The Fifth Element (1997) Review:

At some point in the decade of the 1990s, almost every big name action star received the opportunity to play an action role in the science fiction genre. Bruce Willis was no different. After starring in three popular entries of the Die Hard (1988) franchise, it was time for Willis to step into the future. In the early 1900s, ancient guardians that had built a machine to protect humans from an evil force that destroys all life (kind of like Galactus) visited Earth. In order to make this weapon of protection work; four stones that represent the four elements must be placed in the temple of which it was created. At the center of it lies the fifth element. Skip 300 years later and viewers see Willis playing Korben Dallas, an ex-military man who currently works as a taxi-driver.

I was crying too,...hoping there'd be more action

It is in this lifetime that Dallas discovers that he will have to save the world by reuniting the five elements together back where they came from. Running parallel to Dallas is Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg (Gary Oldman) who also wants the stones and is in cahoots with the strange nameless evil force. From what was just told, the premise sounds awfully serious. Turns out though, almost nothing is taken zealously. This tone shift is brought on after the brief introduction and it may take some time for viewers to readjust. Adding to that is the writing, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense. First, why does this mythical being want death and destruction to everything living? There has to be some kind of motive. Is it the same motive as Zorg's? That's the closest audiences get to one and it doesn't even come from the evil thing itself.

Plus, of all things how did this evil force come into contact with Zorg and why did it choose to work with him personally? Surely there must be other chaotic death hungry villains in this universe. Another weird thing is that every time someone is near this force, they leak black fluid from their head? It doesn't make any sense. Writer/director Luc Besson and Robert Mark Kamen have both made better works and it shows they weren't catching the mistakes here. Unusually, even though the writing isn’t very good, most of the actors give their characters a good amount of quality. Willis makes Dallas very nonchalant and his ability to role off the piling issues, which is a likable trait. Oldman as the evil forces' henchman is comical in some ways due to the manner in which he speaks. Chris Tucker as a popular radio DJ wasn't needed but was funny. Depending on preference, he will either be funny or annoying. Tucker is a polarizing actor when it comes to comedy. Even the late Brion James has a number of funny moments dealing with Willis' role.

Perplexing as it may be, Mila Jovovich is the only actor who doesn't have the most likable role. It's not because of her looks or acting ability but more on the development of her character. She speaks another language and can understand English yet can’t speak English. With this, the charm of her character isn't very strong. Also, she claims that she exists to protect Dallas when that barely even happens. I don't know, but you'd think that if an actor plays one of the most important plot related roles, they need to be the most likable and developed. Well it doesn't feel that way here. The editing is another issue. The pacing drags frequently, yet editing is done in a way that simultaneously connects all plot threads so that everything collides at once. The beauty of convenience,...but the movie still drags. Sigh. Thankfully, there is some action,...some. When the action hits, it works well. Willis and Tucker produce a number of laughs as the explosions ensue. Even Jovovich has her own fight scene. She looks great but it doesn't last long unfortunately.

This,......is the evil force,....kind of like that
green glowing ball from Heavy Metal (1981)

The visual effects have plus and minuses too. The special/practical effects look well made and for 1997 don't look have bad today either. The best looking features are the futuristic technology in various rooms and the creature makeup. The CGI sequences do look a little shaky but not noticeably bad. However, the cinematography does nothing to visually help the movie. Aside from the futuristic gadgets looking cool, the camerawork is plain and uninteresting. Completing this is composer Eric Serra's music, which only impresses half way. When it came to comedy, Serra's tracks did occasionally improve the scene and make it funnier. Yet for the dramatic moments and other scenes, he continued to use odd sounding instruments and weird overtones. This may draw viewers out of the scene rather than into it. Serra is a very avant garde composer, perhaps a little too much. He didn't even stick to the sci-fi genre of music. Disappointing.

It's not a total failure but the entertainment it grants is only half there. The majority of the actors make their characters fun to watch, the action is quick and lively and the comedy is decent. Yet the music is a peculiar audio mix, the pacing is slow and the writing has numerous holes that don't make much sense. It's not unwatchable but it's not that decent either.

Points Earned --> 5:10

Junior (1994) Review:

Movies can be categorized into several different groups (and not just by genre). This can be based on the kind of viewing experience it gives its audience. As for this movie, it is difficult to classify where this male version of a "chick flick" should be placed. It is quite honestly one of the most oddest oddballs anyone could watch. This is mostly due to the case because the concept overall was new (for its time) and sounded good on paper. Nonetheless, that doesn't mean it would look good in real life. So in order to make this happen without it having coming across as a freak show, director Ivan Reitman turned it into a comedy. Yet somehow, this did not make it any less bewildering of a production. The entire running time is just weird.

"I'm pregnant..........."

Dr. Larry Arbogast (Danny DeVito) convinces his cohort Dr. Alex Hesse (Arnold Schwarzenegger) to test himself as a human lab rat for a pregnancy test after the two are fired from the University they work for by Noah Banes (Frank Langella). Replacing the two doctors is the young and beautiful Dr. Diana Reddin (Emma Thompson) who soon joins the confusion and nonsense that erupts. For its writing, credit must be given for being ambitious. It also brings up a couple of good points about what it’s like to be a mom and the side effects of being pregnant. These kinds of notions are demonstrated through Arnold who goes through all these definitive moments (that's next to be contended to). Along with that is Emma Thompson's character who at least sheds some light on the struggles that women go through that men would certainly not understand (even in Arnold's case). Setting this to the side, the rest of the story is just DeVito and Schwarzenegger telling lies in order to hold over the experiment. A very silly pot-boiler plot and it shows because the two writers behind this, Kevin Wade and Chris Conrad did not really have enough experience to produce a screenplay with decent quality.

As a comedy, it's not strong. DeVito, the funnyman, only has a few quips that are noteworthy. The best is when he's discovered of lying. Arnold only had one funny moment and that's when he yells like a man instead of acting like a woman and its only funny because of the doofy face he has at the time. In fact, this film actually makes the female actors like Emma Thompson and Pamela Reed (Dr. Arbogast's ex) funnier than the male actors. This is because they are actual females and don’t need to act like a woman. I don't know, it's just outlandish seeing action man Arnold Schwarzenegger acting like a woman in drag. It doesn't feel right and it's more of a put-off than anything else. But who knew, in 2007 Thomas Beattie the first man (who was originally a woman) would actually become pregnant. And that was no comedy. Even Christopher Meloni from Law & Order: SVU has a more natural role in this story. But I digress.

Ok, start again and this time explain it
reallllyyyyy slowly

The rest of the components to the film aren't that great either. Cinematography provided by Adam Greenberg who shot for other megahit movies like The Terminator (1984) and Terminator 2: Judgement Day (1991) goes all out wishy-washy this time. There's nothing really interesting to look at here other than the occasional bright and feminine colors that appear in the usual maternity rooms. The practical effects are ok but are immediately ruined when the special effects kick in and it is very noticeable. As clear as day, and looking back on it, it looks underdeveloped. As for music, arranged by James Newton Howard, the tracks do work with the softer more emotional moments but for the comedic moments it doesn't. Howard's music is somewhat of the reversal of the contemporary styles of Christopher Lennertz's music, where he can maintain the comedic notes but not much of any emotional ones.

This feature is an irregular mix of comedy, drama and romance it only works in a few places. The female actresses are funnier than the male actors are and watching Arnold Schwarzenegger become a mom is not the most enlightening experience or the most realistic one.

Points Earned --> 4:10

Insidious (2010) Review:

Although director James Wan hasn't made multiple horror movies, his productions usually end being the next box office grab. Not only did he ignite the Saw (2004) franchise, but he also began his second franchise here with this film. It's not a surprise that this happened because of how much of an innate talent Wan has for making horror films. At first his focus was on insane people, then ghosts and now demons. The trend just keeps getting more supernatural. The story depicted is about a husband and wife that end up seeing their son go into a coma. As time goes on however, they begin to also notice strange events going on as well that for some reason deal with their sleeping son.

Rose Byrne & Patrick Wilson

As a narrative, the story is very solid. Leigh Whannell's writing not only makes its audience invest themselves in the characters but also in the new universe (The Further) that is given as well. Unfortunately, there is one drawback and that is, of which this new dimension, The Further is explained. Who discovered this dimension? How does one acquire the ability to enter and leave this particular area? These kinds of questions are rather significant when this specific plot point is the backbone of the story. Besides this, the writing is captivating enough that viewers may not have these questions on the tip of their tongues. Patrick Wilson and Rose Byrne both portray their characters nicely and develop off of each other from time to time. Ty Simpkins plays the child that is in the coma. Although Simpkins does not take part in much of dialog, his part is still a scary position to be in and when he does speak, he shows he can act.

The rest of the supporting cast is noteworthy too, of which writer Leigh Whannell is apart of. Along with him are Angus Sampson, Barbara Hershey and Lin Shaye who all try to help the couple get their son to good health. The visual aspects to the film also worked in its favor. John R. Leonetti's cinematography helped with the atmosphere of the situation and definitely made good use of his visual style when entering The Further realm. Leonetti also had David M. Brewer work with him. My guess is since Brewer does not have many theatrical releases under his belt, Leonetti was giving him some professional advice and experience. The special/practical effects and horror elements to the film blend nicely too. James Wan also seems to be backpedaling when it comes to gore. Ever since Saw (2004), his other directorial films contain less and less blood. For gorehounds, they will be disappointed but gore isn't always needed to make these kinds of movies scary.

Everybody say CHEEZE

The scariest thing about this movie is two parts. The first part are the ghosts smiles, they are downright unnerving. The second is the demon played by musical composer Joseph Bishara. The makeup on him is terrifyingly well done. The only problem however is the way Bishara plays the demon. Originally, his minor appearances are extremely noteworthy. However later on, he's portrayed in somewhat of a campy fashion. Not sure if it was intentional or not but it lowers the terrifying quality of this character when initially his presence was so menacing. As for music, Bishara's composition is a totally different ball of wax. Right off the bat, like many other tracks composed by Bishara, audiences will be introduced to the shrieking strings. Despite that being his way of creating many of his tracks, Bishara actually composes a lot of other emotionally related themes that revolve around the family in the story. This shows that Bishara knows how to compose motifs that are easy on the ears no matter how simplistic and juvenile his other tracks may sound.

It has decent scares, believable acting, well-rounded music and a new story to tell that goes beyond the normal ghost stories told before. On the other hand, there are some key parts of information left out that are quite important to the back-story. Plus, some of the terrifying tension may be lost if one can't get past a particularly campy scene.

Points Earned --> 7:10

The Woman in Black 2: Angel of Death (2015) Review:

There are some stories that are just hard continuing as a complete narrative. Sometimes either the source material or the premise itself just doesn't permit it to move far from its origins. This is mostly due to the limitations that were set for the movie's concept from the start. For The Woman in Black (2012), it was certainly not a horror film to truly disrupt the way viewers saw usually the genre. Its story was simple but creepy simultaneously. A woman had her son taken from her and was sent off to a mental asylum where she vowed to she'd see her son. Since then, anyone who has seen the ghostly figure who represented this woman, lost his or her child too. This all took place in the late 1800s. Leap almost half a century and we now are in 1941, World War II. After several young one's houses were bombed by an aerial strike, a caretaker and her assistant Eve Parkins (Phoebe Fox) round up the children to be moved to a safer area; secluded from the war. This brings this group to the mansion of the woman in black from the first entry.

Phoebe Fox

This regrettably doesn’t end up being a good time for the people staying there or the viewers watching the screen. One big question audiences may have, is why was this place of first choice? It was stated in the movie that this was the only opportunity. Who authorized such an option? You mean to tell me among no other houses in the UK, this came up first? Did anyone learn or pay attention to what happened to anyone who stayed there like Arthur Kipps from the original? Plus, it's in the middle of open space, the mansion is like a giant target. Also, if this is the place of which people will be living, why does it look like it hasn't been taken care of at all? People understand that to make the house look creepier it has to decay even more than from the last movie but it kind of defeats the purpose when it's supposed to be made available for tenants. Credit must be given though to the setting of the story. Having it set in WWII is different and the further decay and abandonment of the mansion does make it look worse (in a good way). Time has a way of bringing out the mystery in something when it ages.

Dismally like other sequels, the script also suffers from unexplained occurrences and a lack of connection to its parent. One example is of physical objects being transported through other solid physical objects. No reason given. Also, why wasn't Arthur Kipps given a brief mention? All the plot devices from the original were touched but not Kipps. Or what of significance of actor Ned Dennehy play? There really wasn't. And because the execution plays out much like its predecessor, the mystery doesn't exist and neither do the supporting elements. This is the sad part because if any viewer is seeing this to see a different story or continuation, they won't get that. Anyone who hasn't seen the first, probably will be just as creeped out as if they watch the first. Aside from a few minor changes in how a person can protect himself or herself from this vengeful specter, nothing else felt new. Jon Croker who hasn't written for a single horror film shows how much he recycled from the first.

It also shows in the imagery and the type of horror the screenplay reprocessed. For his first time theatrical release, cinematographer George Steel was able to replicate the visual style of the first but did not improve it or make it his own. The scare and horror factor to this movie is overdone with numerous jump scares. Some of which are effective, while others are tirelessly trying to catch somebody off guard. There are only a few other positives to find praiseworthy in this feature. The best part were the characters. Phoebe Fox tries her best and for her specific character shows a lot of courage. This is important for feminine roles, it actually makes them more likable than male leads. Jeremy Irvine (War Horse (2011)) who plays a pilot ends up joining the group as well and gives a human performance too. The rest of the supporting cast work but are not beyond the two actors mentioned prior.

She has to find a more welcoming wardrobe

Special effects looked decent too. There was actually less blood in this entry than the last. Yet, the make-up effects looked credible and the woman in black herself is still creepy as she was before. Lastly is Marco Beltrami's composition to the film. Although it may sound negative, Beltrami also replayed his main theme from the last entry for this installment. However, this is one recycled element that is acceptable for a couple reasons. For those who saw the first, the reoccurring theme should be just as effectively bonechilling as it was before. Also, the main theme establishes the franchise's tone and trademark tune. All important if one wants to make a successful series of films. This isn't all though. Beltrami continues to make new tracks for this second approach. Again, he uses his sad sounding cellos and music boxes and creates different themes for other scenes. I say well done. Too bad it couldn't have worked for the other half of the production.

Its new cast of actors, different time setting and music continue to show this franchise has the potential but this time is squandered by over used jump scares, disconnected writing and other unexplained events. It's not awful but as a sequel to a decent first entry, it's just average.

Points Earned --> 5:10

The Purge: Anarchy (2014) Review:

The year 2013 had a curiously captivating idea introduced into its horror genre. The launch of The Purge (2013) attracted many people to the theaters due to their eager nature to see the kind of macabre acts that could happen if such an event were real. The premise was unique and intriguing but the end result was not what people expected or received. Instead of seeing this concept being fully exploited, the production crew gave its viewers a very average film with stock characters with inhumane personalities, generic violence and standard execution. But like many other films that did well at the box office (even with bad reviews), managed to obtain a sequel. However unlike most sequels, this installment actually improves upon the original. It's not vastly refreshing but it does have better qualities than its predecessor.

Frank Grillo & his tag-alongs

If a viewer has seen the first film, a good guess can be inferred on what this one will be about. Instead of continuing the story on its beginning characters, writer/director James DeMonaco focuses on a new set of characters (quite honestly that’s fine, not many liked the original characters). All of which start as different character threads of which different people become apart of the annual purge, whether they expected to or not. What works with having separate story lines is that they come together as one, rather quickly. This keeps the story moving not only in maintaining audiences’ attentions but also by physical location. In place of having the setting focused on one household, DeMonaco now directs the viewers’ attention to the world outside where this annual "holiday" happens nationwide. Accompanying that is Jacques Jouffret's cinematography, which enlarges his viewfinder to get better panning shots of the disarray happening around the main characters.

The characters that we look at are of different areas and situations. Frank Grillo plays a man out for vengeance after his son was killed. Notably, Grillo kind of looks and acts (a little) like The Punisher. I could only imagine what a field day The Punisher would have on this day! But I digress. Carmen Ejogo and Zoë Soul play a mother and daughter duo who end up being saved by Grillo's character. Zach Gilford and Kiele Sanchez play a couple who becomes stranded at the beginning of the purge. When all these characters finally meet up together, it is their determination that makes them likable. In fact, they even help each other develop which is important in this kind of movie, where morals are highly advised when it comes to the legalization of murder. Even Edwin Hodge (the victim from the last movie) has a brief cameo along with Michael Kenneth Williams who both play rebels against the purge. They are both very welcome to fight back.

Unsuccessfully, the film still does not overcome much else. The writing incorporates multiple subplots. Some of which pertain to the main characters, where either it is concluded and has no effect on the plot or isn't concluded and felt irrelevant to begin with. There's also a subplot about government conspiracies where it is partially addressed and then left alone with giant plot holes that make no sense. When people complained about the violence being too generic from the first, apparently nobody heard them because nothing is exactly fixed there either. People are still beating the crap out of each other with the simplest and common of weapons. If this is the night of legal violence, then get creative! Use something different! The only true scary element to this movie is how sadistic various people are depicted and the beliefs they hold to this event.

Really?,......WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?

Giving your buddy a thumbs up or a fist bump because they get the chance to blow someone's head off or dismember them is god awfully sick. It should make the viewer excessively happy when these perverse people are put in their place. It is so gratifying. It's also strange because as the confrontations continue from beginning to end, they seem to become less and less personal, which is kind of what I thought the purge was all about. But to watch these weirdos say their wicked holy prayer before butchering somebody is just plain fiendish. However going back to the last flaw, Nathan Whiehead's musical score again fails to compel. The composition is loaded with electronic pulses and ticking percussion to emphasize tension but in the end it's not the best listening experience for music collectors. It is an improvement in different areas but still not spectacular entertainment.

Writer/director James DeMonaco did make some noticeable revisions to this installment compared to the first entry. This time it has likable characters with the right development, better casting and moments that do make the purge look even more sick than before. Yet, it still suffers from the cliched surrounding violence, unimportant subplots and a tiresome musical score.

Points Earned --> 6:10

Ride Along (2014) Review:

The genre of buddy cop films has not seemed to wear down. There's just something about two bickering officers of the law that get people laughing. This is not to say it works all the time because their have been various flunks that people stay away from. However, this doesn't stop people from going if what's put on screen either puts a different spin on the original concept or changes it up entirely. As for this rendition, the overall story suffers from the usual cop cliches but also manages to surpass them by adding in new things. Also, the biggest difference is that audiences got to see tough rapper Ice Cube pair up with comedy hit Kevin Hart living off the success of his latest comedic roles from two years prior.

Ice Cube & Kevin Hart

Written by Phil Hay & Matt Manfredi (Clash of the Titans (2010) & R.I.P.D. (2013)), Jason Mantzoukas and Greg Coolidge, the story follows Ben (Kevin Hart), a man who wants to step up his game and propose to his girlfriend Angela (Tika Sumpter). In order to do that though, Ben wants to get his thumbs up from Angela's brother James (Ice Cube), a no games cop. So to get James' approval, Ben joins the police academy. Nonetheless, this doesn't win over James very easily but accepts him under one rule - shadow him for one day and he measures up, James will give Ben a go. As far as plots go, it's a mix of ideas. Audiences all know the protective brother character and they are also familiar with the rookie going around with the seasoned cop. Have they ever been put together into one script? Maybe,...but as of recent memory it does not ring any bells. Yet outside of this, no other parts of the writing are that far out of the box. The script is filled with a number of cop genre cliches that viewers would be able to at least guess what might happen. Most of it is fairly predictable in that particular vein of story telling.

Viewers should get fun out of watching Ice Cube and Kevin Hart exchange lines. The contrasts are not only physically noticeable but also through the attitudes each one has. Ice Cube is gruff and self contained, while Kevin Hart is light and attention grabbing. It's even funnier when Hart attempts to be tough but can't manage even getting past the simplest of tasks. I feel him, when you try and nothing seems to work, all because of how tall he is. The supporting cast also helps too. With appearances from John Leguizamo, Bryan Callen, Bruce McGill, Gary Owen and even Laurence Fishburne, the story doesn't feel empty with a bunch of no name actors with any credibility. Laurence Fishburne looks like he enjoyed himself too considering how much older he is now and the limitations that come with it.

The action and special effects looked good. There are shootouts but it's not boring either. One of the reoccurring topics argued about between Hart and Cube's characters was about playing video games and whether they help in real life. Although I can't say for sure if what is presented could actually be legitimate or not, it still is funny to see. To watch Kevin Hart run around thinking the situation he's in is like a Call of Duty multi-player, is comical. Meanwhile, Ice Cube's reaction face is priceless. The special effects that go with these sequences nicely play off the timing for comedy and action. Whether it is Kevin Hart being blown away or Ice Cube packing some firepower, it is displayed professionally for viewing.

Tika Sumpter

Regrettably, there are more issues to come. One the areas that brings up certain questions are continuity errors. There are moments that get pretty tense and it entails people in trouble. Then out of nowhere, the certain individual is abruptly out of harms way without any explanation. How did that happen? On top of that is fairly uninteresting cinematography provided by Larry Blanford. Blanford was also the DP for Think Like a Man (2012), another Kevin Hart film but looked better. Instead, Blanford acquires a lot indoor shots. If this is cop film, why are there not as many outdoor arrests or scenes? The phrase "cleaning the streets" means being on the outside. As for music like many other Tim Story directed films, Christopher Lennertz composed the score. Unfortunately, Lennertz score is only effective in the comedy because that's his forte. Lennertz does not compose for action films and that's apparent because the action cues are not recognizable. However, even with these issues, the film is still a fun time to watch play out.

It's a concept that combines two familiar ideas and makes a somewhat new idea but it also contains a lot of elements that makes this cop film almost average. Thankfully, Ice Cube and Kevin Hart have enough chemistry through their comedy and the action scenes along with the supporting cast to make this a fun little comedy.

Points Earned --> 6:10

Tokarev (2014) Review:

Working for the wrong side of business has never been easy to escape. This has been depicted through an abundance of films. Once you're in deep, getting out of the hole takes much more work than digging the hole itself. It's common sense and it is also a known fact that fighting with fire usually does not end the way anyone wants it too. But for this particular man, he seems to think otherwise. Paul Maguire (Nicolas Cage), once a criminal with strong connections who now tries to live as a reformed individual, discovers his daughter has been kidnapped and decides to round up his cohorts to take revenge. And like many other kidnapping movies, there are no rules that the main lead gives himself. The goal is to claim what is his by any means.

When that hair's out of place,....you know
that Nicolas Cage face!

Upon further analysis, there are only a few things that show this film had potential. Everything else wasn't used the correct way. First and foremost, writing isn't the sharpest here but it’s not the worst either. The story is very similar to other "people taking justice into their own hands" scenarios. Sean Keller and Jim Agnew, the writers to this production add very little to the genre. There is however one real highlight to this screenplay that was specifically written and that's what to remember when you decide to go down this dark path. The lesson is that you will never be safe and you should never get close to anyone. Plain and simple. If these rules are followed by the book, the only person you have to worry about is yourself.

Acting wise, Nicolas Cage isn't convincing as the lead. As a father, Cage comes off as one of the most unpleasant fathers to know. The way he addresses younger gentlemen about his daughter depicts him as deranged. As a reformed criminal, Cage doesn't act like a father who has a daughter in trouble. Cage acts more like a man with anger issues. Perhaps this was what he's was trying portray but audiences may not consider shouting matches rage; that's more like immaturity. There were scenes where he depicts more emotions than just grimaces and anger but those too do not seem genuine. They just don't look like tears of pain. Considering that Cage just got back on his feet with praiseworthy performances from films like The Frozen Ground (2013) and Joe (2014), it's disappointing to see these kinds of showings.

However, the supporting cast members are credible and more likable than Cage or the character that he plays. Even actors Aubrey Peeples (from Sharknado (2013)) and Max Fowler give more believable performances than Cage. Danny Glover plays a detective who shares apart of Mr. Maguire's past and tries to steer him in the right path. Rachel Nichols (Scarlett from G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra (2009)) plays Mrs. Maguire. Although she's not in the movie frequently throughout, her performance is decent. Playing Paul's old crew is Max Ryan, Michael McGrady and Peter Stormare. All of which have their own quirks and bugs about them that make them different. Pasha D. Lychnikoff as a Russian mob leader is also plausible considering is ethnic background.

Pasha D. Lychnikoff

As for the supporting fundamentals to this production, there's only one good-looking feature. That is the special effects. For the budget that it had, there are a number a shootouts that are shot in slow motion and most of it looks moderately presentable. For all that, this doesn't mean the action in which these scenes were put in slow-motion are executed with any originality. There's only one scene that may be new to some viewers, which involves a cinderblock. Everything else that happens are plain shootouts, shaky car chases and witless fight scenes that barely have an emotional impact on its viewers or plot. Andrzej Sekula's cinematography (the man behind Reservoir Dogs (1992), Pulp Fiction (1994) and American Psycho (2000)) is colorless and unappealing. Laurent Eyquem musical composition improves nothing either with only one or two tracks that jog any kind of intrigue. Eyquem's filmography is mostly in dramas and it shows because his action cues are very forgettable here. The crew tries but it's not pushing any new boundaries.

It's writing is for the most part very predictable except for one or two concepts,...which is what should've been used. Instead, viewers will see bland action, stark music, and Nicolas Cage looking uncomfortable as usual. The special effects seem decent and the supporting cast helps but not by a whole lot.

Points Earned --> 4:10

Video Games: The Movie (2014) Review:

A video game's basis goes back to technology. Technology is what got us to this point today. The internet and several other mediums are the very things that allow billions of people around the world to communicate the way we currently do. Just imagine how much slower the world would move without it. Not only this, but there would also be various other things missing as well. In this documentary, first time feature writer/director Jeremy Snead, gives us this intriguing movie about the history of video games, how they came to be, evolved and continue to endure today.

Looks retro to me!

Best known for playing Samwise 'Sam' Gamgee from The Lord of the Rings franchise, Sean Astin narrates the documentary through assorted lenses. Initially to brief their audience, Astin and Snead chuck out a bunch of statistical information about video games. Topics like what percentages of age groups play them, how many play between each gender and how many roughly per home. It's an efficient ice breaker to help their viewers understand just how significant video games are right now (of course those numbers will change over time). After this, the real captivating information begins to unfold starting from the beginning. Who invented the video game? It's interesting to know because for those who are in engineering, probably would not have much of a clue because video games are a marriage between science and art. Most of the time, engineering schools stick to the science and do not include the art.

The other subjects discussed are the types of roadblocks the gaming industry came across. One of the biggest issues mentioned was the video game crash after the release of Atari's E.T. in 1983, which also was covered by The Angry Video Game Nerd for anyone who follows cinemassacre.com. Other problems such as the affects of simulated violence on children and the whole universal perspective of gamers as a community are also talked about; along with the possibility of future gaming in general. Plus, gaming as a culture has had a massive effect on how people live today as well. It may seem like there's not many, but there's more to it. The fact that there's an underground society that only casual gamers might not have even considered. Gaming has a big following - no doubt about that. These are just a few of several subtopics examined throughout the film's running time.

As an actual documentary, it's largely solid. The crew was able to get multiple interview snippets of various people who either worked on video games, actors or even the creators themselves. To name a few; Zach Braff, Cliff Bleszinski, Chloe Dykstra, Donald Faison, Chris Hardwick, Wil Wheaton, Max Landis (story writer to the cult film Chronicle (2012)) and Nolan Bushnell (creator of Atari). When it came to visuals, the majority of the film cuts to a time line with numerous icons that showcase the particular year, thus segueing into the next topic of discussion. That's not all though. The crew also likes to insert a diverse amount of video game clips from different eras and even home videos of people playing games or news anchors of different broadcasting stations. It gives it a very nostalgic feel.

The name of this guy is already mentioned...

The cinematography, also provided by writer/director Jeremy Snead, has the ability to show the culture of video games today. Examples like this are the conventions people attend, the massive competitions that take place in super stadiums and the atmosphere of which the culture has grown from. It's actually somewhat overwhelming because of how passionate these people really are. The only minor flaw to this documentary is Craig Richey's score. Viewers should be able to hear from time to time with its soft piano and occasional nostalgic 8-bit songs, but it gets overshadowed frequently. This is either due to the inclusion of contemporary music or just because it wasn't emphasized at the right time. This also isn't Richey's first composition so I wonder if he didn't think all that much effort was needed. Oh well, it's still very cool to watch.

This documentary pretty much covers all bases here on video games. Even though it's musical score isn't as effective as it could; the writer/director is able to give its viewers and fans the best information available about why gaming is so popular and how it became that popular.

Points Earned --> 9:10

Drive Hard (2014) Review:

Hostage comedies are rare movies. There are a handful that have a name for themselves, but very few are memorable in the vein of the action genre. It's questionable to why these particular match-ups don't work. Possibly incorrect casting? Maybe a very loose script? I don't know. However, it is certain that this production just didn't have what it took to be anything out of the ordinary. Other than some minor elements that make this viewing less than barely passable, the rest of it just doesn't feel like it's worth the time. This movie actually is somewhat parallel to that of Stand Off (2011) starring Brendan Fraser.

John Cusack looking bad,....until he opens his yap

Not only are main leads Thomas Jane and John Cusack stuck in a foreign country and surrounded by foreign actors (just like Fraser) but so is the situation. Both are hostage situations, except Fraser's was in a single building, this film involves motion. After having a successful career in sports racing, currently ex-racer Peter Roberts (Thomas Jane) settles down with his wife and kid in Australia. There he makes a mediocre living of reliving his past by working as a driving instructor. There, Roberts bumps into Simon Keller (John Cusack), a thief who's supposedly so good at his job, no one has been able to catch him. However, Roberts doesn't realize this until Keller robs one of the biggest banks in the country and is offered a chance to take some of the robbed money. It's not the worst of plot setups but the all around execution is meager by comparison.

One of the biggest issues and downright obvious flaws is John Cusack and Thomas Jane's chemistry. In a way, it feels as if both actors are not acknowledging their co-stars personality, therefore not registering what types of responses they should answer with to make the conversation funny. Instead a lot of the interplay doesn't connect with its audience. Occasionally, the leads may have one or two humorous exchanges but it's very infrequent. Thomas Jane plays his character as if he's clueless; most likely due to Jane having very few comedic roles under his belt. Jane is funnier when he plays his character deadpan,...which is exactly how John Cusack plays it up. Cusack also looks like he enjoyed playing his character as some lazy antihero. Again though, nothing that was really special.

The only other redeeming element to this production is the fact that the rest of the cast is Australian,..which provides the audience with a different listening experience. Mostly this credit belongs to actors Zoe Ventoura, Christopher Morris and Damien Garvey. Other than that, every other character is forgettable, yet there are still other additional characters added in the film for no reason. An example of this is Peter Roberts’ daughter. The story could've just been written for Roberts and his wife - excluding his annoying daughter. As for anything else, nothing is very promising. Along with its hit and miss tone provided by the main actors’ antics, the subplots here are too many to care about. Writers Chad and Evan Law pack the screenplay with different characters and motivations that not only make it feel bloated but also cliche. What a surprise that someone's crooked as an undercover thief. Been there done that.

It's no wonder that the film’s direction wasn't any better, considering the man directing it was Brian Trenchard-Smith. This is the same guy behind Leprechaun 3 (1995) and Leprechaun 4: In Space (1996),...that should say enough. And with below average directing comes below average music, action and camerawork (also with weird job placement). Tony O'Loughlan who normally works on visual effects was designated cinematographer and it is flat as can be. There are some wide shots of what is supposed Australian landscape but it's kind of hard to tell. The special effects are almost non-existent and when they are, they look mediocre. Not cheap,…just mediocre.

"I'm leaving",....is what Jane should have
said before being cast into this mess

Bryce Jacobs' score wasn't impressive either. Much of the instruments used were guitars involving rock tunes. If Jacobs was looking for rock, he should've went to composer David Sardy for inspiration. With scores like Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance (2012) and Zombieland (2009), Sardy could've helped Jacobs at least make one hard knuckled composition. Occasionally Jacobs will resort to a reoccurring electronic theme for the chase scenes, which are kind of toe tapping but is also easily forgettable. Making matters worse is that the action scenes are painfully boring. Quick edits and constant shootouts do not constitute as acceptable action sequences for a plot that involves driving. For the whole running time, only one car flips,...one. There was certainly more that could've been done to improve the quality here; but no one saw a need I guess.

With an awkwardly written tone, half inspired music, flat camerawork and dull action, Thomas Jane and John Cusack barely salvage what's left of this jumbled mess of a movie. The supporting Australian actors are interesting to watch along with the two leads but it's hardly adequate to entertain many viewers.

Points Earned --> 3:10

Alive Inside (2014) Review:

How many times does one visit the nursing home? Feed the hungry? Or volunteer in any other way? It's an act of caring and giving that takes a lot to stomach. Many people these days, including myself try not to pay attention to these things because of how uncomfortable it is visually and physically see right in front of us. It's a quiet pity that we all hold and tend to push to the back of our minds. Hoping that all of our other daily tasks can distract us from such awkwardness. In some ways it's almost like today's generation is too embarrassed to acknowledge the issues and don't expect it to happen in our lifetime. When in fact, this is the exact opposite.

Dan Cohen,.....what a generous man

Now that's not to say when we get older, we will all develop alzheimer's and be put in nursing homes, but it's important to understand that it's also not the most uncommon of diseases like vitiligo or polio. Alzheimer's affects numerous elderly individuals and once it's diagnosed, there really isn't anything anyone can do from stopping it. However, one man has found a remedy to help slow it down, along with exposing various aspects of today's healthcare system. Dan Cohen (a public social worker) and filmmaker Michael Rossato-Bennett team up in this stunning documentary about how bringing music to alzheimer's patients can help bring back some, if not most of the life and soul of what used to be the youth of the early to mid 1900s.

There really isn't much to dispute about here. Both the writer/director and social worker duo demonstrate the power of music simply by putting headphones on the older folk. To watch them go from slumped over and quiet or mumbling to bouncing around and crying or laughing is astonishing. The results are phenomenal and it's quite honestly baffling because how come no one had ever thought of doing this before? You didn't even need iPods to figure this out; someone back in the late 1990s could have tried this with Walkmans or portable CD players. It all seems so obvious now and it's weird that no one considered this as a type of therapy. I mean, there are therapy dogs and other types of animals that are used to help jog patients' memories, so why not music? It's better than just feeding them pills and vitamins constantly everyday. Where's the enjoyment in that?

Perhaps the strangest thing of all is that even with all the positive results, the film crew displays continuous rejections from top authority figures in the healthcare system. It's tragic because who would deny such optimistic opportunities? Viewers should not only get a kick out of the end result to these amazing transformations but also how this particular story unfolds. The way this documentary is told, is by looking through the eyes of Dan Cohen when he first started trying this particular study. As time plays out, the viewer will see the struggles he had to face, the turndowns and even the surprises. An example of this would be how this particular film came to light. All it needed was to be released onto the internet and it got people motivated. I didn't even know about this until a friend of mine who plays in a group shared the link.

Another thing to think about are the possible futures that lie ahead for the currently old and the one's who will become old. Michael Rossato-Bennett brings into play how the number of elderly people have increased over time and if it continues at the same rate, there will be less supplies available to take care of them. It's a grim outlook if things aren't looked at carefully. As for the actual quality of filmmaking, it looks very good. Itaal Shur's musical composition perfectly blends in raw emotion and tenderness for each scene. Shachar Langlev's cinematography shows many POV shots giving viewers an idea of how bland and lifeless a nursing home looks like no matter how friendly the people who work there are.

When that music hits though!

This is perhaps the only drawback to this involving movie. It is a tad one-sided (although rightfully so for everything explained prior). But there are some things that aren't explored. For one, has there ever been a patient that was not willing to listen to music? Or has there ever been a patient willing to listen but it did not have the positive effect it had on so many others? These special scenarios would've been interesting to see as well. What would Dan Cohen's next step be to counter such a roadblock? These kinds of questions are important. Perhaps with a little more running time, the crew could have added that to this production. It is a very intellectual film that any viewer should watch because at some point, everyone gets old and just like Dennis Haysbert would ask from Allstate - "Are you in good hands"?

Aside from being a bit one-sided, this documentary explores the alternate avenue of fighting alzheimer's with the power of music. The provided information, music, patients and emotion are all authentic and it is exactly what makes this so uplifting to see.

Points Earned --> 9:10

About Last Night (2014) Review:

Romance comedies are all over the place now a days. Good or bad, they are one the most popular types of comedy films always being produced. So how does one production define itself from another? First, the source material from which it's taken has to be somewhat relevant to today and uncover various issues that go on in everyone's social lives during their youth. Then there has to be a cast of actors that can blend in with this age demographic. And from what it looks like, these specific parts to the film were taken care of nicely. It's still not perfect but it measures up in the end.

Bernie and Danny (Hart & Ealy)

Before the massive following of Kevin Hart turned this movie into one of his vehicles, this title had earlier beginnings going back to 1986 of the same name starring Demi Moore, Rob Lowe, James Belushi and Elizabeth Perkins. Of course that was a different time then too. The characters' names remain the same, but the actors are different. The story revolves around two homeboys and their girlfriends and how they try to live with each other’s decisions and how they act with their significant other. All of this occurs when one day Bernie (Kevin Hart) introduces his girlfriend Joan (Regina Hall) and Debbie (Joy Bryant) to his introverted buddy Danny (Michael Ealy). The fireworks just never end between these two couples. Surprisingly, the screenplay doesn't rely on the usual romance-comedy cliches that everyone is familiar with.

Writing for this production is Leslye Headland, who only had one other theatrical release credit prior to this, being Bachelorette (2012), which wasn't considered movie magic. Perhaps it’s the source material of which she had to work with. I don't know but it's definitely is more polished here. The leads to this story do wonders too. Kevin Hart, although still loud and rambles his mouth off at least doesn't make the movie feel like it was all about him. This time he shared the camera with his co-star counterparts, especially with Regina Hall. Both exchange some funny lines together, of which provide most of the energy. And if Regina Hall and Kevin Hart are the energy, then Michael Ealy and Joy Bryant are the foil to them, displaying the romantic side of being with a significant other.

Its good to have this contrast because it shows the fun you can have when it comes to being outside or inside the house. Along with this come the struggles of the outer forces that always seem to interfere with our desires and goals. Work, Ex-girlfriends, pets and babies. These particular topics are all addressed in a way that feels more relevant today than it ever has before. Even more remarkable is that certain topics like Ex's, is handled in a way that would seem cliche but ends up concluding in a different direction which is good. Also because this is an R rated comedy, the loves scenes will be more explicit than your regular tween PG-13 movie.

Debbie and Joan (Bryant & Hall)

In fact, some of the scenes are just downright goofy. This is fine though because for two reasons. First, this is a comedy, so if goofy is what it takes to be funny, so be it. Second is that sex can be funny. No one ever said it ever had to be serious or always passionate either. Aside from this though, the heavier emotional scenes are also handled with care. At some point, each character will see the error of their ways, which leads them to rethink their decision. All proper and required development to have likable and memorable characters. If there's anything pick on for this production its the audio and visual style to the movie. The music composed by Marcus Miller does fit the scenes they are played in, but do not stick out. Also the cinematography is rather repetitive. The sets do not seem to deviant from more than three places so the settings become too familiar too quickly. However, that's not much to be concerned with. Overall it's a good time.

A romance-comedy that doesn't stick to the usual formula, viewers should get a kick out of this contemporary take on the struggles of people who catch strong feelings for each other. Plus, the story is supported by a humorous cast and likable characters.

Points Earned --> 7:10

Divergent (2014) Review:

Being in a futuristic eutopic society is not all it's cracked up to be. Throughout film, there have been plenty of movies that take place in the future where Earth has become a robotic like eutopic society. People must follow certain guidelines to maintain stable tranquility. Of course, because the main inhabitance are human, one individual is bound to think differently from the rest, thus making them different and a possible "threat" to everyone else. It's one of those self-discovery stories where the main protagonist must figure out for himself or herself where they belong among everyone else. This is what happens to a young girl named Beatrice.

Shailene Woodley (far right)

To know one's place in the world she lives in, citizens take a mental aptitude test which then they have the choice themselves to follow through on their test result or choose their own. Among these groups to choose, there's Factionless (poor), Abnegation (the givers), Candor (truthful), Amity (friendly), Dauntless (fearless), Erudite (the brains). Tris, as Beatrice will call herself later, chooses Dauntless not only because it fit her better than Abnegation of which she originated, but also because she discovered she was Divergent through the mental test. According to the world she lives in, Divergent individuals are being hunted due to how unpredictable they are. It is at this point Tris must learn how to keep herself under the radar.

This story is very character based. Audiences are introduced to a slew new people along the way and surprisingly it’s easy to follow. Plus, the actors play their roles with the right amount of charm to feel a connection to each of them, including the not so nice ones. Shailene Woodley as Tris is likable and is able to show genuine emotion when the time came. Tris also meets one of the leaders named Four (Theo James) who looks like a cross between Billy Zane and James Franco. He also gives his character the correct amount of enthusiasm to be interested in understanding more. The rest of the Dauntless crew that Tris gets to know is played by Ben Lloyd-Hughes, Christian Madsen and Zoë Kravitz, all of which give enjoyable human performances. Possibly one of the most likable jerks in this story however was Jai Courtney as Eric. His duo deadpan and mean spirited attitude make him one to be reckoned with and probably Courtney's best role thus far.

We also cannot forget the supporting characters played by the underrated Ray Stevenson, Tony Goldwyn, Mekhi Phifer and Kate Winslet. All of which have very minor roles but important ones nonetheless. What is really apparent about this character driven story was Neil Burger's direction of which the kinds of choices he had this character's make and the writing provided by Evan Daugherty (Snow White and the Huntsman (2012) & Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2014)) and Vanessa Taylor (Hope Springs (2012)). The development was one of its strongest points. The cinematography by Alwin H. Küchler (DP of R.I.P.D. (2013)) looked decent as well. He was able to show the contrast between what people normally see on the surface and the underground operations people don't know about. Even with a minimal amount of special effects they too were integrated well into the movie. No complaints there.

Jai Courtney as his punk self

Though even with all these good points, the film still suffers from other issues. For one, there are loopholes in its story. If this particular society is so rigid and perfectly made so there are no problems, why is it that there are still problems? How is it that if one character can change factions, the upper authorities won't know? This movie's running time was very close to two and a half hours, I'm sure they could have fit a quick explanation in somewhere. Then there was the music composed by Junkie XL. It certainly was a tolerable score with its hybrid mix of electronic and orchestra but there wasn't much to remember it by nor were there any themes for the franchise or characters themselves. It was effective in its scenes but still disappointing. Lastly, the action was a bit bland. It's obvious that it wasn't a full out action movie but audiences might expect more than a few fight sequences, a "captured the flag" like scene and a some other shootings. Perhaps it'll escalate? We will see. It certainly isn't a waste of a movie but it did need improvement on all other aspects besides its characters.

This movie is like the reversal of other fantasy films. It has a big cast with competent actors and writing that develops its characters effectively. With this, its supporting elements don't seem as exciting with average music and somewhat uninspired action scenes.

Points Earned --> 6:10

The Woman in Black (2012) Review:

Ever since his introduction as Harry Potter from Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001), Daniel Radcliffe will forever be remembered as the child actor who grew up to play Potter all the way to adulthood. Since the finale to the franchise, Radcliffe has been working at his very best to lose that image. With that, he officially displayed this to the public with the release of this ghost story. Although it is not a far departure from the genre Radcliffe originally started with, it shows that he started gradually. The Harry Potter series was not horror related but it did have spiritual entities from time to time. This story is along those lines too but with a much darker intent.

Ciarán Hinds as Sam Daily

Radcliffe plays Arthur Kipps, a widower of one son looking to keep his job at a tough law firm. When given one more chance to maintain his position at the firm, his task is to finalize the latest condemned house in a marsh. Turns out this particular house has a secret only the townsfolk seem to know about and do not like talking about it. For Mr. Kipps, it'll be an eye-opening experience he did not see coming his way. The only person kind enough to help Kipps is Sam Daily (Ciarán Hinds), one of the wealthy men of the area who provides what feels to be a foil to Kipps'. Kipps believes that spirits possibly exist, while Sam doesn't. Yet, even with their opposite views, they are both likeable characters. This is where the writing succeeds in developing its protagonists thanks to Jane Goldman, who also wrote Kick-Ass (2010) and X-Men: First Class (2011).

Plus, James Watkins' direction lets the characters explore other avenues of solving certain issues differently than normal. Also there's the chilling background about the house in the marsh. Its story is tragic and unsettling. And how about that set design and camera work? Both go hand in hand. Tim Maurice-Jones' cinematography looks authentic with its backdrops and every picture has a very gray look, which not only matches the time period of this story but also sets the tone. Every color looks drained and almost to the point of ill. Kave Quinn's set design for the house is just too good. The entire house is that of what would look like if you returned to a house after two or more decades. Dusty, full of cobwebs, rickety floorboards and strange sounds. I get goosebumps just writing about it.

Marco Beltrami's score to the movie was also well thought through. Arthur Kipps had his own reoccurring theme and there was barely a track in the album that contained stings - which is nice for once. Frequently this is all the horror composers make in their scores and it gets not only repetitive but also tiresome. Beltrami comes up with some very creepy tunes. The only issues that arise in this movie are a few things. For one, pacing is a bit slow. This doesn't affect the overall flow but there are certain scenes that just feel like they drag sporadically. There's also continuity errors with which belongs to events that happened at a certain time. Specifically talking about how fast a body decays; the process of decay is slow but under certain conditions I'm sure the rate changes,...in this movie, it didn't seem to acknowledge that. Not too big of a deal, but it could make viewers curious,...briefly.

That house ......0_0

When it came to the horror elements to the film, there wasn't much at all specifically because of its PG-13 rating. But even for it's rating, it did have some very dark moments that were intense. The Woman in Black is not any better than Mary Shaw from James Wan's Dead Silence (2007). Nooo. However, along with that came the most cliche of horror movie tropes - jump scares. There are several moments where these particular jumps happen. Some work, while others don't. As mentioned before though, composer Marco Beltrami didn't include the stings in his album and that's appreciated. For horror movies, directors have to come up with some type of way to be either more creative with their jump scares or not use them at all. They are really becoming overused. As an overall experience though, it is a well made horror film that should be scene for any fan of the genre.

As one of the first movies Daniel Radcliffe doesn't play Harry Potter, he nails his part in this chilling ghost story. It has well-rounded writing, good music and even decent horror elements for a PG-13 movie.

Points Earned --> 7:10

Sniper: Legacy (2014) Review:

It really is amazing to how some franchises continue to thrive on after so long. Sniper (1993), Sniper 2 (2002) & Sniper 3 (2004) were all films that belonged to actor Tom Berenger. As Master Gunnery Sergeant Thomas Beckett, Berenger solidified his presence as the man behind this franchise. There's no other way to explain it, the Sniper film series must have a loyal following. And although the quality did slip initially, the stories have slowly progressed into a decent franchise. Fans were even more surprised when producers released Sniper: Reloaded (2011) with no Berenger but instead brought in young actor Chad Michael Collins and veteran actor from the original, Billy Zane. Not only did it surpass its two previous entries but also it brought up questions to how it would continue after that. Well here we are and wow. Another solid entry even though it did not exceed Sniper: Reloaded (2011).

Chad Michael Collins & Mercedes Mason
(forgot to mention but Mason is pretty cute)

Characters are hard to revive, especially when they go AWOL. Yet, this movie somehow achieves this in Tron: Legacy (2010) fashion (coincidentally along with the title). Out of nowhere, Beckett (Berenger) returns to greatness teaming up with his son and others to take out a deadly assassin who has gone rogue. If there's one character fans will be most happy to see, it's Tom Berenger. To be honest, with the previous movie I thought Berenger was done with the franchise. Apparently not and the interesting thing is, it's like Berenger never stopped being Beckett. He hasn't lost the attitude nor the mannerisms. As for others, Chad Michael Collins continues to be competent in his acting ability and its nice to see him finally meet up with his long lost father. Sadly, the topic of characters is where John Fasano's writing falters.

Even though audiences will finally see Brandon and Tom Beckett reunited, there are several missed opportunities for proper character development of these individuals. For example, where has Beckett been? Why did he leave Brandon? These are crucial questions to help the Beckett family reconcile past problems. Instead, it is initiated but scooted aside abruptly. Most audiences want an emotional attachment to their characters. By brushing it aside, your brushing aside what makes the character the character. There's also issues of unexplained plot holes. Questions like does he still have that finger stigmatism that began giving him problems from Sniper 3 (2004)? What happened to Lieutenant Ellen Abramowitz (Brandon's secret lover) and Richard Miller (Billy Zane) from Sniper: Reloaded (2011)? All these questions needed were quick logical answers, but are ignored through and through. The late Fasano was a decent writer, I guess going over these particular matters were not accepted by the producers or director Don Michael Paul. I don't know who, but they should've gone in this direction for a little bit.

Any of the new characters played by actors like Doug Allen, Dennis Haysbert, Dominic Mafham and Mercedes Mason perform respectively. It would've been nice though if the story stuck with one girl because Mason's character comes off like a love interest to Brandon but doesn't express it. If she was in Sniper: Reloaded (2011) then it would not have mattered because the audience would be able to remember from the prior film her relationship with Brandon. The same goes for the actress who played Lieutenant Ellen Abramowitz in the last sequel. Dominic Mafham had an interesting character portrayal. He resembled that of a good knock-off of Clive Owen. Dennis Haysbert doesn't get heavily involved but he does play a significant role and that's appreciated.

There he is!!

The action was nicely paced throughout. It was not as bloody as Sniper: Reloaded (2011) but it still entertained. This time, the action also included several firefights. Not just between Snipers but AK-47s and other handheld machine guns. As for camerawork, Martin Chichov achieved some beautiful scenery such as shorelines, urban terrain and grasslands. It's also nice how each Sniper film has changed locations around the entire world. Sniper (1993) was in Central America, Sniper 2 (2002) was in Europe, Sniper 3 (2004) was in Asia, Sniper: Reloaded (2011) was in Africa and this film takes place in the Middle East. The music by Frederik Wiedmann was appropriate. When there was action there was plenty of strings and percussion. But because there were barely any emotional scenes, it was hard to hear anything soft enough. However, because of the location Wiedmann did include several tracks that sounded appropriate for the setting and it felt authentic. It's not the best sequel but it is a good one.

It's writing misses several moments to develop its characters the way they should be, along with unexplained details from the last entry. Yet, the return of Tom Berenger feels too gratifying to be upset over for too long. The actors perform decently, the action, music and camerawork are all well staged.

Points Earned --> 7:10

A Muppet Christmas: Letters to Santa (2008) Review:

The Muppets are no strangers to the Holidays. They have had many a film produced incorporating Christmas related themes. The best and most popular of them all was The Muppet Christmas Carol (1992). But that hasn't stopped the Henson Company. Before Kermit and his friends came back with their return film The Muppets (2011), they were still doing productions for the small screen. Prior to this, another holiday made for TV production was released - It's a Very Merry Muppet Christmas Movie (2002). Other than that, this is the Muppet's latest outing at the holiday season. Is really good? Mmmmm,..not unanimously but it is decent enough to be seen.

Deliver that mail!

This time, viewers follow their favorite characters at the post office waiting to send their holiday mail. When Gonzo forgets to put his in the mail, it’s up to Kermit and friends to find a way to get them to Santa on time. Here's what does work. First and foremost, The Muppets (and voice-actors) themselves. They are always key and the fact that they were of main focus all the time was great. The humor also works because of the certain situations Kermit and his friends get into. The gags range from bad jokes, silly puns and goofy reactions the Muppets make. Thankfully, these eye-inducing moments aren't as bad they could be because it’s the Muppets. Another element that will have viewers happy to see is the tone of this movie. Unlike It's a Very Merry Muppet Christmas Movie(2002) which had a very mean spirited tone, this feature has a much more upbeat feel and that's especially good.

Another good component was the cameos of various actors. This ranges from Whoopi Goldberg, Uma Thurman, Nathan Lane and even Michael Bloomberg. Camerawork by Luke Geissbuhler (the DP of Borat (2006)) was appropriate as was Chris Caswell's musical score. However, this is where things don't work. For one, the running time is too short. Yes it is a TV movie, but so was It's a Very Merry Muppet Christmas Movie (2002) and was well over an hour. The problem with this is that it cuts everything down to an unnecessary length. This goes for cast cameos and even the Muppet characters. That can be a bit frustrating if this is a Muppet Movie and you only see a few of the Muppets instead of the whole bunch for more than five minutes.

"What? You didn't tell me the running time is only an hour!?"

Along with that is issue of writing. The story for this movie is cute but again, with a shortened running time, everything must fall in place quickly or it won't work. With this comes cliche and convenient contrivances that either defy logic or are impossible to begin with. It's not to say it isn't funny or doesn't work but the story almost had a finale that would've seemed more mature and realistic than what was chosen. There can always be a happy ending but that doesn't mean it has to be exactly the way the audience expects it to be. Adding to the bit of blandness are the songs that the Muppets sing composed by Paul Williams. It's not that they bore but they're not as memorable as other Paul Williams pieces. It certainly won't be an hour wasted but it could've been better.

It has all of the basic components to make a really good Muppet Christmas movie but it instead comes off as fairly generic. The main problem is its running time, which trims down several parts that make up a good Muppet film.

Points Earned --> 6:10

Reach Me (2014) Review:

When it comes to ensemble cast films, it has been proven time and again, that even with star power, not every film is great. A successful example of a movie like this is Think Like a Man (2012). An exact opposite of this would be Movie 43 (2013), a film with an ensemble cast so large, it surprised everyone when it turned out to be one of the worst and most despised movies of the year according to many for several reasons. What’s interesting is that according to some, this is one of those movies that could ruin someone’s career. Is that really so? I do understand that this particular production is having a limited public release and was released digitally the same day of its public release (which isn’t a good sign). This film though isn’t by any means spectacular entertainment, but it does maintain a level of decent quality that should be acknowledged. Even with its flaws it is not the worst movie of the year, by far.

Kevin Connolly & Tom Berenger

The story is when a popular book called “Reach Me” of an anonymous writer under the guise as Teddy Raymond (Tom Berenger) takes the public by storm for its inspirational and self-motivating words. The audience will then be introduced to numerous other story threads revolving around other characters that are connected to the book in some way. Unfortunately, the writing, which is the most essential element, is the weakest. A probable reason why the writing wasn’t great was due to the running time. With only about an hour and half of time and more than three character threads, a lot of things have to be condensed. The problem being is that the separate story lines themselves have a few flaws. One flaw being that they are quick. Some scenes pertaining to a certain character thread last all of a minute and then transition over to another story line. It’s a bit disorienting when trying to focus on a character. For films like these, it’s understood that the focus cannot stay too long on a particular scenario but for only a minute feels slightly too quick to have it even register what just happened. Perhaps director John Herzfeld (who isn’t new to the job), should’ve consulted with editor Steven Cohen so that there was more time for these stories to breathe.

Another issue that arises is that not every subplot in each segment is properly concluded. This feels a like a waste in some cases. There’s no point in adding it to the story if it will not be concluded. On top of that, several character motivations are left unclear and for those who want an explanation, will feel frustrated, I know I did. With that, some of the actions characters make can feel and look cliché, which doesn’t help of course. However, matching these flaws is a number of good points. For one, the ensemble cast is quite diverse. There are several actors from different genres combined into one, under this title. To name some is Kevin Connolly, Sylvester Stallone, Thomas Jane, Lauren Cohan, Kyra Sedgwick, Danny Aiello, David O’Hara, Nelly, Terry Crews and Omari Hardwick. Surprisingly, they all work well off each other. Many of the characters portrayed have charm and acceptable chemistry with their co-stars. This does lead to some believable dramatic and comedic moments through the film. It’s not always effective but at times it is.

Thomas Jane being smooth with his badge

Coinciding with these “dramedy” elements is the score provided by Tree Adams. The score, which is sadly, unreleased, sounds very similar to that of Christopher Lennertz style of composition. This is good because the music appropriately matches the scenes, whether its organ, piano, sax and occasionally strings. There is no main theme and that’s also because it isn’t really a franchise to begin with. The cinematography provided by Vern Nobles is good too. There’s no particular style that Nobles heads for but he does get some very wide panning shots of various scenery and that gives a better idea to the audience of their location. However, the best aspect to this movie, is the message it wants to convey to its audience. That message is gathering the courage to move on no matter what your fear is. It’s this kind of life lesson that many people strive to hear from motivation speakers and it is important to understand. This is what the individual story lines work into the development of each character- reaching out to others. Unfortunately, with its negative responses and limited release its not going to be truly recognized. Again, it’s not fantastic but it is worth the time to see at least once.

Its writing gets cliché at times with unclear character motivations, a few unfinished subplots and choppy editing but its not awful. The actors give charming performances with occasional laughs and heartfelt moments along with good-looking camera work, and appropriate music. Its best element is the “dream big philosophy” that it is based on to help inspire others.

Points Earned --> 6:10

Annabelle (2014) Review:

As recently as the last half a century, dolls have been mostly used in cinema and in pop-culture for their looks. It is very questionable to who ever constructed such toys would think they excited kids, rather than creep them out. When referenced, the most notable creation people remember is Don Mancini's Child's Play (1988) series starring Brad Dourif as the infamous Chucky. Another one that comes to mind would be James Wan's Jigsaw from the Saw (2004) series. Even Billy from Dead Silence (2007), who was also headed by James Wan had their share of memorabilia. Then when Wan's The Conjuring (2013) hit theaters, viewers were briefly introduced to Annabelle,...another doll with some serious attitude issues. So what is the story behind this new addition and is it uniquely different from that of our other doll counterparts? Mmm...tough to say. It has its moments but more often than not, it comes off as a standard affair.

It is creepy,...but that's it

The Annabelle doll, like many others, was once just a collector’s item. Unfortunately, the period of time at which it was made is the problem. During the late 1960s, a normal family is attacked by a group of cult members for unknown reasons and along with that the doll becomes possessed. Gary Dauberman's first theatrical screenplay isn't bad, but it also isn't anything special. The fact that after seeing this movie, the background to why Annabelle needs to be kept in a glass case at the Warren's is so important is clear. But other than this, the writing lacks clarity - specifically on cult rules. How does one possess a doll with such ease? Who actually possesses the doll? A newly created demon? Or the individual who possessed it in the first place? All of which these questions get relatively skimmed over with explanations like - "Crazy people do crazy things" or "Cults summon demons". These are very generic answers, considering the pace at which it runs.

Cast wise, the family played by Annabelle Wallis and Ward Horton put in believable performances but do not stand out. Even veteran actor Tony Amendola (better known from Antonio Banderas' The Mask of Zorro (1998)) plays his typecast role - a priest. It's nice to see him, but again, nothing new. The most likeable character of the whole group was Evelyn (Alfre Woodard), a local bookstore owner. Evelyn had charm and character arc that was far greater than the rest. It's characters like these that viewers need more of. When it came to visual style, the majority of it was average to slightly above. James Kniest's cinematography is frequently flat. John R. Leonetti's direction is standard on most cases too. This is unfortunate due to how many horror films he's worked with in the past as the director of photography. This includes, The Conjuring (2013), Insidious: Chapter 2 (2013), Piranha 3D (2010), Dead Silence (2007) and Child's Play 3 (1991),....even Jim Carrey's The Mask (1994). In fact, there was a scene that could've been used as a twist ending but was then ignored. That would've been more horrific if it had ended like that.

Lost your carriage?

The violence is there but it is also very dry. I'm not sure if Leonetti was going for the "less is more" approach but it didn't work. Considering the scares aren't effective either because the Annabelle doll does barely anything. The movement of the doll is even more restricted and rigid than Chucky, Billy or Jigsaw. The only thing creepy about it was its face and never ending stare. Even eye movement or creaky head turning would’ve helped the doll feel more intimidating. The only elements that go above and beyond their mark are some tense scenes, special effects and music. The best scene to the movie is located in the attic. Whenever a baby cries,...its a bit unsettling. The special / practical effects look decent although what is given isn't frequent. Composer Joseph Bishara's music is alright. He does include emotional and creepy tunes, which involve heavy cello and piano. It’s bit more effective than The Conjuring score he made a year before, even though it does borrow from it because the stories are connected. Is it a decently made movie? Assembly wise yes,...as an experience? Not if you seen movies like this before.

Its connections to The Conjuring (2013) does give some insight but its own origins are bit cloudy. It's made professionally all the way down from its acting, special effects and music but it is rarely effective at being scary. Its execution is derivative at almost every level.

Points Earned --> 5:10