Warcraft (2016) Review:

Video game movies to this day are still struggling to get their transition correct from interactive to submissive entertainment. Unfortunately there's a disconnect between the fans of the movies and the fans of video games. This is due to multiple factors; lack of knowledge of the game, lack of people who have played the game and the lack of appreciation for the game. Things seemed to be on the up and up though for 2016 when some very different people got involved with the production of various video game movies. For Blizzard's popular Warcraft game, the adaptation of it to the big screen was under development for several years. So many times was it delayed for numerous reasons. But after long periods of waiting devoted fans were finally able to see their favorite gaming platform on the big screen. Sadly the response was about as predictable as expected. Critics were unimpressed and it barely made back its budget. On the other hand, majority fans were vastly grateful for the presentation. For non-video game fans though it's somewhat a mixed bag.

"Brace for impact...."

The positive to the film is its director and writer pair. Writing the script was Charles Leavitt and Duncan Jones. Leavitt was known for penning  Blood Diamond (2006) and The Express (2008). Duncan Jones on the other hand directed Moon (2009), Source Code (2011) and is also an avid World  of Warcraft gamer. With that said, it only suits that Jones directs this film. The story follows the clash of two worlds, the humans and the Orcs. The Orcs' world is dying and the only way they can survive is by taking over a new one, that being the humans. In the human world, King Wrynn (Dominic Cooper) leads the way with Anduin Lothar (Travis Fimmel). Overseeing them is sorcerer Medivh (Ben Foster) and his apprentice Khadgar (Ben Schnetzer) as protectors of the human world. Leading the Orcs is Gul'dan (Daniel Wu), who has powers that only work by draining the life force of other living things. Following him are Durotan (Toby Kebbell), Orgrim (Robert Kazinsky), Blackhand (Clancy Brown) and half-breed Garona (Paula Patton).

As a start-off point to a beginning franchise, the story isn't too hard to follow. The problem in the script are because of a couple things. Since this is based on a video game, it is understood that the filmmakers will want to give fan service to its passionate gamers. Yet there are times where special nods to the in-game achievements outnumber the explanations to what is going on within certain scenes. There's no problem with giving the fans what they enjoy. However for people not familiar with the game, this can be confusing because they will not be familiar as to why particular events happen. This is one of the issues with videogame movies. Gamers would rather play the game than watch and non-gamers may not understand why things happen for a distinct reason. Also there are occasional motivation flip-flops attributed to a couple of characters. This may add to the bewilderment of the viewer because of their non-gamer unfamiliarity. Even with this though, the characters are likable and are sympathetic due to their situations.

Out of all actors, the best of them is Toby Kebbell as Durotan. Kebbell plays his role with strength and feeling. Durotan's arc is a challenge to watch because of how conflicted he is. Durotan knowns Gul'dan isn't a great Orc but he's the only one powerful enough to lead them to survive. It's easy to see as to why this could cause internal friction. For the humans, Lothar is the more interesting of the bunch. He's had a career in the army for a while and his skills are valuable. For action, the sequences are entertaining to watch. For a PG-13 rating, some of the violence is actually pretty brutal. The humans use weapons that belong in the dark ages such as swords and shields. The Orcs use giant over sized workman tools like axes and sledge hammers. Not even the horses and other animals are safe in the battle scenes. Individuals are stabbed, thrown and even delimbed. Effects wise, the transformation of the characters and world are done expertly well. Using motion-capture effects, the half of the cast look nothing like themselves under the Orc makeup.

That video game cut scene,...jk

With technology on the rise, motion-capture has come a long way in making creatures more and more realistic. Only a couple actors can be seen under the effects. Everyone else practically disappears and that's great. The camerawork by Simon Duggan is another credible component. Unfortunately it's not clear as to what scenes actually contained real life terrain. Nevertheless the backgrounds to each scene are well constructed. Duggan is known for filming other big CGI budget films like I, Robot (2004), The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor (2008), Killer Elite (2011) and The Great Gatsby (2013).  All of which had acceptable camerawork. Music wise Ramin Djawadi composed the film score. From an audible perspective the score is engaging and has an organic sound. The makeup of it sounds like that of heavy strings and horns. This falls somewhat in line with Djawadi's past works although some have varied. Unfortunately the tracks do not have a reoccurring main theme but the tunes do match their respective scene. It has its moments even to enjoy.

Storytelling wise, the script has motive flip-flops and non familiar fans may not understand certain events that happen. However the overall plot is fairly simplistic and the characters are sympathetic. The visual effects, cinematography and music are also well produced.

Points Earned --> 7:10

Seed of Chucky (2004) Review:

Very few horror franchises have been able to balance dark humor into their grizzly pictures. Of the most memorable, Freddy Krueger and Chucky were the main two to do it. Out of these two, Krueger was changed over time because producers realized how quotable Krueger had become with his one-liners. Chucky had somewhat of the same knack but creator Don Mancini had been apart of each production every step of the way. As much as a failure Child's Play 3 (1991) was critically and financially to most viewers, Bride of Chucky (1998) spun that table around with a divisive decision to make itself a self-aware horror comedy. Whether it was wanted or not, Don Mancini's choice to do that was rather ingenious. It was a ridiculous concept that fit a ridiculous horror icon in a good way. Chucky was still Chucky, except this time his wisecracks were funnier. This also didn't mean sacrificing story over comedy. So obviously with a better reception Mancini would continue in that direction for this entry. Problem is he took it a little too far.

"uhhh, what was our motivation again?"

Don Mancini takes full control of the production this time as writer and director. In some ways, this is a blessing and a curse. If you know how to do both really well then you're set. But if you don't, both tasks can be grueling. For Mancini, it seems like being writer/director was no problem. The issue was that he took the concept from the last film and cranked it up too much. Picking up somewhere after Bride of Chucky (1998), viewers are introduced to the offspring (Billy Boyd) of Jenn and Chucky. Wanting to find his parents, he travels to Hollywood to find his them on a studio set getting ready for a movie. The movie stars actress Jennifer Tilly. After bringing Chucky (Brad Dourif) and Jenn (Jennifer Tilly) to life, they decide that all three of them need to acquire new bodies. The people in mind were Jennifer Tilly, and a director named Redman (Redman). But to help their child, Chucky and Jenn need to inseminate Jennifer Tilly. All the while, their son is having trouble figuring out whether he's meant to hurt people or not.

Unfortunately that said, much of the writing here is incomplete. Right from the start there's a big question as to how Jenn and Chucky became movie celebrities. For the past four films all their murders were unconfirmed. Plus from Bride of Chucky (1998), who recovered Chucky and Jenn's bodies? If not, who made new ones? The continuity and explanations toward these questions remain unanswered. The story is meta now and no longer self-aware. Meta can be funny but here it gets too silly. For Bride of Chucky (1998), it was comedic to give a wink and nod but to fully make it obvious to the viewer that Redman and Britney Spears were in the same universe. Also having Jennifer Tilly play along side herself is odd too. Viewers really need to suspend their disbelief that the Jennifer Tilly from Bride of Chucky (1998) is a different person from that of here. Making that clear, the comedy is a hit and miss. There are a number of scenes that are funny and others not so much. Also Chucky and Jenn's son has an underdeveloped arc.

Also character motivations randomly flip throughout the story. This doesn't mix well because it feels out of character in some cases. But even with all these problems, the film proves that it isn't terrible. All the visual and audible aspects to the film work tremendously too its advantage. All actors from Brad Dourif, Jennifer Tilly, Billy Boyd, Redman and Hannah Spearritt all act passably. Of the bunch Dourif and Tilly are the best. Brad Dourif still knows how to get the best laugh. Jennifer Tilly still knows how to sound sultry, even through a doll. Billy Boyd is best known for playing Pippin from The Lord of the Rings franchise and Hannah Spearritt is from the S Club series. Boyd as the child of Chucky and Jenn plays it up on both sides. Sometimes Boyd plays it soft spoken while other times he can be deranged and unstable. The practical/special effects look great, especially the doll animatronics. The facial movements look legitimate and lifelike; it's impressive.

Redman & Jennifer Tilly

The gore is also handled well. Very little of the violence is CGI and that's good because it's more believable. Since the concept has spiked in it's ludacrosity, the violence has done so too, which is fine. The cinematography by Vernon Layton is acceptable as well. Best known for working on Under Suspicion (1991), High School High (1996) and I Still Know What You Did Last Summer (1998), Layton shows he can shoot a scene with a good-looking perspective. The music by Italian composer Pino Donaggio is another interesting pick. Donaggio's composition to this entry switches between synths and regular orchestra. The synth cues are more drawn out, while the orchestra sections involve the usual horror strings. There's also a main theme for this entry, which is nice. However the franchise should stick with one and call it a day. Donaggio's also known for his music to Piranha (1978), Carrie (1976), Tourist Trap (1979), The Howling (1981) and Body Double (1984). It's the weakest of the series but still not awful.

The writing unfortunately is quite messy in its storytelling even though writer/director Don Mancini knew what he had in mind. The music, cinematography, effects and actors all do their job respectively. It's just that they're restricted by a confusing entry.

Points Earned --> 5:10

Chopping Mall (1986) Review:

By at least the mid 1980s, horror films were a dime a dozen. For every famous slasher icon, more than one knock off was featured quickly after just to cash in on the idea Friday the 13th (1980) style. The genre was beginning to get diluted and it caused many popular franchises to slowly fizzle out. However, if you create a film that is self aware in its ridiculous premise, there's a chance that it won't appear to be such a cash-in. Of course this all has to be done in a way that isn't overly dumb either. That's when Roger Corman comes in. The enthusiast of everything cheap and fun, Corman was the backer to this 80s film. With a budget barely hitting $1 million, this science fiction horror film is now mainly known for its cheesiness. What is it that makes it cheesy? It's practically every technical aspect of it when looked at closely enough. The title alone should be enough to signal how over-the-top things will be. Chopping Mall (1986)? It wouldn't seem that difficult to figure out what the story is about.

Kelli Maroney & Tony O'Dell

After a security systems group installs and assigns three of its new "killbots" to the biggest mall in the state, it is decided with no further testing that during night hours it will be safe to work among the machines. That is until the same night they are positioned, a freak lightning storm activates them making them go on a killing rampage. Caught in the crossfire of these robots are a group of teenagers looking to have a good time. Although Roger Corman isn't explicitly attached, his wife Julie Corman is and their signature cinematic fingerprints are all over it. Directing this feature is Jim Wynorski, an exploitation filmmaker who just started working for Corman at the time. Writing the script was also Wynorski and Steve Mitchell in his first credit. For what it's worth even at an early stage in their careers, the story is self-aware in how childish the premise is. It seems to take itself just as seriously as other campy monster films that came before it dealing with malfunctioning technology.

This also includes the typical script flaws one would see in a horror film. Is it predictable - surely. Is it apparent to who's is going to die in what order - it's fairly obvious. Characters also make very stupid decisions, ones of which require very little brainpower. If that kind of thing annoys you as a viewer then stop right there. They are problems and they do affect the overall experience but it doesn't make it unwatchable; just cliche. An element however that makes no sense is that this mall has a gun shop. My how times have changed. What mall would do that now? Aside from this though, the scripts positives are more on character focus. Does it develop its characters well enough - not entirely. However what does stand out are the two main leads Ferdy Meisel (Tony O'Dell) and Alison Parks (Kelli Maroney). Compared to the rest of the cast, they are the least popular and confident in their group of friends. This is different than normal because most horror films would have it the other way around.

It is because of their uneasiness at first that makes them more entertaining to watch. The rest of the characters played by Russell Todd, Karrie Emerson, Barbara Crampton, Nick Segal, John Terlesky and Suzee Slater are fine for what they do, but they are pretty much all stock and very little substance. There's also an appearance from cult actor Dick Miller playing a custodian. What there really is to admire are all the technical feats this film was able to perform on such a meager budget. The killbots look like hefty props to move around and although they look very inefficient when it comes to articulation, they do stand out. They are physical objects, of which were majority the only way to get creatures on set prior the 1990s. The way at which these robots kill people aren't completely innovative but they do have a few tricks up their sleeves. Their most powerful weapon being their head lazers. From a visual perspective they look adequate on screen. It's just amazing how good they are when they look so clunky.

The Killbots

For cinematography, Tom Richmond managed this aspect of the film. Richmond who has several credits to his name doesn't portray elaborate set pieces here. Instead many shots have the actors in an actual mall. Unfortunately it's not a very engaging looking mall but it does fit the bill. Richmond's best known credit belongs to Rob Zombie's House of 1000 Corpses (2003). Adding to the movie's cheesiness is composer Chuck Cirino's film score. Working numerous times with director Jim Wynorksi, Cirino has had his fair share of experience in the movie making industry as well. Since this is during the 1980s and the budget for this production was so small, one could only expect a synth powered composition. No other instruments exist in the music and that's okay. Considering the premise deals with killer patrol robots, the clinky electronic music suits it appropriately. The film score itself doesn't have a reoccurring main theme but the tracks are catchy enough to enjoy when they are heard.

While it may not be anything that hasn't been seen before, it's a quick cheeseball film that has a silly premise, fun practical effects and goofy music. However if B-list actors, cliche characters and violent robots aren't interesting then don't even bother. It should be relatively entertaining though.

Points Earned --> 6:10

Pokemon: The First Movie - Mewtwo Strikes Back (1998) Review:

Since its introduction to the world, Pokemon is one of the most recognizable and popular animes to ever exist. With TV show seasons far longer than many others, the adventures of Ash Ketchum and co. has captured the imaginations of people of all ages. All this based on the catch phrase "Gotta catch 'em all!". On top of that, with augmented reality becoming more and more prominent in today's culture, smart phone app Pokemon GO further cemented its craze among fans. However before this, Pokemon boomed with success even with its first theatrical film. In retrospect, it might have been bigger than today's excitement. When it started, Pokemon was all about catching the total 150 types throughout its world. But when the trailer made it clear that Ash would be coming in contact with the last Pokemon of the official list, it drove people nuts. Nobody knew what to expect and people were psyched to see what happened. Revisiting it again was definitely a nice little trip down memory lane but it does have a few things that should be recognize that needed fixing.

Mewtwo

Picking up close after the first TV season, the film starts with an introduction to Mewtwo (Jay Goede), the 151rst-pokemon waking up from his initial cloning. Confused and frustrated with his placement, he learns that he is a clone of mythical pokemon Mew but more powerful. After being informed his usefulness will only be for his extensive strength, Mewtwo becomes angry and declares world domination over humans and the pokemon who follow them. It is with that viewers are switched over to Ash (Veronica Taylor), Misty (Rachael Lillis) and Brock (Eric Stuart) doing what they do in every episode. That is until they are invited to New Island to meet the best pokemon master (Mewtwo); but they don't know this. Tagging along is the infamous Team Rocket still looking to capture Ash's Pikachu (Ikue Ôtani). Originally written by Takeshi Shudo and adapted by Michael Haigney, Norman J. Grossfeld and John Touhey, the script is okay but does have its problems. Like many foreign movies, scripts get lost in translation and that's what happened here.

Shudo's screenplay had painted Mewtwo in a much more innocent depiction. Instead of being hell-bent on conquering the world because of mistreatment, Mewtwo was a pokemon who sought to prove itself to others. As to how that would've gotten worked into the western version of the script is up for debate but apparently the idea of making Mew's clone a tyrant was easier. Hard to say. Yet this is one of the film's major flaws. The overall moral to the story ends up being stated that "fighting/violence is wrong". Yet this is a complete contradiction to the whole essence of pokemon because majority of the way fans play the games is by having their partners fight in battle. So the point was what again? Another odd tidbit was various circumstances various characters had to endure. Sometimes there were times where things weren't as plausible as portrayed. The other problem to this film is for people who are not familiar with pokemon. This did not initiate pokemon so in order to understand the movie one had to watch the show.

So if a viewer has never watched the show, they won't be as engrossed as other fans because they never met Ash and company or anyone else. For fans however, seeing this was a big deal and looking back on it now can be a nostalgic journey. Surprisingly there are a number of scenes that involve dialog that probably viewers of younger ages wouldn't understand, but now is more clever or funny sounding. It's inside humor that is realized over time that can make the movie all the more enjoyable to revisit in later years. All voice actors involved with this production perform well and do what is required to make it sound more connected to the TV show. As always Veronica Taylor, Rachael Lillis and Eric Stuart as the main protagonist and antagonists are the best choices for these roles. Jay Goede as Mewtwo although short-lived in his role definitely made the character sound unique enough. Mewtwo would later receive a short explaining more on his backstory with Goede reprising the role. Too bad he didn't do much else other than this.

"You can't do this,...I won't let you"

One thing that doesn't make sense in this film is that cinematography was credited to Hisao Shirai. Not exactly sure why it was listed because there wasn't a scene of live-action unless accounting for one scene with realistic looking clouds. Other than that, the animation looks great. Much of it looks more polished than that of the TV series, which would obviously have a smaller budget. Especially towards the finale it is at its best quality in detail. The music is thankfully another plus. The soundtrack has several nostalgic tunes from the late 1990s with artists like M2M and Blessid Union of Souls. Very catchy pop songs. Even composers John Loeffler and Ralph Schuckett's film score is another great element. The sound of it does incorporate orchestra but also an equal amount of synths. Although that may sound not so good, the mixture of these instruments sounds natural and really works in a number of scenes because of how much they pull on the viewers heart strings. It is also one of the few pokemon scores to ever be released.

The ending message is a contradiction of pokemon in general, and for those who aren't fans will have trouble paying attention. But for those who do enjoy it, will love taking a stroll back to the late 1990s and remember when there were only 151 pokemon with the original crew. The animation looks great, the characters are likable and the music is effectively memorable.

Points Earned --> 6:10

Krampus (2015) Review:

Everyone in the world may not celebrate it, but during December, many countries and cultures around the world celebrate Christmas. As heard through several mediums, it is the season of giving and being joyous. However it is important to note that this isn't the only time people should be merry with each other. The attitude should be carried out as much as possible; but this is far from the case. In various circumstances there have been incidents where people are not nice to each other. This is most commonly found among consumers in popular shopping malls or more relatably at home where family members must confront other members that just aren't worth it. These are norms that many people will not acknowledge or bother to recognize because many do not want to confront it. They are however apart of today's culture and things many people have to deal with. Of course there are also some that just want to escape it all, but be careful what you wish for. That is at least according to writer/director Michael Dougherty.

kreepy krampus

Seeing he made such a cult classic with his Halloween holiday horror film Trick R' Treat (2007), it's no surprise he produced another holiday horror film except this time for Christmas. Written by Dougherty, Todd Casey and Zach Shields, the story follows Santa-believer Max Engel (Emjay Anthony), a boy trying to enjoy the holiday. Problem is everyone around him except his loving parents Tom (Adam Scott) and Sarah (Toni Collette) feel the exact opposite. When family members arrive and start annoying him, Max makes a wish for them to all go away. Little does he realize it would be his last wish he ever asked for. By doing this he has released the Christmas devil known as Krampus into his small neighborhood. Script wise the plot strikes a poignant note when it comes to morals. Overall, be grateful and don't wish for any harm because the end result may be far worse than what was wanted. The idea itself of Santa's shadow being heavily maniacal is ridiculous but nevertheless true when comparing it to karma.

There are however some minor plot holes that don't make sense. When Krampus arrives, he also makes several other people vanish as well (very quickly). It's understandable that he is supernatural but his speed seems limited. Also there are some motivational contradictions for the holiday demon. When such creatures are summoned, most have a set of rules to follow but it seems as though Krampus doesn't or at least not consistently. Aside from this though, the acting is all done well by every cast member. Even the less important characters like Beth (Stefania LaVie Owen), Aunt Dorothy (Conchata Ferrell), Howard (David Koechner), Linda (Allison Tolman) and Grandma Omi (Krista Stadler) all have development in one way or another. And although this is a horror film, there are also several moments of comedic value to experience. Some of these occasions take place either when family members exchange certain lines or their reactions to preposterous situations. This is surprising considering the tone is more serious than comedic.

As for horror, that's another gift in itself. Sadly the gore isn't as high as one would expect since Dougherty did make Trick R' Treat (2007), but believe it or not, it still works. There are several things to enjoy about the way Dougherty handles the movie. For much of the running time, Krampus is hidden in the background. The image of the creature itself is disturbing - with a hunchback, giant horns and rickety sounding joints. Adding to that is a bunch of other creative holiday ghouls that are just so ugly its amazing to see. The way it's presented is through a mix of CGI and practical effects but most of it looks practical. This is excellent because the degree of detail on these monsters look spectacular. Who knew such regular everyday items could be so hideous. Aside from the level of gore, the only other thing that may disappoint horror fans is the level of horror it takes its viewers. Perhaps this is because of its rating but it just isn't that scary. The horror and imagery is great but there's nothing to fear. Thankfully there aren't a lot of stings.

Adam Scott

Cinematography was another different experience thanks to Jules O'Loughlin. Rarely do horror films change their setting when it comes to execution. However this is different since it takes place in the middle of a snowstorm. How often does one think about the horrors of dying in the cold? O'Loughlin's skill also works very well with how the scenes are shot. Much of it has him capturing large amounts of the house’s interior to show what's around. There are even some slow motion shots for comedic value. On a side note there's also a short stop-motion animated segment that is impressively put together as well. Kudos to that. As for music, Douglas Pipes’ film score is another great audio effort. The composition is a mix of a few comedic and several horror cues that lift the main theme from classic Christmas songs. The difference is, Pipes puts them into a minor key. The score itself is well constructed with regular orchestra, Christmas bells, tribal drums, horns and church bells. A great sounding holiday horror score.

Although it may miss a few exposition points when it comes to consistency, the overall product is a unique holiday horror film. Krampus is truly an iconic monster smartly brought to life with relatable writing, creepy monsters and fantastic music.

Points Earned --> 7:10

Man of the Year (2006) Review:

Politics is a subject that really gets people fired up. Whether they are wrong in someone else's opinion or not, is an age-old question as to whom is on the more "moral" side. Of recent decades, the most intensely debated over and highest blood-boiling election for America was during this year. No matter who was destined to win, approximately one half of the nation was not going to be happy about it. And by this, didn't mean sitting back, arms crossed and pouting. This was anger, frustration and harsh controversy. A topic fueled so much outside media sources that it drove people nuts. The sheer number of ads that were being played a day were ridiculous. Perhaps far more than any other election that came before it. Yet like every election season, Republicans duked it out with Democrats; sending zingers at each other left and right, trying to persuade their current voters why they were wrong to vote the other side. But what probably nobody saw coming was the next president of the United States having a celebrity background (for a second time).

THIS is who should have ran for President

This was exactly the punch line for this movie a mere decade prior to this strange moment in history. With Barry Levinson attached as writer/director, the story is about celebrity comedian Tom Dobbs (Robin Williams) who decides to run for the next president of the free world. Behind the scenes a subplot about a new electronic voting system called Delacroy is preparing to be used for this election too. However an employee by the name of Eleanor Green (Laura Linney) finds a glitch in the programming and tries to warn the head of Delacroy named Stewart (Jeff Goldblum). Fearing she may go public with the info, Stewart has her fired. This is what ends up leading to Dobbs' winning the election. From there after the story focuses on Dobbs trying to pull the information from Green. All the while, Dobbs' manager Jack Menken (Christopher Walken) tries to convince him otherwise. As a political comedy, Levinson could have struck gold if he played his cards more directly. Including the sub thread about Delacroy's glitch was such a misfire.

Of course this was released back in 2006 but the concept was the same on a political level. Voters want change and they want to hear it from an energetic, likable and honest individual. It may have seemed absurd then but compare it to now? By no means am I saying Donald Trump is any of those three but many people heard the man because of his outspoken nature. The only reason why this is being brought up is because it is a very odd parallel. The coincidence is just too well put together. There are just too many similarities. But this is exactly what is demonstrated with Robin Williams' character. Dobbs' is the funnyman; he tells things like they are and isn't afraid to be politically incorrect. It is quite possible perhaps more people would have been interested to see what the outcome would have been if the results for Dobbs winning the election wasn't because of a glitch. I in fact would be in extreme favor of Williams if he had run for president. It's really hard not to believe who wouldn't at this point.

Yet Levinson's script says otherwise when half way through the setup, the focus shifts to Laura Linney's role. When that happens, the story becomes generic and overly reliant on the danger Eleanor Green constantly puts herself into. This is why the movie also suffers from erratic tone fluctuations. When Robin Williams is on screen, he's fun to watch and see him make wisecrack after wisecrack to whomever he's speaking too. This is another thing people might actually enjoy if a politician did this in real life. Would it work? That's debatable (no pun intended) but it would surely grab viewers in for a watch. People want media, which would be a great political campaign. Getting back to the movie, when jumping over to Laura Linney, it's the scared woman being sought after her corrupt boss. Just make the movie about Tom Dobbs as president; forget the whole election conspiracy junk. All the more interesting is that the cast also includes other real life celebrities like Chris Matthews, Tina Fey and Amy Poehler.

"I,...uh....am not....uh....apart of this....uh...movie for long"

Even Christopher Walken as Tom Dobbs' manager is more comedic than Laura Linney's character. Her part is just a waste of a story. For Dick Pope's cinematography, all shots were well executed with no apparent issues. Pope has gone on to work for a number of entertaining films like Bernie (2011) and Legend (2015). Also early on in his career he did work on the iffy movie called The Air Up There (1994), which could have been better. Most shots were stable and keep focus on the matter at hand. The film score was nice to hear although it has never seen a public release. Graeme Revell, who normally produces action related music, made the composition to this movie. Unfortunately due to the uneven tone, the music changes frequently as well. There are cues that sound like they belong to a comedy and there are others that sound like they belong to a horror score. It works for both ends but it just doesn't fit in its entirety. This is also perhaps as to why the score wasn't released. It's a confusing cluster of themes. Though it's different for Revell.

The release of this movie with such a premise feels like it knew itself before its time. The idea of a comedian like Robin Williams running for president is an excellent idea. Somehow though, director Barry Levinson got caught up on adding in a melodramatic subplot dealing with election glitches, which completely takes away half of the comedy.

Points Earned --> 6:10

Transporter 3 (2008) Review:

There's just something about trilogies that are difficult to pull off. When it comes to making a story extend past its initial rooting, writers need to think outside the box and contemplate what new directions can the characters be taken. For Jason Statham's Transporter series, which started in 2002, there seems to be a lack of interest with the sequels that came after. Although Transporter 2 (2005) was arguably on par with its original, it was The Transporter (2002) that helped excel Statham's name to the level he is at today. Surprisingly with this understanding, one would expect to treat the franchise the same way. Never forget your beginnings. Yes there are cases like Sylvester Stallone's Rocky (1976) films where they took a dive but that spanned many more decades. This series has made three films in under a decade. Times don't change that drastically in order to change the vision of the film. This may be why this sequel is just dull but it’s difficult to say. There are things that fit and others that are just mehhh.

Statham was dabbing before it was popular I guess.....

Written once more by the regular duo who penned the last two films were Luc Besson and Robert Mark Kamen. The story this time follows Frank Martin (Jason Statham) being brought back in to deliver a package because the driver he had take his place, didn't do perform to the standards he expected. The package of concern this time is Valentina (Natalya Rudakova) the daughter of a Ukranian government official known as Vasilev (Jeroen Krabbé). Hiring Martin to deliver Valentina is a man named Johnson (Robert Knepper). All the while Inspector Tarconi (François Berléand) gives advice to Martin along his journey. Is this particular premise any different from the last two entries? No. It practically has the same setup. The only noticeable difference is the running time is longer because like many trilogies, producers want to get bigger and better. Unfortunately by that, many misunderstand that as the production’s look over quality. This is kind of what happens here. The overall story and execution is just "been there, done that".

Directed by Olivier Megaton, the same guy who would later head Colombiana (2011), Taken 2 (2012) and Taken 3 (2014), the run through of predictable scenes are as easy to guess as they come. One of the reasons why the running time is longer than the last two is because of a subplot dealing with toxic waste being dumped once a special document is signed. This really doesn't make a lot of sense however because the people looking to dump the toxic waste are not on the same team as Johnson. Johnson's motivations are explained later on but are quite vague leaving a lot of ground left uncovered. Of the characters themselves, Jason Statham of course is the best part. He still has a number of good lines but his lack of creativity is a bit obvious. François Berléand as Inspector Tarconi isn't involved as much as before but he too has the expected humor that he normally brings to the role. Even Robert Knepper as generic as his casting is, he at least presents himself as someone not to be challenged. Although making him fight Statham seems unfair.

Jeroen Krabbé as the Ukranian official was a surprise to see although his participation was more a plot device than anything that improved the story. The reason why it might throw some people off is that the man has been in plenty of films but most would probably best remember him from Dolph Lundgren's The Punisher (1989) as Gianni Franco. That's two decades from the last big well-known production. However, of all these actors the one that is the least interesting and entertaining to watch was Natalya Rudakova. Being that this was her theatrical debut, it is understandable that her acting may not be as good as the others but that's not even the problem. Rudakova's character is written so blandly that it becomes too difficult to feel anything for her character. And like most females in action movies, she becomes enticed by Frank Martin. Just another cliche that makes her even more boring. For action, there are a number of entertaining scenes but most of them felt clean compared to the grittiness of the original.

Natalya Rudakova

There is one sequence that's out of place and that being car chase. It goes on way too long and looks too much like something from The Fast and the Furious (2001) franchise. The hand-to-hand combat action is great though. For camerawork, Giovanni Fiore Coltellacci's cinematography is alright. There's nothing that's too jarring or shaky to get frustrated with. However it is difficult to determine his credibility based on past experience because most of his filmography are in foreign films. Lastly for music, the film score composed by Alexandre Azaria is sadly forgettable in several ways. Even though Azaria produced the music to Transporter 2 (2002), there has been no improvement between the two entries. The tracks themselves do fit with the scene at hand but there's nothing about it that stands out with any unique cues. The sound itself is mainly orchestra with occasional electronic synths but again there's nothing to recall. It is all very stock sounding when it comes to creativity. Not much else to say.

Most third films to a series are the biggest and over the top and carry very little of what made its original so fresh. This sequel is no different. It's okay to pass the time with but it enhances nothing about Frank Martin and his profession nor does it develop him in any new way. It's all more of the same and that's fine for viewers that like that. Overall it's not good but not bad either.

Points Earned --> 5:10

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (2003) Review:

How often are remakes regarded as decent properties? When audiences hear that one of their favorite properties is being rebooted or remade, most roll their eyes and complain. Majority of the time, this is an understandable opinion. Many studios do not understand why remaking a fan’s beloved movie over again is practically complete sabotage. Much of the reason is that producers want to introduce a new generation of viewers to the series. However, many would argue to just watch the original. Yet for some cases, remaking a franchise is probably the best way to go. When a franchise begins to sink so low in its capability to entertain the fewest of audiences, then it's time for an overhaul. After three releases with The Texas Chain Saw Massacre 2 (1986), The Texas Chain Saw Massacre III: Leatherface (1990) and The Texas Chain Saw Massacre: The Next Generation (1994) and all failing harder than the last, it seemed that it was time to take a break. That is until literally in 2003 almost three decades later, it was decided to run the chain saw once more.

The five teens

Surprisingly as tough as it is to get people to come back and see a remake, when a studio fails as hard as The Texas Chain Massacre: The Next Generation (1994), you really can only go up from there. Scott Kosar wrote the script for this remake. Kosar would later write the script for The Machinist (2004), another body horror film. Since it is a remake, the story has similar plot points to the 1974 original but there are a number of changes and added scenes too. Five teenagers in 1973 are reported to be killed. The last being seen near the Hewitt house. Originally headed to Mexico, Erin (Jessica Biel), Morgan (Jonathan Tucker), Pepper (Erica Leerhsen), Andy (Mike Vogel) and Kemper (Eric Balfour) are traveling through the Texas flat lands. However after coming across an emotionally and mentally scarred female pedestrian, the group end up getting involved with a terrifying local family. Directing this in his debut for movies was Marcus Nispel. Mostly known for doing music videos, Nispel does have an eye for horror films too.

What's enjoyable to see about Kosar's remake script is that he easily changes around the reason as to why these teenagers come in contact with Leatherface (Andrew Bryniarski) and his family. On top of that, there's a bit of backstory given about the new Leatherface named Thomas Hewitt. It's not deep in its explanation but it does give insight as to why Leatherface is what he is when seen on screen. This doesn't get rid of the glaring continuity errors though. For example, audiences are introduced to the premise with cops going through evidence. One piece of evidence is a video of cops going through the Hewitt house. How did the cops recover that? Was it sent back to them? Also the fact that this remake is not as bizarrely terrifying as the original predecessor that inspired it is somewhat disappointing too. This remake comes off more direct in its approach when it comes to being grotesque. There's not a whole lot of unknown here especially for those who have been through the first movie and its subsequent sequels.

The one thing to be happy with though is that the tone is much more grounded that of any sequel that came after Tobe Hooper's first. There are no outlandishly over the top actors in this story. The family itself is crazy enough; there's no need to surpass them with family members that are beyond their range. Speaking of which, the acting is fine. All actors including Leatherface and his family are effective on screen. Of the cast Jessica Biel had the best role. Coming in second was Andrew Bryniarski for playing Leartherface as such a hulking monster. Even R. Lee Erney who plays an individual named Sheriff Hoyt has some intense scenes. Although the psychological aspect isn't as terrifying, the horror is still fairly gruesome. The gore itself isn't too disturbing yet it is tough to sit through. The set decoration by Randy Huke had a nice touch. So much of the Hewitt house looks like it could've been condemned years ago. The exterior looks rather similar to that of an insane asylum.

Peak-a-boo,....I C U

Complimenting the visuals was Daniel Pearl as cinematographer. This is a highly respectable addition because Pearl was the original director of photography to The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974). Everything from the lighting, the exterior shots and the interior shots of the Hewitt house are all shown to the point where it's enough for the viewer to enjoy. One of the best scenes shown in this remake takes place in a slaughterhouse. It truly is a well-shot sequence. Composing the film score to this production was at the time newcomer Steve Jablonsky. This was Jablonsky's first major theatrical outing in the scoring industry and it is nothing like his later works in the Transformers (2007) series; something he's best known for now. Unlike what listeners would hear from those scores, the tracks are much more natural with less reliance on synthesizers. There is a reoccurring main theme, which is important because prior to this, not one of the past films had a released musical score.

While it may still lack explanations for certain plot points and is not as psychologically scary as the its first parent film, it is by far better than any sequel that came after it. The actors are cast well, the horror is still there, the musical score is a commendable element and the set design plus camerawork help drive home the grounded tone.

Points Earned --> 7:10

Halloween V: The Revenge of Michael Myers (1989) Review:

There comes a point in time where a viewer who has seen enough sequels to a horror franchise where it doesn't phase them anymore. When a formula is repeated over and over and over and over again, the redundancy feels more like an attribute of lazy writing versus actually copying out of flattery. It's obvious as to why studios love making sequels but it's crazy as to how they believe one exact formula is necessary for all entries. There has to be some kind of creative brainstorming going on in the background otherwise every entry after the original continues to just rinse and rehash the same concept until the end of its run. After the blunder of Halloween III: Season of the Witch (1982) and the lukewarm return of Halloween IV: The Return of Michael Myers (1988), production studio Magnum Pictures Inc. felt a year later was just enough time to make another sequel. Unfortunately since Halloween III: Season of the Witch (1982), there has been a stagnation of quality in this series. This is okay but nothing to cheer over either.

Michael Myers is back.....again.....

Written by Michael Jacobs, Shem Bitterman and Dominique Othenin-Girard, the story picks up a year later after the last film. After killing her stepmother, Jaime Strode (Danielle Harris) now lives in a child care clinic where she is under the supervision of Dr. Loomis (Donald Pleasence). Knowing that her uncle Michael Myers (Don Shanks) is still alive and well, Dr. Loomis hopes to get whatever information he can from his now mute niece.  Trying to keep a cool head is returning characters Jaime's stepsister Rachel (Ellie Cornell), her friend Tina (Wendy Foxworth) and the local sheriff Ben Meeker (Beau Starr). It sounds like an okay setup but really much the execution is flawed. For the three writers mentioned, all but one had prior horror film making experience so that's already a fairly bad start when it comes to continuing a horror franchise. Directing this sequel was also writer Dominique Othenin-Girard. Girard's direction unfortunately does not improve the viewing experience all that much.

What truly hurts this sequel's performance is how empty the story is on substance and the few frightening moments. This is by far the sequel with the most holes in its plot. There's no explanation to numerous things. No reason as to why Jaime no longer has the Myer's killer instinct. No understanding is made as to why Michael Myers returned exactly one year later when he could've done so much sooner. Nothing is justified as to why Jaime is mute after the events of the first movie. There's even a new character that enters this series and he too is given no background information whatsoever. What gives? The pacing is another problem. Like the slew of other slasher films that were inspired by its original film, many scenes contain teenagers walking around calling out into vacant rooms and saying how much it isn't funny anymore. There needs to be development in some of these characters otherwise, there's no scare factor involved throughout the movie. There are some moments of intrigue that are made as the film gets closer to the finale but that's it.

The kill scenes are also rather disappointing. Only a couple of Michael Myers’ victims have a memorable scene with him. A lot of the other deaths are off screen. There's also nothing wrong with the idea of less is more, but there's nothing new that's added to the end result. However here is what does work. The main actors such as Danielle Harris and Donald Pleasence are the best parts. As much as it's sad to see Pleasence continue to try and make this series watchable, he still carries some kind of dramatic heft. Although his character is becoming less and less useful. Harris was okay although she is mute. Her fear looks real on screen as well when Myers is around. Shanks as Myers was okay too but did miss the opportunity to do several Myers like responses such as the infamous "head tilt". The rest of the supporting cast is all right but they do not add much to the actual narrative. The thing viewers can be grateful for is at least the casting department brought back what was left of the previous cast for another round.

"Tell me why we keep making sequels Jaime!"

The visual aspect of things was decent as well. Robert Draper handled the cinematography. Although he had worked on small and big screen productions, this was Draper's first big theatrical entry. For what was shown, it looked adequate. It was when Draper's skill and the set decorations worked together to create some creepy scenes. Sadly it wasn't very often but when it was seen, it worked. This takes place in the old Myer's house. Returning composer Alan Howarth produced the musical score. Considering he has been apart of the franchise dating back to Halloween II (1981) with John Carpenter, it's reassuring to know there's one more dedicated crewmember. Howarth's score continues Carpenter's memorable theme from the series and includes various other motifs as well. It isn't perfect nor is it entirely effective but it does make up for a lot of the other issues going on with this movie. The score itself is still mainly made up of synthesizer keyboard and that's fine looking at it's origins.

While it may have a decent musical score, returning credible actors and adequate camerawork, this sequel continues to hit the middle of the road. The story is bare bones developed, the reasoning behind several things goes untouched, its pacing is pretty slow and the creep factor is hardly there. It's not worse than any other prior entry starting from Halloween II (1981) but it doesn't bother to add much either.

Points Earned --> 5:10

The Secret Life of Pets (2016) Review:

When growing up as a kid, there's almost a 100% guarantee that at some point a parent will here their child ask for a pet. Whether it's a gold fish, cat, dog, ferret, frog, rabbit, snail or whatever, humans have been domesticating animals for quite some time. There's just something about our pets that we enjoy. The fact that they share and display similar emotions to that of us is so heart warming. They all might express them in different ways but most owners know or understand what their fuzzy friends are feeling. However this is the only thing we comprehend about them on a personal level. They can't speak to us in our native tongue or vise versa and we have no clue what they do behind our backs or how they feel in the moment. When left up to the minds behind Despicable Me (2010) though, viewers will get a completely different perception. Will it make us think differently in what our pets do behind our backs to this extreme - no. But will it let us come up with crazy ideas as to what could happen - of course.

Snowball & Max

This spin off series that runs parallel to the Despicable Me (2010) universe was directed by Yarrow Cheney (his theatrical debut) and Chris Renaud (Despicable Me (2010)). Three writers also collaborated on the script, that being Cinco Paul, Ken Daurio and Brian Lynch (Hop (2011)). The story follows Max (Louis C.K.), a puppy with a good life. His owner took him who found him when he was a baby and gave him everything to his hearts content. Things were great. Then unbeknownst to Max, his owner comes home with another dog named Duke (Eric Stonestreet). Feeling a bit slighted, Max and Duke end up learning that you have to give in order to get. Within that conflict the two end up crossing paths with Snowball (Kevin Hart), an eccentric bunny rabbit whose main goal in life is to overthrow the human race for his fellow abandoned pets. All the while, Max's secret love interest Gidget (Jenny Slate) hopes to gain his affection at some point in time but she's not sure how. Nevertheless she's very determined to make it happen.

The development among characters is proportional to the significance each role has. Through several experiences both Duke and Max learn a lot about themselves. Backstories are given for each, which is why their development works. What's even more effective is how many viewers can relate because of comparable life experiences. Gidget as a love interest isn't written so cliche either. The idea itself is rather turned on its head and that's not seen very frequently. As for Snowball, he doesn't have incredibly deep development but his background is made apparent. For the rest of the supporting characters, there aren't too many complaints to have. The only character that doesn't really have a clear motivation is Tiberius (Albert Brooks) the hawk. According to Tiberius, he's sad to have no friends because his owner locks him away in a cage at the top of an apartment. Yet later on, audiences will see Tiberius being petted by his owner and they seem to be enjoying each other's company,...so why is he upset again?

The other blatant problem in the story's writing is Max's owner and every other pet's owner for that matter. Apparently this whole movie plays out within a day's time. Throughout the running time, Max and company go through a lot of locations in the city. Some not as clean as others. Yet somehow nobody smells his or her pet has been anywhere but home. Surely somebody's pet would be coming off foul somewhere. What are the odds that they remained clean the whole time? That's about as preposterous as Rosie Huntington-Whiteley's role in Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011) where her white dress did not get one smudge. Also the title is a bit misleading. The adventure the main leads go on is nothing that secret. There a few secret like activities that take place throughout the film, but much of it is so out in the open. Aside from this though the comedy and actor chemistry all blend well together. Both Louis C.K. and Eric Stonestreet practically sound like brothers and Kevin Hart makes Snowball likable and hilarious all at once.

The utterly adorable Gidget

The other supporting character that has a number of great lines and best fits her role is Lake Bell as Chloe the cat. So much of her responses and sarcasm are exactly how many cat owners would expect their cat to react to certain situations. The animation is also enjoyable feature. Heading the animation is Salem Arfaoui as senior animator. Arfaoui has been a senior animator going all the way back with 9 (2009) while also participating in Despicable Me (2010), The Lorax (2012) and Despicable Me 2 (2013). The musical score on the other hand was okay but nothing outstanding. Composed by Alexandre Desplat, the music is appropriate to the surroundings with real orchestral instruments but there's no reoccurring theme for the audience to remember. Especially if this is being planned as another franchise, there should be a main theme too. This is what really helps solidify the characters and story. Desplat was also the composer to Unbroken (2014), Godzilla (2014) and The Imitation Game (2014). Especially for such big films, one would expect something.

Definitely an entertaining family movie for all ages. It's strongest point is that it can relate to almost any viewer because of how frequently we as a human race go through pets in our lives. The writing is mostly well balanced with a few questionable tidbits. The music isn't truly memorable but the actors and animation are fun to watch.

Points Earned --> 7:10

American Sniper (2015) Review:

When it comes to war in general, the concept has taken many forms for different films. Some glorify it to no end while others give their audiences an understanding of certain tragic events that occurred at specific times. Whatever the case, viewers should understand that war is an act that no right minded individual wants to pursue. However when it comes to protecting others, there are only select groups of people who know that joining the military, navy, police force, firefighters or what have you is the only way to do it. The people who join these groups are the ones who are humble enough to put their own lives at risk for the sake of others. It's these kinds of people that deserve the highest of respect because of their contributions to our safety. And for every war, there have always been decorated war heroes. Most recently the biggest name to be spoken of was Chris Kyle, a registered sniper with 150 plus kills during his time in the service. To most, that is an astounding and an unheard of record.

Forget the Sniper (1993) franchise, this guy's for real

Based on the autobiography of the same name, the movie follows the life of Chris Kyle (Bradley Cooper) from buckaroo cowboy to an all out killing machine. Adapting the book was Jason Hall, the writer to Spread (2009) and Paranoia (2013). The intriguing part to this is that Hall really turned himself around as a writer. Both Spread (2009) and Paranoia (2013) were critically panned when they were released. This production on the other hand was the highest grossing film in January in many years. Perhaps it was in due part that Clint Eastwood served as the director to the movie. Either way the script has several areas to consider that prove to be why the film was so successful when it was released. What moved Kyle to joining the military was after seeing the 9/11 attacks and from there on he was determined to help protect his country and the people who shared his feelings. What's also important to note is that Hall's script includes Kyle's wife Taya (Sienna Miller). Together her subplot represented another critical issue - PTSD.

For several combatants who enter the field, many do not come back the same way they entered. Post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is shown in this movie as a layered issue. That's an important point to make because it's not always one event that can cause it. Sometimes it's a culmination of things. This is especially compelling because of the realistic situations that are setup. Some scenes that are depicted in this movie are not what many films would dare to show nowadays. It's a very touchy topic but this is what elevates the tension. Finally after dealing with all these morbid situations, it's difficult to return home and feel the exact same way previously. This is shown properly through Bradley Cooper and Sienna Miller's interactions with each other. As separate thespians, Bradley Cooper practically fully embodies Kyle and that means every aspect. Also not once does Cooper raise his voice, he's always very soft-spoken. Miller on the other hand shows how she gets concerned for Kyle even though she knows he's doing the right thing.

Another interesting aspect about Kyle is the fact that he never asked for or reveled in his status as "The Legend" that everybody loved to call him. Cooper played Kyle as a guy just trying to do what was right. He didn't care about the awards or nicknames, he was there to protect others and that was it. There was one writing flub within the execution though. Chris Kyle's brother Jeff (Keir O'Donnell) changes motivational views on war; the character and topic is never addressed again. It seems that including Chris Kyle's brother was important enough to start out with but then as one brother develops the other fades away. If this was the plan, why even bother including Chris' brother? And this wasn't the plan, why was his character arc cut out of the final print? It doesn't make sense. As mentioned before the tension is pretty high due to the realistic imagery and violence. The kill shots are thankfully not as ridiculously outlandish as the action in other films like Sniper: Reloaded (2011). They do contain blood but it's mild and that's how it should be.

Sienna Miller

Tom Stern was credited as the director of photography to this movie. Stern has also done camerawork for films like The Exorcism of Emily Rose (2005) and The Hunger Games (2012). For this feature, Stern has a number of wide scope panning shots that display the type of terrain and settings that veterans of the military had to withstand. Along side that are the confusing number of houses each team had to check and evacuate when it came to sectioned off areas. Stern was also able to show just how dangerous tasks like these are because of how easily hidden the enemy can be. Strangely enough one strategic element that was mainly absent through the running time was an appropriate musical score. For the 2 hour long movie there were a few synth bass and short piano cues but none of them stood out. Either the music was borrowed or composed by an uncredited composer. Either way the movie mostly works even without the score, but it perhaps could have been even more memorable if it had a recognizable theme to it. Oh well, their loss I guess.

The script has one minor problem with a character and the music is surprisingly mute but in its entirety, the movie makes out fine. Bradley Cooper as Chris Kyle, the legendary sniper is worthy of playing the veteran, the realistic war scenes are quite tense and the development of the lead is thought provoking.

Points Earned --> 7:10

The Huntsman: Winter's War (2016) Review:

The Brother's Grim fairytale of Snow White seemed to be the popular story to retell for the year 2012. Two polar interpretations of the story had been made that same year. Mirror Mirror (2012) was the more lighthearted take while Snow White and the Huntsman (2012) went the opposite route with darker and edgier visuals. Of the two, the most successful was the movie that starred Kristen Stewart, Chris Hemsworth and Charlize Theron. The production itself looked much more epic in scope, had bigger star power and had a different story to tell. After the success of the film, production began to role for the sequel. However troubles emerged when Stewart did not return as Snow White. Once that happened, the momentum that the studio had gained ended up getting stuck in development. For a while the studio went through a number of directors, including Frank Darabont the guy who made The Green Mile (1999) and The Shawshank Redemption (1994). Eventually the ball started rolling again and this is the end result, which could've been worse.

Hemsworth and Chastain

Directing duties for this movie were given to Cedric Nicolas-Troyan in his debut. For most of his career Troyan has been a visual effects artist for movies like The Ring (2002), Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003) and Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006). He also has some partial directing experience as a second unit director to Snow White and the Huntsman (2012) and Maleficent (2014). Originally stated to be a prequel to Snow White and the Hunstman (2012), the story is actually a prequel and a sequel, in which case there is no word to categorize this whatsoever. First the story explains as to how Eric the Hunstman (Chris Hemsworth) became what he was by the time Snow White and the Hunstman (2012) occurred. Audiences will also learn that he has a wife named Sara (Jessica Chastain). Together they lived under the rule of Freya (Emily Blunt), an Ice Queen and sister of Ravenna (Charlize Theron). Freya believes all children should be torn from their families and made into huntsmen after the loss of her child.

When Freya learns that Sara and Eric are in love, she separates them leading Eric to the events of the prior movie. Then the story begins its sequel where Eric seeks to destroy Freya. Written by Evan Spiliotopoulos and Craig Mazin, this duo's work is acceptable to some degree. Spiliotopoulos is known for writing more Disney movies like The Jungle Book 2(2003) and The Lion King 1 1/2 (2004). Mazin has done more comedies like Scary Movie 3(2003) and Scary Movie 4 (2006). What might amaze the most critical of viewers is that for once the script was written with keeping the missing main characters in mind. Surely Kristen Stewart does not show up on screen once but she is at least referenced verbally and that's all films like these ask for. A simple reference. Along with that is the fact that the new characters help create a bit of depth to the original characters. That's always good to see. However this does not excuse the other problems that arise throughout this movie.

The fact that certain characters return (major or minor) and others don't doesn't make a lot of sense. There's no clear reason given from these individuals as to why they return other than stating vague answers. There's also hazy motivations when it comes to Freya. Freya creates an army of huntsmen warriors to "free" children from their lives and train them as her new army. What exactly is she trying to achieve? Sooner or later there will be no areas to concur. For actors and the roles they play all seem to be enjoying their part. Hemsworth and Chastain have okay chemistry together. Blunt and Theron look like they could be sisters too, although Theron looks to be loving her part the most. There's also appearances from Sam Caflin as Prince William and Nick Frost as Nion the dwarf. The new supporting roles added to the cast are more dwarfs played by Rob Brydon, Sheridan Smith and Alexandra Roach. All of which do not add any context to the story itself and more for just comic relief, which is okay.

"Did you know that I got the same pay as the Huntsman?"

With the director of this film being more experienced in the visual effects department, no doubt would the CGI look decent here. There's a barely a shot here that looks out of place or too obvious to be fake. The liquid gold mirror is still an awesome effect even though it completely references the T-1000 from Terminator 2: Judgement Day (1991). The same could also be said for Freya's ice powers, she may be a villain but she makes things look very pretty. The cinematography goes hand-in-hand thanks to Phedon Papamichael. Papamicheal has had his fair share of cinematic films and it shows. The camerawork for the most part is stable and has plenty of panning wide shots for the audience to get a complete view of the scenery. Working the musical score was James Newton Howard who also worked on the music to Snow White and the Huntsman (2012). Strangely enough Howard doesn't make a new theme for Freya or Eric the huntsman yet keeps Ravenna's memorable theme in tact. And if there was a main theme, it wasn't that recognizable. Come on Howard.

Played like a double-edged sword, this film acts as a prequel and a sequel to that of Snow White and the Huntsman (2012). It may not be as great as the first entry, which isn't surprising but it does make significant connections to the first without dropping everything. It still may lack clarity on certain parts but the action, effects, camerawork and music still entertain.

Points Earned --> 6:10

Bandits (2001) Review:

Sometimes there are movies that don't give a real reason as to why they should exist. Most movies when released serve a purpose. Whether they are extremely well made or just cheap cash-ins, there's usually an understandable reason. Whether it is ethical or not for making the movie is another question entirely. No matter if it's just making money off the name or because the filmmakers actually have a vision, they both serve as valid reasons as to why they exist. Also in the past, several macho actors from the 1980s have all made a few blunders in their time. Most of these box office bombs were because of being cast in unorthodox roles or ones that just didn't fit them. The genre with most of these examples belongs to the comedy films. As it turns out, Die Hard (1988) star Bruce Willis wasn't done trying his hand out at forced comedic roles until the early 2000s. Oddly enough, this felt like one of those movies that by the end of the showing made the viewer question why they even bothered to watch it. It literally serves no purpose in any way.

"Convincing no?"

Directed by Barry Levinson, this romantic heist comedy is short on almost everything it's supposed to deliver. Written by Harley Peyton, who has penned more TV episodes than anything else, the script is a story that barely engages its viewing audience. The plot involves two nationally recognized thieves known as the "Sleepover Bandits" who end up falling in love with an accidental hostage. Featured on a TV show, the two criminals at large are Joe Blake (Bruce Willis) and Terry Collins (Billy Bob Thorton). The female hostage that they both end up panting over is Kate Wheeler (Cate Blanchett), a rich housewife who loves to cook and can't stand her own marriage. For two hours, this film drags its feet doing nothing particularly important related to the plot. Pacing is one of the film's biggest problems. For such a cut and dry scenario, the length at which this story is stretched to is ridiculous. Especially when the main set of characters barely get the development they need to be likable.

Aside from Wheeler not liking the way her husband kissed her, there is no other given motivation as to why she can't stand the life she lives. On the other side, no explanation is given as to how Collins or Blake got into the profession of robbing banks. Nor is it elaborated on how they got so good at it. Or even if they really are that cold blooded since a few hostages question their actions. That actually would've been more captivating to focus on. There's also another character named Harvey Pollard (Troy Garity) who has his own character arc but doesn't add anything to the main plot. Pollard's goal is to become a stuntman and that particular trait is only utilized once throughout the whole movie. Convenient much? The execution is highly cliche in its play out of the story. There are numerous things that can be seen way before the end credits role. One of the reasons why this is known is because the movie starts off at the finale and then rewinds to the beginning. It hardly creates the required tension to make the movie engaging.

One more nail in the coffin is the chemistry between Bruce Willis and Billy Bob Thorton. The two just don't make the kind of buddy duo one would enjoy. Bruce Willis plays it soft spoken Mr. Mysterious with an ugly mullet and rarely makes a funny line. Billy Bob Thorton oppositely plays his role loud, jittery and obnoxious. Thorton says the name "Joe" almost after every sentence. Is it really that necessary to point out whom you're talking to in every line of dialog? It's apparent that Peyton was trying to define these characters so differently, but they're so exaggerated that they aren't as relatable as they could be. None of the lines these two main leads have to say are worthy of even a chuckle. Every bit of dialog, scenario and end result is just playing on screen to use time. It's not even that it's bad dialog, it's just boring. Watching two oddball characters ham it up about who wants to be with the female hostage feels rehashed and over done so many times. Really, who cares?

Cate Blanchett

The only two redeeming elements to this movie are the music and camerawork. Credited as director of photography, Dante Spinotti has acceptable work here. Giving his talents to other movies like Heat (1995), X-Men: The Last Stand (2006) and Hercules (2014), Spinotti has proven that he can capture clear settings for different scenes. From what was displayed no shots shook around nor did they have any problems showing the audience of which certain things were stationed. For music, the underrated Christopher Young worked as the composer. Strangely enough having Young on board didn't change much of the experience for two reasons. The first reason is that Young does have a some cues that are interesting to hear but they are very short lived. The second reason is that Young is known for composing music to horror films; how in the world did he get hired for this project? It nowhere fits his previous credits in his filmography. Besides, most of Young's work gets run over by all the early 2000s mainstream music. Just great....not.

The film on a visual aspect looks fine and the music is nice even though Christopher Young as composer is not using his skills wisely. Anything else is all questionable. The movie does not prove itself to have a reason for existence. The characters are boring, the premise is boring, and the comedy is boring. It's all boring and overdone.

Points Earned --> 3:10

Sniper: Ghost Shooter (2016) Review:

It's amazing that the Tom Berenger / Billy Zane thriller Sniper (1993) franchise has made it this far. Has this series cultivated a secret fanbase? Or do the producers believe there is a fanbase and keep on making sequels anyway? It just seems hard to believe that the first film would have made such an impact on viewers. It was well executed movie yes but the crew attached didn't have filmmakers like Steven Spielberg or Clint Eastwood in the director's chair. The man behind the first film was Luis Llosa, the director of The Specialist (1994) and Anaconda (1997). These were both films that people viewed as fairly silly movies. This is probably Llosa's best entry in American cinema but it still won't hold a flame to a lot of other well made popular films. When a series like this has gotten this far in making sequels with no public critical reception, it truly is an anomaly. So how does this sixth entry hold up in the array of sniper films? Well it certainly isn't unwatchable,...yet. Thankfully it works but it has warning signs.

Beckett Jr. & Richard Miller

Directed again by Don Michael Paul from Sniper: Legacy (2014), fans are once again brought back to Sgt. Brandon Beckett (Chad Michael Collins) in the field doing what he does best. Unfortunately after hesitating on an assignment and lashing out at another officer, Richard Miller (Billy Zane) puts him on probation with Russian sniper Andrei Mashkov (Ravil Isyanov). Meanwhile the Colonel (Dennis Haysbert) and assistant lead Robin Slater (Stephanie Vogt) try to find a "ghost shooter" by the name of Gazakov (Velislav Pavlov) who's looking to stop a certain business pipeline. Written this time by Chris Hauty, the screenplay works to some degree but fails to make certain connections clear and answer some questions. For Hauty, this is his fifth writing credit of which this is his first related work to this series. This is possible as to why not everything is clear, but Hauty has written for three other sequels so he should have had some idea as to what constituted as a narrative that continued the story at an engaging level.

Unsuccessfully this isn't the case here. Hauty's inclusion of the probation period for Beckett was okay until it became unnecessarily extended for an action shootout sequence. That in fact could have been substituted in for time with Beckett's other team members like Barnes (Enoch Frost), Cervantes (Nick Gomez), Aungst (Presciliana Esparolini) or just cut it out completely. Ravil Isyanov as Mashkov does have some comical quips with Beckett but the development really should have went to somebody closer. Then there's no explanation for missing persons. What happened to Sanaa (Mercedes Mason) from Sniper: Legacy (2014) or even Beckett Sr. (Tom Berenger) for that matter? Where did these characters vanish to? Where's the consistency? When starting the second trilogy, you brought on Billy Zane, then dropped him for Tom Berenger and then did the reverse again? Fans should demand to see Billy Zane and Tom Berenger on the same screen again. Those are the two old men who started it all, so get them on the same screen.

Now although Zane and Berenger are still not on screen together, Billy Zane returning as Richard Miller is still acceptable. Zane still looks like he's having fun in the role and enjoys playing the sarcastic wise cracking supervisor of Beckett's son. Miller even has a few comments that don't even really make sense but the way he says it is anyway. When it comes to Beckett Jr.'s team, few of them get much development. Sure they have a few moments of flare but nothing really makes the viewer want to see more of them and hope they survive all the shootouts. Of the members, only Cervantes (Nick Gomez) has some kind of arc. Everyone else is just kind of there. As for other actors, there's also appearances from Dominic Mafham and Navid Negahban as a blind connection to Gasakov. Negahban playing a blind man had a great look. Foggy contacts make him look like someone who's real clever and full of knowledge. Mafham as Bidwell "Bulletface" sadly gets less screen time than he did before but when he is shown, it's good to see him.

"Can you believe they didn't bring on Berenger again?"

Action sequences were well executed again. There might've been not as much carnage edited in but it still got fairly messy. The shooting throughout this film is quite abundant so there's bound to be explosions and RPGs. In addition, there are also drones in which are used in firing missiles. Those perhaps are the weakest looking parts because obviously they wouldn't have real drones. The camerawork provided by Martin Chichov looked good. It wasn't easy to tell what was green screen and what was actually filmed. Much of the scenery looked authentic and shot on sight. The film also may not be the ultimate widescreen but there is a number of establishing shots that get a lot of the landscape and it looks great. Composing the musical score for the second time in this franchise was Frederik Wiedmann. Regrettably again, Wiedmann does not have or bother to create a memorable main cue for this franchise but that thought seems to have died long ago. As for music in general, it's decently composed with guitar and Middle Eastern instruments.

Now that this series has completed its second trilogy, maybe the producers and filmmakers can get back to basics once more. The main actors, music, action and camerawork are fun but it's all brainless. The connections are lazily tacked in and some scenes could've been utilized more efficiently.

Points Earned --> 6:10

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