Rider look in this film. Just like a bat out of hell, his skull is cloaked in flames, his jacket has spikes on it, he has a flame chain, and his bike has a mind of its own! Much of it is fun to watch. Just seeing Ghost Rider for the first time on screen was pretty awesome to see. The action was good too. Any of the sarcastic comments Ghost Rider makes in this film is funny to hear. I even thought the actors who played the villains were good. What destroyed all these good moments, was how the character's dialogs were brought out.

Most of the dialog in this movie is weird, if not awkward. Mostly due to Cage's character, Johnny Blaze. I guess Mark Steven Johnson figured because Blaze lost his soul to the devil, he might as well lose his personality too. If that's the case, it was not a smart choice. It almost seems like Cage AND ONLY Cage is uncomfortable with his character. I know he's a fan of Ghost Rider but it seems like the script was written out of wack for him. There are parts where it seems like Cage is lost in himself and doesn't know what to say next. I don't quite understand that. One other thing I didn't comprehend was that there was way too much "pointing while zooming up on the face" business. Was the director trying to make a trademark for himself in this film? Not only is it redundant, it can be very obnoxious.

The more entertaining side of Johnny Blaze!

The other element that does not work here are the villains. I liked the bad guys in this movie. They looked frightening to me when I first saw them. But then I noticed a trend as Ghost Rider had finished one off at a time. None of the bad guys really did anything. Blackheart, the son of the devil, has henchmen who have powers like the characters from Avatar: The Last Airbender, except they don't involve all the martial arts moves. Before Ghost Rider is about to finish one of Blackheart's henchman, we don't even see him use any of his powers. Well that was kind of anti-climactic. Even Blackheart himself barely uses his "almighty" powers against Ghost Rider. It's really disappointing to watch.

Besides these parts of the film, I enjoyed Christopher Young's soundtrack. It has a lot of guitar in it and creates a punk tone to the action. Sam Elliot appears in this movie as a minor character, he's always fun to listen too but even he can't make up for the bad screenplay. It's unfortunate because I really like Ghost Rider as a character and was expecting something a little more darker for a dark character.

Ghost Rider will please fans to a point, with its good action and awesome special effects. But nothing can help the film recover from its lazy screenplay, awkward dialog and dull villains.

Points Earned --> 7:10