Les Miserables (1978) Review:

When it comes to all things France related, there aren't too many mainstream stories that have been told and retold again in American cinema. The French Revolution, parts of World War II and even fantasy stories like Disney's Beauty and the Beast (1991) all take place in France. But from as it seems, the most popular of these French stories belong to Victor Hugo's novel of the same name Les Miserables. So far this book has had five major film adaptations; four of which were feature length movies, while another was a mini-series. The two latest adaptations were theatrically released while the second in line was a TV movie release. The difference in years between releases may be a long period (two decades), but the story wasn't drastically varied. The only noticeable change in presentation is having the knowledge of its production date. Knowing it was produced in the late 1970s gives it a much more dated viewing experience. Nonetheless, the story is worth the time to see.

"I'm just a woodcutter...."

As the title would suggest, the plot to this movie is about Les Miserables or "the miserables", "the poor ones" etc. Living in France during 1796, a broke innocent woodcutter named Jean Valjean (Richard Jordan) steals a loaf of bread in order to feed his sister and her children. Not long after being caught by the authorities, Valjean is sent to Toulon to carry out his five-year sentence. In charge of the Toulon camp is the heavy handed Javert (Anthony Perkins), who ends up becoming acquainted with Valjean very quickly and their rivalry percolates into the next thirty years. With time passing before his eyes, Valjean becomes bitter against humanity but realizes his error when a bishop (Claude Dauphin) displays an act of kindness towards him. Determined to live every moment by caring for others, Valjean becomes utterly the opposite of what he once was. Headed by Glenn Jordan (a veteran TV Movie director) and written by John Gay, this film looks dated but still has a significant amount of storytelling.

The development of Jean Valjean is intriguing enough to see play out when looking at his humble beginnings. Over time, Valjean becomes a grizzled man who finds himself being more of an early Hudini than a woodcutter. Even at an elderly age, somehow Valjean finds a way of getting around; that's impressive. Richard Jordan as Valjean doesn't disappoint either. Jordan is one those serious actors who always play his role like it were his own. Along his travels he adopts a widow's daughter named Cosette (Caroline Langrishe) and raises her as his own. Angela Pleasence, the daughter of Donald Pleasence, plays the widow. The part that Cosette plays as to her stepfather isn't as prominent, but she does bring about some compelling situations between Valjean and the ever-vigilant Javert. Speaking of which, Anthony Perkins as Javert is credible too. Although he stands like a giant mast, Perkins can be very intimidating as the lead inspector. He really makes things run like clockwork. By far the best chemistry is seen between Perkins and Jordan.

The odd thing is the relationship that Javert and Valjean have reminisced to that of Batman and The Joker from Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight (2008). Except this time, the roles and personalities are switched. Valjean is the miscreant who makes Javert's world a chaos to deal with. Yet Valjean's ideals are more unpretentious than say The Joker's. Javert on the other hand resembles that of Batman, wanting order and will stop at nothing to catch Valjean. The parallels are undeniable. It is a little baffling though to see actors playing French characters and not sounding anywhere close to the accent. Saying monsieur doesn't make you entirely French. The other problem that arises is the forced love interest between Cosette and a rebel named Marius (Christopher Guard). All these two characters do is stare at each other once or twice and they both know they're in love. It's certain that most audiences will not buy into this notion and completely believe that. Rarely do individuals know each other are meant to be by just staring.

Anthony Perkins as Javert

When it comes to visuals, the scenery isn't always clear. However, since this took place way before CGI was implemented into film, all props were undoubtedly physical objects. That covers sets and various historical pieces of the time. A lot of the old structures look appropriate taking the setting into account. The cinematography was shot by Jean Tournier, a native Frenchman (gasp!). Like stated before, although there are some darker than normal scenes, the scenes do cover enough to have the viewer comprehend the surroundings of the main leads. That also means even without a widescreen view. The musical score composed by Allyn Ferguson is another memorable element. Sadly there was no official release of the music but the theme is quite endearing. Relying mostly on the strings, Ferguson's main theme to this adaptation consistently appears whenever Valjean is on screen pointing out that the story revolves around him. Surprisingly, that's all the music needed. It would've been nice to have other cues but it's fine anyway.

The fact that the actors weren't directed to have a more authentic French accents and the main character's step daughter having a forced love interest are the only true crimes to this book adaptation. The actors, music, camerawork and especially the writing make this a special story to witness.

Points Earned --> 7:10

Hellraiser V: Inferno (2000) Review:

After films that perform abysmally at the box office, very rarely do franchises survive later on. And this doesn't always mean sequels either. Sometimes films fail right at the start before things get going. Sequels on the other hand are reminders that if a franchise is not taken care of, the critical reception will tend to dip. For Clive Barker's Hellraiser (1987) series, the final theatrical nail in the coffin was Hellraiser IV: Bloodline (1996). With a troubled production of studio interference, inconsistent direction, poor critical and financial reception, it was finally time for the series to enter the home video market. Although the home video market is considered to be films of lesser quality, there tend to be the occasional surprise here and then. Five years later, it seems to have stepped up. This doesn't mean it blows all expectations away, but there are differences between this entry and Hellraiser III: Hell on Earth (1992) and Hellraiser IV: Bloodline (1996).

Craig Sheffer

Sitting in the director's chair for this release was Scott Derrickson in his first long running movie. Derrickson also worked as the writer along with another usual associate being Paul Harris Boardman. Boardman also wrote for The Exorcism of Emily Rose (2005) and Deliver Us From Evil (2014). The story here is much more peculiar than previous entries. Joseph Thorne (Craig Sheffer), a seasoned detective is on the trail of a serial killer whom his first victim opened the Lament Configuration and left a child's finger behind. Hoping to find the child before it's too late, Thorne and his partner Tony (Nicholas Turturro) dig deeper. Unfortunately as the two continue searching for answers, Thorne begins heading down a path only he can travel. The premise itself is quite good actually, but there are other issues. The most noticeable flaw is that this movie makes no attempt to connect this one to any of the previous films in any way. That also doesn't mean forcefully inserting references but the story could have lead to areas of past events.

Along with that is the amount of time that focuses on Pinhead (Doug Bradley) and his fellow cenobite followers. The plot is more of a horror thriller with a smattering of cenobite flavor. Who doesn't want to see more cenobites? As for detective Thorne, his motivations seem to contradict his actions. He gives reasons as to why he makes certain decisions, but not all of it is clear. Thorne has a wife (Noelle Evans) and daughter, yet sleeps with a hooker (Sasha Barrese). There was no sign of his marriage in trouble to begin with so what gives? However for the story, those are the prominent issues. Even with its writing related problems, the whole mystery killer plot is gravitating. On top of that, the end result produces a moral lesson involved with deeper meanings that reference other films like Bill Murray's Groundhog Day (1993). As for characters of significance, Thorne is of main focus. His partner does receive some attention but over time he's dropped. There's also a psychologist played by James Remar that adds some depth to the story.

Although Craig Sheffer's role isn't totally clear, his ability to convey the right emotion is acceptable. Considering he also was in Clive Barker's Nightbreed (1990) a full decade earlier, it feels all the more appropriate. Doug Bradley as Pinhead continues to have all the memorable lines especially towards the finale. The following cenobites such as the Wire Twins and the Chattering Torso all have their moments of grotesqueness and work effectively in being scary. For a budget of only $2 million and being a home video release, the special and practical effects look fairly decent. Even the horror end of things look credible. The gore and violence used throughout isn't always shown on screen but there's still a lot of blood spilled throughout the running time. The devices used for these violent depictions are what you would expect from a Hellraiser film - hooks. Except these hooks are little more practical in their use. Instead of them hanging from the ceiling majority of the time, now they're used as a flail. Ouch.

"Uhhh well this is new..."

Working as the cinematographer was Nathan Hope. Mostly having experience in the small screen, Nathan Hope has done a few big screen productions like this one, Mimic 2(2001) and The Fog (2005) remake. By far though, his most recognizable expertise shines through on the crime show CSI: Crime Scene Investigation from 2003 to 2007. For this movie, Hope's camerawork is still for 80%, but gets shakier near the finale. Thankfully the one technique that Hope avoids that previous DP Gerry Lively used were wide-angle lens shots. Those felt unnecessary. Composing the film score to this sequel was Walter Werzowa. Impressively Werzowa created a score with an hour full of music. The music itself sadly no longer has any main theme close to Christopher Young's but Werzowa makes new ones. Plus, the sound mostly consists of organic orchestra featuring strong deep strings and massive pipe organ cues. Seriously though, who uses pipe organs in their film scores anymore? That's one of the best parts and the score also contains very little jump stings.

Script wise the characters still lack clarity in motivations and connections to the previous films. Also the cenobites don't feel utilized to their potential. Yet somehow this sequel is better than the last two with a more intriguing premise, decent effects, believable acting and appropriate music.

Points Earned --> 6:10

Suicide Squad (2016) Review:

Ever since Marvel Studios began expanding their films into more shared universes, a trend has begun to follow among other production companies. The most obvious of competitors would be Warner Bros. DC but there are others. Another franchise that is supposedly expanding its cinematic universe is Michael Bay's Transformers (2007) franchise. The concept is a common thing now among high-end money making movie properties. However this is no secret for Warner Brothers. After losing their chance to reinvigorate their universe with Green Lantern (2011), DC tried again with Man of Steel (2013) and finally brought themselves back from a long period of dormancy. So in order to catch up to Marvel's output, the next choice was making Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016). It certainly brought the studio up to speed but whom are they fooling? There were a lot of missteps taken to get there. Adding to that is this movie which promisingly looked like DC's Guardians of the Galaxy (2014), but with villains. Sadly this was not as great as one would hope.

Rick Flag, Harley Quinn, Deadshot & Capt. Boomerang

This is actually rather shocking considering the cast and crew involved. Crediting himself as writer/director is David Ayer, the same man who headed praiseworthy projects like End of Watch (2012) and Fury (2014). The story is based on the comic about Amanda Waller (Viola Davis) recruiting the worst villains from Arkham Asylum to fight what the regular military would or could not defeat. That means bringing on Deadshot (Will Smith), Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie), Capt. Boomerang (Jai Courtney), El Diablo (Jay Hernandez), Killer Croc (Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje), June Moone AKA Enchantress (Cara Delevingne), Slipknot (Adam Beach) and Katana (Karen Fukuhara) under the command of Rick Flag (Joel Kinnaman) to take down a powerful force that only they can stop. Meanwhile on the side, the Joker (Jared Leto) is up to no good  looking to find a way to break his joker queen out of the iron grasp of Amanda Waller. Initially this sounds fine but the story lacks structure.

Close to the start, the conflict begins and the suicide squad is sent out to pacify it. Yet before this even happens, Amanda Waller assembled them to take care of a different reason. This different reason is completely dropped once the main struggle arises. So what was the original mission they were going to be sent on? It's never answered. Either that or editor John Gilroy put the scenes in the wrong order. And Gilroy has been the editor to a number of popular films like Salt (2010) and Pacific Rim (2013). So what gives? Along with that are some backstories that are briefly skimmed over. Why? This film has a two hour run time; Guardians of the Galaxy (2014) has the exact same. Nonetheless even with these written issues, the actors perform well in their roles and are likable to a certain degree. Some of them even have more human backstories than one would expect. The costume/character designs are also commendable. For once, these characters have some color in their suits and aren't so dark and brooding like Bats or Sups.

Speaking of which, Ben Affleck as the caped crusader does have a few scenes throughout the movie. Is it worth it? Sort of from a narrative standpoint but in other ways it just feels like Batman was put in to have more people view the film. The action at least entertains for the most part as well. Deadshot’s ability to be precise in every round he shoots is awesome. Katana use of the sword is sharper than your average kitchen knife (of course). El Diablo knows how to heat up people's nights with his powers and Harley Quinn's gymnastic acrobatics certainly make her a special addition. Regrettably this does not make up for the sections that have CGI overload. Thankfully it does not get as bad as Batman V Superman with its almost PS2 gameplay like cut scenes, but there are still unnecessary moments. Whether it's the adversary the suicide squad has to fight against or even if it's digitally editing Harley Quinn to have booty shorts. It just seems like wasted amounts where this particular effect is abused for the wrong reasons.

"Get me my Task Force X"

Roman Vasyanov was chosen to provide the cinematography to this picture. Vasyanov also worked with Ayer on End of Watch (2012) and Fury (2014). This shows that Vasyanov knows how to make great or accurate looking movies. Fury (2014) had great looking camerawork and End of Watch (2012) made the viewer feel like they were in the movie. None of that's shown here. It's strange too. With all the colorful personalities and costumes, one would think that this movie would have brighter images to show. There are about 2-3 scenes that have daylight in them. Every other scene is in the dark or it's raining. All it does is remind the viewer of how gloomy looking the previous Zack Snyder DC films were presented. It's frustrating. Composing the film score to this movie was Steven Price, another David Ayer collaborator. Price's work is another disappointment. Unlike his past work in films like Fury (2014), there is no reoccurring theme for the suicide squad. And this is the perfect time to establish one for them. But that wasn't done.

Unlike what one would expect, this David Ayer film has its moments due to its cast, action and part of its writing, but that's all it can be given. The music isn't memorable, the camerawork doesn't match the colorful characters or tone and the overall plot doesn't make sense for a two-hour film.

Points Earned --> 5:10

Maverick (1994) Review:

Westerns have a certain appeal that fans of the genre look for. When people think of westerns, the most common of concepts that come to mind are gun fights, saloons, fillies, booz, beards, dirt, horses, the list goes on. For movies during the last half of the 20th century, Westerns didn't seem to be as popular as one thought. In order for these types of movies to work, the right cast, director and crew had to be involved to really get the viewers attention. With previous disasters like Michael Cimino's Heaven's Gate (1980), the genre took somewhat of nosedive in interest among viewers. It was later close to being killed off again after the next biggest (and strangest) disaster being Will Smith's Wild Wild West (1999). With those two bookending those two decades, there were others in between but not a whole lot. However, when learning that the director of Superman (1978) and the lead from Lethal Weapon (1987) would be working together to make a popular television western a major film, could there be a problem? It depends on how you see it.

"Cooper,...high five?"

In their respective careers, both Mel Gibson and Richard Donner have made quite a filmography for themselves. Being that they are also from a time where they would remember older shows from the past seems right that they make an older property more mainstream. The script was adapted William Goldman (Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969) and Chaplin (1992)), of where viewers are introduced to Bret Maverick (Mel Gibson), a career poker player who looks to enter a major game but lacks the funds. To attain his entrance fee to the game, Maverick goes around looking for ways to make that money, leading to all sorts of comic relief events. Of those moments, Maverick comes across filly thief Annabelle Bransford (Jodie Foster), Marshal Zane Cooper (James Garner) and hotheaded gamer Angel (Alfred Molina). Aside from the main cast, there are several other names to boot like: Graham Greene as pseudo Native American, Geoffrey Lewis playing a friendly banker, Paul L. Smith as a French Diplomat and even Art LaFleur, Dan Hedaya and Danny Glover all as gunslingers.

The problem is even with this, the overall execution of the story does not feel like a western. Very few events that take place in this western setting feel like it belongs to one. Instead, much of it feels like a parody of sorts due to its tone. That's not to say these scenes aren’t funny but the film's trailer presented itself as more a lighthearted western with some comedy. Not the other way around where it's all comedy and less western. This also doesn't mean the actors perform badly either. Mel Gibson as Bret Maverick has a number of good lines that make him a smart and likable character. An ongoing joke is that people call him Bert Maverick, which gets him annoyed. Jodie Foster as the slippery crime filly is fun to watch too. Her ability to trick people just by her looks makes her quite dangerous if one isn't paying attention. James Garner as Cooper has his moments as well, showing both a caring and selfish side. The most creative of the supporting characters is Graham Greene's role. It's interesting that he would play a fake Native.

This could've be one of the funnier parts to the film. What if the Native Americans were just putting on a different face when talking to the Europeans? It's completely oddball and clever. Yet as unique as this is, the film suffers from an over packed running time. There are some particular parts to the story that could've been cut to help slim down viewing experience. The biggest time user of them all is the actual gameplay this movie focuses on. That being Poker. This is also one of the more surprising things about this western. One would expect that since it's a western, the climactic finale would be dealing with a showdown or some kind of deadly match. In place of that, viewers watch Mel Gibson and characters play a poker game with each other until the last individual is standing. Unless one is a true poker fanatic, no one will know how to play the game the right way. This in turn could make the game less tense. How engaging will the game actually be for a nonplayer?

Graham Greene (right)

The cinematography handled by Vilmos Zsigmond is nothing short of great.  Being that Zsigmond has worked numerous projects dating back to the early 1960s, his ability to capture the right look has only gotten better. Just like his work in Heaven's Gate (1980), Zsigmond sets the stage for amazing looking western backgrounds. That means including every bit of the land from top to bottom. There's even a great scene that involves a canyon and it looks so spectacular. Very few cinematographers can master the art of capturing all of the land but Zsigmond seems to have figured that out. The musical score composed by Randy Newman was an interesting addition as well. Considering this score was created only a year before Toy Story (1995), it's funny to hear cues that sound like they belong to Pixar's animated classic. The sound of the music is utilized with organic orchestra that has all the signature themes that only Randy Newman could resurrect. The score itself is fun to listen to and does fit the western setting.

This is a fun western poker game movie but don't expect it to be more western than that. There are some shootouts but majority of the tone is comedic and has more parody like scenes than western ones. Nonetheless, the actors, cinematography and music all make it a tolerable goofy watch.

Points Earned --> 6:10

Westworld (1973) Review:

Throughout his career, science fiction novelist Michael Crichton has had a profound influence on the history of film and stories. Although the variety of Crichton's work doesn't differ greatly, much of his ideas bring up intriguing questions about our existence as the human race. Of Crichton's work, the most popular of his films was Jurassic Park (1993) dealing with re-animated dinosaurs running a muck. Yet 20 years earlier, Crichton had wrote and directed another science-fiction film involving other creatures running a muck. The creatures this time are robots. With technology ever increasing in its complexity, people take it for granted more often than before. The question is, do we realize how realistic this technology has become? Everyday that passes, this applied science gets closer and closer to our personal lives to the point where we can interact with it as well. This is no longer a fantasy nowadays and that can be a scary thing. What happens with these machines become self-aware? Will we know how they'll react?

Richard Benjamin & James Brolin

Taking place some time in the future, the world has created Delos, the "perfect vacation resort". Consisting of three different time capsules; Romanworld, Medievalworld and Westworld, where each visitor can experience life as it was during that time for $1000 a day (oh yeah, pocket change). Helping make these three settings as realistic as possible, the Delos system uses robots that look like real people. The only way to tell the difference between a real human and these fake ones is by looking at their hands. Audiences will learn this after being introduced to Peter Martin (Richard Benjamin) and John Blane (James Brolin), two visitors to the resort; Blane of which is a returning guest. Martin on the other hand has never been to Delos and is excited to experience the authenticity of it. Behind the curtain of Delos, a sophisticated network of technicians and other workers help keep things moving. If a robot breaks down, it's hauled back for repair. However, things are acting up more than usual lately.

According to the Chief Supervisor (Alan Oppenheimer), the robots have been encountering frequent issues for strange reasons. There needs to be answers but no one knows why. How is that? The only answer given is that it's some kind of "disease", which is immediately impeded by another board member saying how could a machine have a disease? But that's as far as it goes. For Jurassic Park (1993), saying that the dinosaurs became smart is somewhat acceptable and if that were the answer that would also work. Nevertheless leaving the inquiry as possibly a disease doesn't solve much. The other noticeable problem with this film is its pacing. As Michael Crichton's first theatrical film he directed, this could be the reason why his direction wasn't on point. There are moments where scenes move slower than usual and some events that take place feel longer than necessary. Plus remembering that he also wrote for this film probably added to the amount of work Crichton had to deal with so it's plausible he was under a lot of pressure.

James Brolin and Richard Benjamin as the main two leads help give viewers a better understanding of what there is to expect from Delos. Benjamin plays the role viewers can relate to since any newcomer would have the same initial opinion. Brolin's role is to assist in cementing the new belief. Co-starring with Brolin and Benjamin are also Norman Bartold playing another guest and Yul Brynner only known as the gunslinger. Bartold's role isn't greatly defined but he does play an important part for the viewer to see. Yul Brynner as the gunslinger may not have a lot to say but his appearance as a robot with reflective eyes is dastardly credible. The inflections in Brynner’s lines have just the right amount of flare to make him sound fake but dangerous all the same. The action / sci-fi & horror elements that show up throughout work too. Though it was given a PG rating at the time, it is far from it. There are blood squibs and some brutal violence throughout. For 1973, the makeup effects did wonders when it came to robotic creatures.

Yul Brynner

Behind the camera was Gene Polito as the cinematographer. Polito's camerawork is solid in every shot that occurs. That means capturing not only each setting's background but also remaining completely still for action shots. There are also a number of slow motion shots that amplify how much Polito was able to capture in each frame. Looking at his entire career, it's likely that this was the movie that he's most widely regarded for. The same could be said for Fred Karlin, the musical composer. Understanding that the majority of the events featured will be in Westworld would incline that some of the score would include country music themes. This does occur and perhaps too exaggerated at points because sometimes it sounds like hillbilly music. However, what Karlin made efficiently dark and scary was the horror of his music. Relying on prepared piano (which is rare in most scores) and scratchy strings truly makes the horror cues much more intense because the sounds or so uniquely constructed compared to other compositions.

Writing in particular is well thought out even though there are unresolved questions. The pacing in some areas may also be a bit slow but it's made up with relatable characters, a twisted film score and well-shot cinematography.

Points Earned --> 7:10

Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016) Review:

Since the origins of each character, Batman and Superman have been one of the most iconic characters in comic books. After their print inception, readers and fans alike were impressed to see successful adaptations of each character during the last half of the 20th century. At that point, even during Christopher Nolan's trilogy, nobody knew how soon it would be before Superman and Batman would be seen on the same screen together. After the financial success with Man of Steel (2013), Warner Bros. pushed forward to get the DC cinematic universe expanded. And with that, the next step was to include the Arkham Knight. No surprise that in the time where social media dominates news, the internet exploded. Of course there were people who loved the idea while others felt it wasn't ready. Some criticized this stride as Warner Bros. trying to catch up to Marvel's success in building an expanded universe. Others felt that this plan should be given a chance. Once released, the response was about just as divided if not more.

How several fans came out of the theatre

Chris Terrio and David S. Goyer have written the script to this sequel. Following the destruction of
Metropolis from Man of Steel (2013), audiences are introduced to Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck) finding a way on how to combat Superman (Henry Cavill) and make sure he will not become an enemy. At the same time, Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg) is also looking for a way to rid of Superman, which requires him getting access to the Kryptonian technology left behind from Man of Steel (2013). Running underneath these two plots is a subplot dealing with Bruce Wayne making connections with Diana Prince (Gal Gadot) and figuring out her origins. This alone is enough but Terrio and Goyer's script is too over packed for its own good. Really Batman Vs Superman is a small section of this film because there are several other things going on simultaneously. This also lessens the amount of development the main leads receive. It is those reasons that give way to some really contrived situations where it happens just because it was called for right then and there.

The acting itself is for the most part fine. Most of the initial cast return from Man of Steel (2013) only for short appearances. Amy Adams still manages to put herself in peril even though she's supposed to be able to take care of herself on her own. For new cast members, Ben Affleck as Batman fits the role. He sounds much more calculative and rough in his delivery. Jeremy Irons as Alfred does a great job too, inserting a few smart-alec remarks as well. Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman although not always around is quite the looker and self sufficient as an Amazonian princess. Last but not least, Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor is average. People will see why many do not favor his performance but not all of it is irritating. He does come off more Joker-ish and the jolly rancher scene is unnecessary yes, but it wasn't repeated more than once. Certainly a much more menacing actor could have been cast as Luthor, but Eisenberg is not ear bleeding bad. The real problem were the short cuts made to make all the pieces fit in for this cut of the movie.

The action sequences themselves have credibility to them but they were also uninteresting at points as well. For the majority of the time, all the Batman scenes that involved fighting were well executed. With director Zack Snyder heading this, it's hard to see Snyder not knowing how to properly make a good-looking action scene. Batman just doesn't care here; if you are bad, you're going to get hurt terribly. However, things begin to get rather tiresome when Superman enters the picture. Unfortunately because Superman flies and does super feats, CGI is needed in order to make this look realistic. This is the drawback though; looking at you Zack Snyder. Even though Snyder knows what he wants in his sequence, there are moments where the CGI is brought up to overkill levels. It's not say that it's unfinished CGI, but it does get to the point where it feels like the audiences may actually be watching cut scenes to a video game because everything is all computer generated. It's just ho-hum.

"Is it over yet?"

As for cinematography, Larry Fong managed the cameras. Fong's experience with big cinematic action films isn't a lot but does cover most of it. Seeing that he has worked with director Zack Snyder on his earlier films like 300 (2006), Watchmen (2009) and Sucker Punch (2011), it's no shock then that Fong was brought on board for this movie. For all the scenes, the camera is fairly stable. The problem with Fong's visuals are the lack of color throughout. The environment surrounding these characters is so drab and ugly, it's no longer appealing to look at. When it came to music, composers Hans Zimmer and Tom Holkenborg (Junkie XL) worked together and it’s rather disappointing. Aside from Superman's theme carrying over from Man of Steel (2013), only Batman's theme is somewhat likable. Luthor's finesse cue is too outlandish and Wonder Woman's track raises too many red flags in tone. It sounds more like it belongs to Luthor with an erratic electric cello in the background with beating war drums. It doesn't add any thematic depth to the listening experience.

For almost all positives this sequel has, a negative can be found to counter it. The basic elements to this movie are here - casting, music, camerawork and action but that's it. The writing isn't focused on the premise the title states, the visuals look drained, the action has too much CGI at times and the music is frustrating to latch onto. Yet, the cast do work well and action is fair.

Points Earned --> 5:10

RED (2010) Review:

Like any human being, we all get old at some point. As our body age, we don't always have the same capability to perform the usual tasks we take on during the day. However when it comes to action related films, that concept doesn't exist as much. Characters have much more freedom to be highly skilled in their older age and still manage to be quite agile. The tone that is used in these films are more serious than comedic. Rarely is the subject of age conveyed in a more comic relief tone. Considering that in the year 2010, DC and Warner Brothers had only found success in making dark, serious comic book movies, it didn't seem likely that a movie of a lighter inflection would be made. Mind you this was also before the failed introduction of Hal Jordan in Green Lantern (2011), changing the formula seemed risky. Yet, as obscure as the comic book was, RED (2010) was a surprise hit after viewers saw it. Other than the campy Batman films directed by Joel Schumacher, there were few other DC comic book films of similar tone until this one.

"Hey Sarah,....think I'm pretty?"

The title to this action comedy is actually an acronym that describes the protagonists; RED is short for "Retired, Extremely Dangerous". Viewers are introduced to Frank Moses (Bruce Willis) a retired veteran agent of the field looking to do something with himself but can't figure out what. After being attacked one night in his home, Moses brings along Sarah Ross (Mary-Louise Parker), a friendly phone operator in order to keep her safe. While on the road, they also reconnect with the rest of the team; cool man Joe Matheson (Morgan Freeman), crazy paranoid man Marvin Boggs (John Malkovich) and Eagle-eye Victoria (Helen Mirren). Together they look to find why they're being hunted, while the hunter himself named Cooper (Karl Urban) works endlessly to stop them. Jon and Erich Hoeber, two writers that do not have much consistency in their projects penned the screenplay adapted from the comic book. For this particular entry though, this has been their most widely acclaimed work.

Having older agents come back into the field and still be lethal is a nice idea and the actors cast for those roles fit them well. The whole conspiracy subplot that involves the main characters can get wordy at times but it is understandable to some degree. The real problems are unsolved questions that appear throughout the movie. Things happen where it wasn't revealed at all and no answer was given by the conclusion. What's the point of that? Nonetheless, the actors themselves work well with the parts they were cast for. Willis, Mirren, Malkovich and Freeman all have acceptable chemistry with each other. This is perhaps one of the few times where Willis doesn't have to act so tough all the time in order to crack a smile. Even Mary-Louise Parker has a good number of quips for how strange Willis' character acts at first. Although the fact that the role of Sarah is somewhat a love interest to Frank is a tad cliche in itself, the real question is, who thought Parker and Willis looked good together? They aren't ages apart but Willis looks too old.

John Malkovich's part is not an uncommon role, and being that his character is a little nutty, it fits right in. Marvin Briggs is the most comedic of the bunch being that he gets anxious to kill. On the other hand, Morgan Freeman slips away with his character practically just being himself but slicker. As for Helen Mirren, her part comes across delicate on the outside and a brutal sniper on the inside. Heck, Mirren doesn't even blink when she fires her weapons. Karl Urban as Cooper is another dangerous agent and although he's mostly cruel, he does have a human side to him. There's also other appearances from other actors like  Richard Dreyfuss, Ernest Borgnine, Brian Cox and James Remar. For action, there are a number of sequences that are quite energetic. With the premise involving secret agents trained to kill, one would expect to have plenty of gunplay and explosive activity, of which it does. Throughout the running time, guns range from revolvers to powerhouse machine guns. Not to mention all the hand-to-hand combat too.

Malkovich & Freeman

Florian Ballhaus handled the cinematography for this film. The shots themselves were well executed but the look itself isn't that impressive. There wasn't much of a visual style to this film. There's not even a whole lot of director Robert Schwentke's "snap-zoom" movements, which is a pretty awesome trademark feature. The picture is wide and does get a number of urban landscapes but it's just not much to look at or to be fascinated with. One would think since Ballhaus has worked on movies like The Devil Wears Prada (2006) and Marley & Me (2008), there would be some kind of appeal. The musical score composed by Christophe Beck is another enjoyable listening experience. Much of Beck's composition mixes his usual sounds of bongos and drums with several different cues. These cues switch between guitar and clicky electronic synths that help elevate the action sequences when necessary. Also with Beck having experience in making music for comedy films, mingling action and comedic cues would make perfect sense coming from his perspective.

The title is obscure just like its comic book origins, but it is one of the few comedic adaptations in the DC canon. The cinematography isn't unique nor is every question answered, but the actors are well cast, the action is fun, the music is great addition and the comedy is well timed.

Points Earned --> 7:10

The Brave Little Toaster to the Rescue (1997) Review:

During much of the 1980s, Disney was not performing well financially or critically. Release after release, almost all of their films weren't making the cut. Whether it was based on content or something else, viewers and critics alike at the time were unimpressed. That's not the case now however for many of the once unnoticed movies have found a home for those who appreciate the quality they gave. But of those, there were some movies that got recognized for being well done. A couple years before Disney hit it big with The Little Mermaid (1989), another animated film came out that has made a lasting memory for many children, that being The Brave Little Toaster (1987). As odd as the premise was audiences and critics were surprised to see how mature some of the basic themes and concepts were for the plot. Not surprisingly, Disney went on to release a Direct-to-Video sequel of the original 10 years later. Even though it was a few years in where Disney started cranking out sequels, it could've been bad but it holds up somewhat here.

"What a day to remember...."

Picking up some time after the first events, audiences rejoin the living household items once more but this time, they're in the master's (Rob) veterinary clinic. The master is also ready to graduate and in order to do so, he must submit his 600-page thesis. One night while doing the finishing touches, a power surge occurs causing Rob to lose all his work. Fearing he won't graduate, it's up to the little toaster and friends along with some animals to save the day. Directed by Robert C. Ramirez who's better known for directing The Prince of Egypt (1998) prequel Joseph: King of Dreams (2000) and written by Willard Carroll who served as executive producer to The Brave Little Toaster (1987), manage to put together an acceptable sequel considering the circumstances. It's not at the same level as the original but it's an allowable follow-up. What doesn't work in this sequel are a few components. The most typical of reasons being continuity errors; ones that go beyond the physical realm that the first had established. Things don’t just materialize.

The other two problems deal with characters. The new animal additions to the original group is okay but they do feel a bit tacked on. It just feels very obligatory and one of the main animal's motive changes without reason. Then there's the role of Rob's underling named Mack who works as an assistant to him. Right when the character is introduced, his personality immediately gives away what kind of character he will be. No questions. Aside from these problems, there isn't much else to point out. Even with these problems dealing with development in certain characters, the script still contains some material that is dark when looked at under certain lenses. With that said, credit is due for at least not making the overall execution feel completely pointless. Some sequels get completely diluted and end up having no risk involved. When it comes to characters, unless the viewer wanted to know who voiced them, most would unknowingly discover that the majority of the original cast from the original did not return.

Since the release of this was a decade later, seeing why some actors who voiced childlike characters is understandable. Yet as to why Jon Lovitz, Timothy E. Day, Wayne Kaatz and Colette Savage did not return is beyond understanding. They did after all voice important characters. Thankfully the actors who do replace the old cast maintain the same quality performances. Jessica Tuck who voices Chris, Chris Young as Rob, Eric Lloyd as Blanky and Roger Kabler as Radio all sound very similar to that of the original actors and that's great. Returning from the original is Deanna Oliver as Toaster, Thurl Ravenscroft as Kirby and Timothy Stack as Lampy, which is great to hear as well. For new members of the cast, Jay Mohr plays the voice of Mack, Andy Milder voices the scruffy Ratso, Alfre Woodard voices Maisie the mama cat, Danny Nucci plays a Hispanic Chiwawa, Andrew Daly plays Murgetroid the snake and veteran actor Eddie Bracken voices Sebastian the monkey. There's even a voice appearance from Brian Doyle-Murray playing a computer.

Ratso

The animation is actually another decent quality to this sequel. This is mostly because The Brave Little Toaster (1987) itself did not set such a high bar. If anything, the animation here is on par with its predecessor and that's okay. Taking into account that it was also animated on a smaller budget is important to recognize if the quality remains fairly the same. The film score was unfortunately not composed again by David Newman. In replace of him, Alexander Janko composed the music. This was Janko's first film composition and seeing that he frequently orchestrates more than composes, it's interesting that Janko made out rather sufficiently. The score itself consists of organic orchestra and uses those elements to its advantage. By this, the cues that involve the darker themes work properly. The songs that the actual characters sing aren't that bad either. Tunes like "Remember That Day", "Tap to the Super Highway" and especially "Chomp and Munch" are fairly catchy and can get the viewer to emote.

The sequel itself isn't memorable as to its predecessor but it isn't all fluff either. There are some mature themes involved, the music is composed nicely and the voice cast perform well. It's just all the extra characters and an unexplained motivation that make it feel forgettable to some degree.

Points Earned --> 6:10

Paul McCartney Really Is Dead: The Last Testament of George Harrison (2010): Review

Conspiracy theories are one of those touchy topics for some people. In a day where as easy as the public has access to almost anything at the touch of their fingertips, one would think hardly anything would be private. Yet some people still believe there are individuals higher up that have their own agenda and continue to push it to this day. Whether it's true or not has yet to be proven and that goes for any other conspiracy theory. Even more of a reason as to why only select groups of people believe in certain theories is because there are so many for each case. Some of which contradict other theories, while some add or remove events or reasons from others. This is why when theories have conflicting proof, many people do not believe the ploy being made. Whether it's been about a celebrity or infamous criminal, there's been several suspicions made for these people. For this film, the premise is to prove that Paul McCartney from the popular English rock group The Beatles, truly is dead via narration George Harrison.

Clues galore throughout

Directed by Joel Gilbert, a producer/director to other documentaries and some conspiracy films, this documentary is the official one made for this case. There have been other films made but as for reaching the public's eye, this is probably the one. According to Gilbert at the film's introduction, his studio, Highway 61 Entertainment received an unknown package in July of 2005 with no return address. Inside it contained mini cassette tapes labeled with writing saying "The Last Testament of George Harrison". In these tapes the voice speaking reveals supposedly the entire true story that indeed Paul McCartney is dead and the one we know of today is actually the winner of a look alike contest who took his place. This alone (like any conspiracy) does raise some eyebrows because, the whole idea is crazy and questions the very nature of how incidents are handled. However, even before bothering to listen to the rest of the story from the cassettes, there are already some glaring holes in this story.

Looking at the packaged received date alone is a problem. The package was delivered in 2005? So who delivered it? George Harrison died in 2001 so who would Harrison entrust to deliver this important information? Also why wait until 2005? What's the significance? Another glaring issues is that Gilbert also states he had the tapes sent to three different forensics labs to determine the authenticity of the voice and match it to Harrison. The answer - "the results were inconclusive" he states. Okay,...then just play the tapes as is anyway and let the audience think for themselves. But no, instead Gilbert hires actor Lance Lewman to perform as Harrison and dub over the actual tapes. Is this to make the story sound more realistic? It won't if the audience knows it’s an actor redubbing the actual audio material. It's almost like Gilbert knew the actual recording wasn't close so they decided to make it sound close. That doesn't sound honest and it's very questionable on an ethical level.

Then there's the matter of execution to this documentary. The way it changes from chapter to chapter is fine but each chapter has clips of what looks like re-enactments but edited to not be very clear in its presentation. This is also a bit strange because it can confuse the viewer. Is it supposed to help the audience think up of what was happening while the story is being told? Even some of the photos used don't exactly look entirely correct and there's a lot more evidence to sift through. How did Lennon have roughly 50 more songs to make after McCartney's death and they all pertain to McCartney if Lennon and McCartney wrote these songs is another weird coincidence. At the same time though, even with all these inconsistencies, some of the evidence is oddly enough real. Things like the backwards replaying and hearing "Paul is Dead, Man, Miss Him Miss Him" or "Turn Me on Dead Man" is quite eerie. And it's not just the recordings that make this story sound plausible to some degree.

McCartney's double before surgery

Seeing all the albums being analyzed for deeper meanings and having certain areas pointed out that appear on all the albums that came out after McCartney's "supposed" death is strange in its own right. Why is it that the McCartney double is depicted with hands only over his head or how come he's always the only Beatle not facing the same way as the rest? It's always McCartney, so there has to be some kind of reason behind it. Since this is a documentary dealing with history, a cinematographer was not needed. But the historical pieces and archive footage from the past is well appreciated and helps give the viewer a better understanding how certain events led to the rest (or so its claimed). The music composed by Wayne Peet is another nice touch. Especially the main tune used in the introduction, the light flute triplets sound like it belongs in the 60-70s and stirs the intrigue a little more when it comes to understanding what allegedly happened in 1966. Who knows, maybe McCartney is who he is or not.

This conspiracy documentary does bring up some valid points and coincidences but there's a lot of contradicting and confusing evidence as well. With a re-dubbed narration and strange re-enactment footage, it doesn't solve or confirm anything. Thinking about it does sound disturbing though and the music helps with that too.

Points Earned --> 5:10

Shredderman Rules (2007) Review:

Growing up and doing acting, as a profession is not always the easiest thing for certain people. There have been plenty of stories time and again of various child actors who hit it big in one film and completely botched it when they hit their double digits. For cases like these, some have recovered, while others never made it (alive even). It's a sad day to see youth like this head down the wrong path. There's no excuse for it. There is still hope though, especially when looking at Nickelodeon's school-friendly TV show Ned's Declassified School Survival Guide. Starring a truckload of child actors, when looking up the cast and where they are now, it's nice to see several of them have gone on made a name for themselves. More importantly the lead character Ned Bigby played Devon Werkheiser, has been the front runner of all them. Coming out with two extended play acoustic albums, jump starting his own youtube series called Devon's Life Survival Guide and continuing to play in movies, Werkheiser has not slowed down.

Not the noogie

Slowly letting go of his schoolboy Ned Bigby image, Werkheiser began with this TV movie
after the series ended. Here Werkheiser plays Nolan Byrd, a nerdy kid who follows all the rules. He studies hard, doesn't bother anyone and has had a crush on a girl named Isabel (Francia Raisa) since he was little and met her at a lake they both liked. Now, Byrd is harassed by school bully Alvin "Bubba" Bixby (Andrew Caldwell), the son of crooked wealthy town sewage owner Bob Bixby (Daniel Roebuck). When being assigned in class by his history teacher Mr. Green (Tim Meadows) to bring an important situation to light, Byrd decides to create an alias known as "Shredderman" who reveals all of Bubba's wrong doings. Written by Russell Marcus and based on a book by Wendelin Van Draanen, this middle/high school comedy isn't that clever. It is a TV movie so that does limit it's budget and resources, but everything comes off as just very generic among all other things. Savage Steve Holland who has headed other Nickelodeon movies also directed the film.

What writer Russell Marcus doesn't understand is how overused all the school tropes that are shown in this feature and how exaggerated they are. Bullying is still a very serious issue when it comes to school but the way it's displayed here doesn't feel that relevant in today's time. Do bullied kids even get "atomic wedgies" or "fish hooked" anymore? If anything, cyber-bullying feels like more of a thing now. Besides, with these particular humiliations, surely someone from the faculty would see this and would not stand for it. Yet this is a continuous thing at this school at least. This leads into the next point - consequences. Sure there are moments where someone will get what's coming to them but it's all contrived due to plot convenience. Any other time that it's due, it will never show its face. How does a student gain access to old personal digital video files? And if they were, what makes them think they can get away with it? There is such a thing as digital tracking and that can go a long way.

Story wise there's nothing to ride home about either. Making the typical school stereotypes even more generic are the cliches that come with them. The fact that Nolan Byrd acts weird around the girl he likes and his crush not understanding him has been done numerous times before. It's also quite obvious to how it'll end too unfortunately. The story doesn't even try to develop them in a way that'll have its audience feel any other way towards it. It's that straightforward. However even with these problems, the film isn't garbage to sit through. All actors perform their roles the way they should play them; no matter how cliche they may be. Shining among all these actors is Devon Werkheiser for his likability as an actor and his ability to work with whatever he's given. Francia Raisa as his love interest is all right but her character's actions only prove to influence Nolan Byrd's motivational choices. There's also another girl named Miriam (Marisa Guterman) who also likes Byrd, but of course the same can't be said.

"Me tired....of cliches"

Miriam is a socially awkward character and written to be continually disliked by her classmates. Wouldn't it have been nicer to have them accept her more? But no. On a side note Daniel Roebuck also resembles that of a cousin to Donald Trump, it's very odd. Plus Tim Meadows plays a super relaxed teacher (which I don't know how he could've been hired) and Dave Coulier as Byrd Sr. The cinematography by William D. Barber, who normally serves as a camera operator works fine here. Knowing that it was a TV movie but had the look of something a little more than that was fine. There are some special effects shots though that weren't needed and they weren't that good. The music by Paul Doucette was okay too featuring a piano theme for Byrd and other instruments like organ and snare drum. Since it is a TV production, expecting an official release of the music would require too much money. So for what it's worth, Doucette's music is fine where it is being only in the film itself. It has its moments but nothing worth remembering.

Unfortunately the cast of likable actors, music and decent camerawork isn't enough to make this school bully story relevant in today's world. There are a lot of cliches in its story and characters that out date it rather than making it close to today's culture.

Points Earned --> 5:10

Gone in Sixty Seconds (2000) Review:

Seeing actors early on in their transition stage moving from different genres sure can be surreal sometimes. Perhaps for some, their actual screen presence is not as prevalent as it use to be, but the name itself carries a lot of weight when it comes to how successful a film could be (most of the time). Now a days, when the names Angelina Jolie, Nicolas Cage, Scott Caan, Chi McBride and Robert Duvall are mentioned, all have their names connected to some well-known movie. However, when seeing actors in a transition state where their not the main lead or are but are not given the liberties to do what they did in later films, it just feels strange. The title to this film actually sounds like a knock-off of The Fast and the Furious (2001) franchise that started after that. Pricey, shiny cars, looking to be stolen in a heist film? Sure sounds aggressive enough to be one. But does it turn out like it sounds? Ehh,...kind of but it is a bit misguided in areas. Compared to its 1974 original, the story is more of a soft remake than anything else.

"Hmmm,...should I steal 50 cars today?".....

Written mainly by Scott Rosenberg who also wrote for High Fidelity (2000) and with uncredited rewrites by J.J. Abrams and Jonathan Hensleigh, the plot is about retired car thief Memphis Raines (Nicolas Cage) who is brought back to his old profession in order to save his younger brother Kip (Giovanni Ribisi) after a major screw up with car trafficker Raymond Calitri (Christopher Eccleston). The job Raines has to complete is stealing 50 high-end cars and have them ready to ship out, otherwise, Raines' brother dies. So in order to complete this task, Raines gets the help from his old crew played by actors, Angelina Jolie, Scott Caan, Chi McBride, Will Patton, Robert Duvall, Vinnie Jones and some others. All the while, police officers Castlebeck (Delroy Lindo) and Drycoff (Timothy Olyphant) are on Raines’ tail trying to figure out if the retired thief has re-entered his old profession. Directed by Dominic Sena who's only done a handful of films heads this production. Unfortunately, both the writing and direction have their issues.

Going back to what was mentioned before, one would think if the title suggests something will be gone in sixty seconds, then the end result will be a fast paced, action film. The thing is, there is action and fast cars, but the build up to this is slower than necessary. Half of this film is Memphis Raines getting his posse together and over time removing the respective cars from their location. However, when this happens very few times is anybody speeding. It's more like nonchalantly cruising off. That doesn't sound that exciting, especially when considering the padding. For almost two hours, there are definitely some scenes that either could've been trimmed or removed completely. This is in due part with the writing, which has a minor subplot about Memphis Raines and Sway (Angelina Jolie) being in love once. It's brought up at one point, then put on hold before having the cliche of "being back together" later for no real reason. What's the point? Audiences aren't exactly given the clearest of backstory to their relationship therefor so what?

Another problem is the lighting and coloring. According to sources, Sena's trademark look are sepia tone / yellowish colors in his film. However, this practically the only color available because there isn't a whole lot of other things that stand out. It doesn't make the viewing experience that interesting. With that though, there are still some nice highlights. The main leads to this film do have their moments together as a crew. Nicolas Cage plays the fence in his acting changing between calm and ready beat anyone who comes to take him out. Angelina Jolie may not be as active in this feature as her later roles would be but she still has a presence that can't be ignored. Vinnie Jones is a character that never talks and isn't explained as to why but he too has some moments that showcase he's not to be messed with. On the other hand, Chi McBride and Delroy Lindo are probably the most vocal, being that they add some kind energy to their roles. Unfortunately, the rest of the cast aren't engaging because there’s too many and not enough development.

Angelina Jolie (action star "in transition" status)

There are however some nice deadpan comical moments delivered by Cage and that deals with his car named Eleanor who sort of has a mind of its own for some reason. It's dumb but funny. The cinematography by Paul Cameron (Man on Fire (2004) and Deja Vu (2006)) are well shot and work well the action scenes that do occur. Since it's wide screen, the look gives a broad range of view to see what surrounds the characters. The car chases that Nicolas Cage performs are decently exciting and are nicely edited. That's the way the rest of the film should have been executed. The music composed by synth enthusiast Trevor Rabin is a mixed bag. The score itself is pretty short surprisingly, clocking in only at a half-hour. Rabin does compose a main theme to Raines and Eleanor with a synth choir that pops up from time to time, but the rest of the tracks are somewhat muddled. There are some exciting cues that involve deep scratchy synth bases but they don't show up all that often because much of the tracks run on average about a minute. It's okay but could've been better.

The electronic synth musical score, cinematography and main leads make the viewing experience watchable but the premise itself is squandered by slow pacing and infrequent action. To be gone in sixty seconds, the momentum this feature creates takes much longer than that.

Points Earned --> 6:10

One Man's Hero (1999) Review:

When it comes films based on true events, it is in the filmmakers' best interest to keep all the facts as legitimate as possible without skewing the story all that much. The genre of films that probably receives the most critical of film buffs' attentions are the ones that have been historically recorded and not some fable spread by rumors and myths. Taking a deeper look, the type of historical film that gets this kind of focus is usually bio-pictures or war dramas. Further closing the gap, the war dramas that have received the motion picture treatment range; but several have depicted these tragedies during the Great War, World War II, the Vietnam War, the Revolutionary War and the American Civil War. Of course in world history, these are not the only confrontations that occurred, but for North American history, this is the usual batch. It is rare when another event is looked at that possibly was forgotten in the regular high school history books. The most recent that comes to mind is Heaven's Gate (1980), which was about a county war in 1890.

Marta & John Riley

Turns out this movie takes place during the 19th century as well. Lance Hool, a producer to other various films like Missing in Action (1984), The Air Up There (1994), Flipper (1996) and Man on Fire (2004), takes a turn in the director's chair to cover the Mexican-American War in 1846. Written by Milton S. Gelman (who passed practically a decade before this film's release), the story is about real-life soldier Sergeant John Riley (Tom Berenger) and his men who abandoned the U.S. army after being persecuted because of their Catholic faith. While leaving, they find refuge with fellow Mexicans led by Cortina (Joaquim de Almeida) and Marta (Daniela Romo). There, they both decide to join Mexico and fight for their freedom. Meanwhile, Colonel Benton Lacy (Mark Moses) attempts to get Riley back to the north before General Winfield Scott (Patrick Bergin) blows them all away. Running parallel to that, Marta and Riley start to become more attracted to each other every minute they spend together.

For problems, there isn't all too much to gripe about. The only script issues that are obvious deal with character motivations. From what is known, John Riley is somewhat a mystery but only after the Mexican-American war ended. There are documents of his existence but there isn't a clear answer as to what he did post-war. Did he marry for real? In this feature, Marta is Riley's love interest as is she to Cortina. The passion that Riley has for Marta is a constant subplot that is brought up every half-hour or so. Yet Cortina repetitively reminds Riley to stay away, but Riley doesn't listen. Soon, Riley and Cortina fight and immediately right after; it's water under the bridge for some odd reason. What was all the antagonizing for if it was going to be settled so quickly? Was it even worth writing in? The only other dilemma in this movie is more technical and that's the depiction of war. This film was Orion Pictures last release and many of the studio's films were rated R (as was this one). Still there seems to be almost no blood or gore.

That particular aspect was probably the most inaccurate component. War is not light and fluffy stuff. There are a couple scenes where blood does flow but it’s rated R. Gettysburg (1993) also should have been R but it was PG so the depiction of violence was much less gruesome and that's only appropriate because of its rating. Why give a movie the label of rated R if won't even play out as an R rated film? It's misleading. The cast to the film was also entertaining. Hearing Tom Berenger with an Irish accent is definitely a change in his usual speech pattern and it does sound authentic, as well as the soldiers played by Stuart Graham, Gregg Fitzgerald, Don Wycherley, Wolf Muser and Luke Hayden. Each actor equally matches Berenger in amiability. Daniela Romo as Marta is very pretty and it is obvious as to why Riley falls for her so quickly. Joaquim de Almeida is always fun to watch but in his role as Cortina, it’s hard to know how trustworthy he is. Mark Moses performance as Colonel Lacy is another great show. Moses knows how to have a presence.

Riley's Brigade

Visually, the film had an appealing look to it. All effects looked like they were executed practically, of which regularly gives a movie a more realistic viewing. Credit to João Fernandes as the director of photography for capturing wide shots of the western North American terrain. The actual depiction may not feel it has the right temperature to walk in casual clothing but it rightfully matches the environment of what the west was like. Fernandes was also the cinematographer for Friday the 13th Part IV: The Final Chapter (1984), Missing in Action (1984) and Red Scorpion (1988). The film score produced by Ernest Troost was another great element. Troost also composed the music to both horror comedies Tremors (1990) and Dead Heat (1988). Unlike Dead Heat (1988) though where the orchestra sounded like it came from an oldies monster film, Troost's orchestra to this film is much more full and contemporary. The main title is very applicable to the setting, with bagpipes representing Riley and his men. There's also a choir to boot.

It has some weird character motivations and underwhelming violence for an R rated war film, however it is an immersive film. The story provides a new history lesson to those unfamiliar of the Mexican-American war, the actors perform great, and the cinematography is befitting to the setting as well as the film score.

Points Earned --> 7:10

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out of the Shadows (2016) Review:

When it comes to Hollywood rebooting various nostalgic properties, fans have to be reassured that the right people are on board to make them. Since the late 2000s, the Michael Bay produced Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2014) reboot had its fans up in arms from the very start of reports, pre-production and all the way until its release. It was one of those subjects that had endless debates between all kinds of fans on how the characters would be treated and whether the casting and character designs would properly represent the turtles today. Stepping back, the live-action CGI reboot to the original 1990 film was not a complete critical misfire but there were things about it that blatantly showed how much attention to detail was given to the production. Nonetheless the film brought in a hefty amount of money and two days later, a sequel was green lit. Of course, certain fans that already had their opinion would probably stick with it. However for this entry, there may be people who care after all. From what it looks like, things may turn around.

"Hey,...I think Raph's missing from this screenshot..."

The sequel seems to have taken note of big complaints fans had about the first and has worked to improve it. The first writers to the reboot, Josh Appelbaum and André Nemec continue to pen the script here. In the director's chair is no longer Jonathan Liebesman, but Dave Green, the director of Earth to Echo (2014). The premise to the story is straightforward. After the events of the first, the Shredder (Brian Tee) and two inmates named Bebop (Gary Anthony Williams) and Rocksteady (Stephen Farrelly) get broken out of police custody by his fellow foot clansmen and with the help of sci-fi wiz Baxter Stockman (Tyler Perry). Together they team up with squid alien Krang (Brad Garrett) to help conquer the planet. Thankfully the teenage mutant ninja turtles are willing to stop them with the help of Vernon (Will Arnett), April O'Neil (Megan Fox) and new addition Casey Jones (Stephen Amell). Noel Fisher plays Michelangelo, Jeremy Howard as Donatello, Pete Ploszek as Leonardo and Alan Ritchson as Raphael respectively.

Master Splinter is still voiced by Tony Shalhoub and Laura Linney plays the Chief of the police headquarters. Here are the only problems with the script. Where were the villain connections made? When and where did Baxter Stockman make connections with the Shredder? And the same could also be said for Shredder having connections with Krang. Also it's probably safe to assume Erick Sacks (William Fichtner's role) faded into obscurity or moved out of the country because he's never mentioned. Other than that, there are noticeable improvements in how things are carried out. Character properties were a major complaint among viewers and that was fixed. The footclan - yeah, they're ninjas now, not gun wielders. The turtles themselves are also focused on more instead of their human counterparts. This entry does not have the Michael Bay schtick humor where Michelangelo, Vernon or whoever else ogling over April O'Neil's looks. The turtles are still goofy yes, but no longer with hyperactive immature humor.

The development for the turtles also brings up further questions of teamwork, trust and mistakes. All of which serve as learning curves for each and help them grow as a family. Casey Jones even has a legitimate backstory. Stephen Amell as Jones may not have the long hair but he has the right amount of geekiness and comedic timing to his performance. The action is a nice ride too. There are still CGI fights when the turtles either battle Krang or Bebop and Rocksteady but they are well put together. Another character modification was toning down the CGI on Shredder's costume. Instead of being one giant magnetized mechanized suite with flying daggers, the only metallic parts are his helmet and arm guards and it looks completely acceptable. There's only one scene where the CGI looks a bit off and that's when Bebop and Rocksteady transform into their humanoid animal counterparts. For some reason they do not look completely polished. For a big action film though, Dave Green's direction and ability to handle such scenes is noteworthy.

CGI Live-Action Bebop & Rocksteady

The same could be said for Lula Carvalho as the director of photography. Carvalho's experience with mainstream Hollywood films starts at the remake RoboCop (2014) and this installment's predecessor. There are still some issues with how close the lens will get to the CGI character's faces but there isn't much else to knock on. All action scenes were handled easily and there seemed to be more lit areas too. Surprisingly the composer to the music swapped although the choice of replacement was no shocker. Taking over Brian Tyler's role from the first film is frequent Michael Bay collaborator Steve Jablonsky. Although Jablonsky does not keep Brian Tyler's main theme that Tyler had created from the first film, the new theme that is used has its own motif as well and it is memorable. As to why he couldn't have just added those cues to Tyler's is probably an answer nobody will get (if they're even asking a question like that). The action cues are well produced and definitely help with the momentum in the film.

Originally what seemed like would be just another clunky Michael Bay influenced movie; the sequel has made some significant improvements. The script still misses on explaining certain character introductions but it also focuses more on developing the turtles. Various character designs were fixed by fans’ critiques and the music (although different) is still an enjoyable listening experience.

Points Earned --> 7:10

Blade: Trinity (2004) Review:

Some people may not recognize it as the actual successful start of film studio Marvel comics but Blade (1998) was the original renaissance to where the company entered into profitable film making. It may have not had the intro credits like every property that came after it until its sequels or glowing reviews but the character was one of the few to have a much grittier and darker tone. This attribute would only go to Blade for the first five years until Daredevil (2003) and The Punisher (2004) were released. It was a special franchise that molded vampires from romantic / fantasy creatures into action / horror icons. Blade II (2002) reaffirmed this understanding although it was not as compelling as its predecessor. A couple years later, fans of the series would get their final entry in the series and very few left the theater happy. With a troubled production involving Wesley Snipes and Kris Kristofferson being unsatisfied with the script, the end product feels like not the entire crew was on board.

Blade with Hannibal King and Abigail Whistler

David S. Goyer, the now divisive comic book film adapter of multiple properties wrote and directed this feature. After accidentally killing a human, Blade (Wesley Snipes) is on the run from the F.B.I. and teams up with a group called the Nightstalkers played by Hannibal King (Ryan Reynolds) and Abigail Whistler (Jessica Biel). Together they must join forces to stop Drake AKA Dracula (Dominic Purcell) from bringing the world to an end. Sounds okay on paper (or screen) but the execution is different. Seeing Goyer's experience in other properties and being involved with this franchise from the very beginning, its confusing as to how Goyer messed up this much. Of the premise, the first subplot that does not belong is the killing of a human. It's not that it's a bad idea, but it never gets resolved so why even bother shoehorning it in? The cast is also a mismatch of actors. The only two actors who fit the best are obviously Snipes and Kristofferson; a close third could be Jessica Biel due to her character's relation to Blade.

But of this, Snipes and Kristofferson feel and sound the least invested and that only further cements the troubled production history. One of the biggest things that fans of the series will notice is how much Whistler and Blade take a back seat. Casting Ryan Reynolds would not have been a mistake if the character of King did not eat up all the dialog on the script. Blade barely says anything in this feature. Here and there yeah he does say a couple of good lines, but it's not that often. Most of the time, he just stares into space or grimaces. There's more to Blade than just that. The same could be said for Biel's role. Her character enjoys listening to music when fighting vampires; that dates the film a lot. Dominic Purcell as Drake (is that supposed to modernize his name?) isn't terrible but he also looks awkward in the role. His face looks as though he doesn't quite know what he's playing so he'll just be himself to some degree. His minions played by Paul Levesque (Triple H) and Parker Posey are actually more convincing vampires than he is.

There's also a distinct lack of action and horror throughout this picture. The special visual effects are actually better than a lot of the CGI stuffed scenes that were in Blade II (2002) but the count is much lower here. There are a couple of decent action scenes but the rest are rather underwhelming. Even the battle between Drake and Blade looks less exciting than what has been put to screen before. There are vampire stabbings, bitings and some blood but it's not as heavy as the violence depicted in this franchise's earlier years. Again going back to tone, Blade (1998) and Blade II (2002) roughly had equal tone with each other. The atmosphere of the universe Blade lived in felt dark and unsafe. The locations used in this entry are just uninteresting and boring. The Nightstalkers' headquarters has nothing special about it and the city itself feels more clean and shiny than in past representations. What was the purpose of this? Was it to just add to the fad at the time of other supehero films? It takes away what the series had going for it.

"How do I look?!"

Handling the camerawork was Mexican cameraman Gabriel Beristain. Beristain had also filmed for Blade II (2002) and S.W.A.T. (2003). Thankfully for much of the film, Beristain's experience kept the shoot steady. Beristain delightfully changed the aspect ratio from the previous entry to a wide lens and that always gives the movie a much bigger scope in visuals. The music was also enjoyable though this series has never had a solidified composer attached. Producing the music to this entry was German composer Ramin Djawadi and for some reason his official score has gone unreleased. There are a few areas where bootlegs can be found but there's no real way of obtaining the music. Only a few actual tracks exist, which mainly highlight some of the action sequences. One called "Shooting Around Corners" uses mainly synths but with an energetic fashion that actually is fun listening to. There are some cues that are organic like "Drake's Parting Gift" using real orchestra but it's not as memorable as the scores released it before.

Unfortunately, the last series to the original Blade (1998) franchise is just middling. The music and visuals are acceptable but the casting feels misguided. The main leads don't sound invested, the action is infrequent and Blade doesn't do all that much wisecracking or say much at all.

Points Earned --> 5:10

Smokin' Aces (2006) Review:

Like several jobs around the world, only a hand select group of people get the best jobs and are called back frequently to continue their style of work. This type of search goes the same route for those looking to show their skills in the movie making business. Only some people get their name in the trailers as "..., the director of..." or something along those lines. This particular headline also isn't biased on the critical fame of the designated individual. As long as the director to the movie makes the studio a truckload of money, it doesn't matter. Unfortunately, this doesn’t let other possibly qualified people of that profession to excel. The person to represent this group is the man to this film; Joe Carnahan. Heading only six movies in the last fifteen years or so, Carnahan has proven that he has what it takes to be an acceptable action director along with critical flair. It was actually the release of this film that got him recognized to direct The A-Team (2010) reboot. Weird how that happened because this isn't a good film.

Piven just realized the mess of a movie he's in

Joe Carnahan positioned himself as writer/director to this feature and this could be why it just isn't even decent. Being a solo writer/director is not easy. Anyhow, the story is a collaborative character plot where a bunch of assassins head out to kill a once famed magician named Buddy Israel (Jeremy Piven) who decided to turn on the mob that made him filthy rich headed by Primo Sparazza (Joseph Ruskin). While Israel hides in his penthouse suite, F.B.I. agents Messner (Ryan Reynolds) and Carruthers (Ray Liotta), amateur assassins Jack Dupree (Ben Affleck) and his buddies played by Peter Berg and Martin Henderson, a rogue trained assassin Pasquale Acosta (Nestor Carbonell), chameleon killer Lazlo Soot (Tommy Flanagan), Neo-nazi hillbillies Darwin (Chris Pine), Jeeves (Kevin Durand) and Lester Tremor (Maury Sterling) and lastly fem fatales Sharice Watters (Taraji P. Henson) and Georgia Sykes (Alicia Keys) all converge on that point to kill him. With all that said, hardly any of these characters have development.

For a two-hour film one would think some kind of story would occur. Instead, there's a subplot about as to why Buddy Israel needs to be kept alive but it's written as some kind of government plan that is unnecessarily convoluted. Without saying much more, the story will in fact waste the time of the viewer. It completely makes everything pointless. Imagine realizing that after the movie ended, sitting and watching two hours of nothing. Substituted for that is an overstuffed cast of personalities that are difficult to connect with in any way and the list of names mentioned continues. There's also appearances from Common, Andy Garcia, Jason Bateman, Joel Edgerton and more. There's just too much to go around. That's not to say the cast can't act or don't have distinct personalities, they just feel rushed and wedged in. Along with that are unresolved character threads that do not conclude the way they should; they just go missing. There are also inconsistencies with security being a thing. How does someone get into a hotel with a sniper?

There are also comedic bits thrown in but that's a mixed bag. Seeing Alicia Keys being a complete tough girl and spewing manly lines is fun. Then there's also a couple scenes where a knock-off karate kid shows his moves to one of the assassins. By golly is he annoying; why was he even included again? It's just unfunny padding that makes no sense. However, even with all this said, the technical quality of the film still thrives. Action-wise, again director Joe Carnahan proves that’s his genre. He doesn't rely on the shaky camera effect to make action look real. He films real cinematic action and it's very entertaining. The type of action to this movie are just gunfights but its rated R so there's decent blood effects. At some points it even goes beyond that to the point of demented horror action. That's mainly credited to the Tremor Neo-nazi brothers for their weird antics. Speaking of which, Chris Pine had a stupid comical scene. Not hilarious, just enough to create one laugh.

Alicia Keys =O

The director of photography to this picture was Mauro Fiore. Fiore was also the guy behind the camera for Training Day (2001), The A-Team (2010) and Southpaw (2015). All of which these films did not involve much of or if any shaky camera movement and that's commendable. There's no particular scene that isn't well lit nor is it frustrating to follow what happens. Clint Mansell composed the musical score. The scores Mansell has produced for various films range in critical praise but some are movies like Requiem for a Dream (2000), Sahara (2005), Moon (2009) and Black Swan (2010). Mansell's Smokin' Aces (2006) score may only be forty-five minutes, but there are number of solid action and emotional cues. Soft electric guitar and strings highlight the action, which helps get the blood pumping. The softer cues that easily stir the correct emotion use more acoustic guitar, and more drawn out strings in a tragic key. Mansell shows that he is proficient at both ends of the spectrum.

Joe Carnahan is naturally a well-equipped action director and his technical crewmembers hit the mark as well in music and cinematography. The actors can act in their roles but with little development, very few come out feeling likable in any way. The story wastes time and the plot is bloated with too many character threads.

Points Earned --> 4:10