Marval Movie

right now while i'm typing this i'm drunk. I've had over four shots of vodka, two mouth fulls of some kind of coconut rum, the left overs of a Chinese takeaway and a TV diner. i have little scene of balance just finished off a carton of apple and mango fruit juice and am about to have a mini rice (strawberry flavor). i want to watch the shining and the social network and want to read read for whom the bell tolls, i just realized i forgot a spoon for my yogurt. make from this what you will

In my life, I've seen a lot of movies, some that excel in greatness, others that fall flat on their face and others that don't stand the test of time too well and their appeal is merely observing how much the dust has gathered since then. Amadeus is one of the closest movies that earn the right to be called perfect.

The movie starts with two servants entering a dark candlelit house, we hear a voice cry out "Mozart I'm sorry, I killed you." They knock on the door there is no reply, they try to tempt him out with some delicious cream then they hear a thud. One breaks down the door and we see an old man on the floor, razor in hand and throat slit, simultaneously we hear Mozart's 25th symphony.

We later learn that the old man is Antonio Salieri a composer who is second-rate at creating, but first-rate at appreciating and recognizing greatness. We see him in an insane asylum and a priest is brought in to hear his confession, he dismisses him, but the priest insists that he must confess to God to forgive him. Salieri agrees (if only to humor him), but before he does he plays the priest (as well as the audience) a sample of music. He plays, the priest does not recognize it "What is it?" the priest asks, "I wrote it" Salieri replies. He then plays another which like the last one goes over the priest's head, "is there no melody of mine you can recall?" Salieri says, then with a sly look he plays another piece and the priest recognizes it instantaneously and even hums along with it even when Salieri stops. The priest says that it's charming and that he was unaware that he wrote it, " I didn't" says Salieri " that was Mozart".

So Salieri confesses his sins to the priest and we are taken back to him as a young man and how he longed to be a great musician since his youth and how he only amounted to a mediocre one at best and listening to Mozart 's greatness only made his mediocrity stand out all the more.

Salieri is played by F. Murray Abraham and he plays him with great presence, we can look at the subtle expressions on his face as well as his body language and can tell what he thinks and how it effects him, the whole movie shows him in a battle with God, Mozart, and his own sanity. There are few performances that after over thirty years remains so fresh and vivid, I don't think I have ever seen a performance to this high a standard in my time watching movies.

We later meet Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart at a party that Salieri attends and he is like an unattended child in a room full of adults. He chases his girlfriend around, even dragging her across the floor by her ankle and when Salieri discovers this is the musical prodigy that he has admired all his life the expression on his face is priceless. Salieri hates Mozart's personality so much that he calls him "the creature".

Later after Mozart's performance Salieri looks over Mozart's sheet of music and is very moved by its heavenly greatness, if you watch his face he is either weeping for its beauty or weeping because of his jealousy.

Mozart is played by Tom Hulce (Quasimodo in Disney's Hunchback of Notre Dame). He plays Mozart as a genius who knows he is a genius, this leads him to take praise with much ease and taking criticism with virtually none. He has wild radical new ideas that he is so enthusiastic about and if you look at the wigs he wears they are more spiky and colorful than the others so in a society slow jazz players he's a hardcore punk (so to speak), his music is fast, radical and as one describes "too many notes" and lest we forget that ridiculous laugh.

By genre Amadeus is a costume drama, that's where there's a heavy emphasis on set and costume and they are usually some of the best looking movies that you'll ever see but the characters and the performances are as flat as an old Victorian painting that there based of. Here they move, the characters aren't stiff planks, they emote they have body language, they express and can talk. What I mean is in other movies their speech would be as stiff as their posture.

The movie is directed by Milos Forman (One Flew Over the Coco's Nest) and he knows how to use those gorgeous sets, the city of Prague where it was filmed as well as the actors. He and his writer, Peter Shafer (who wrote the stage play) give the characters and the story freedom to have fun, this is not a movie that grounds itself in being historically accurate to each meeting time at each location at each date. The point is the idea or the spirit, the joy of being a creative person, the ability to come up with ideas.

One of the main points of the movie is perfect. Salieri looks at Mozart's music and says its perfect and how if one note was changed or one phrase misspelled then it would all shatter. Conveniently this is also how I define perfect and how the movie plays, if you were to add or take away anything it would sis to be perfect and just about every frame of Amadeus needs to be there. But I myself don't believe in perfect, the world is not perfect (it spins on a tilted axis) I don't think there is a perfect building, painting, person nor a perfect film but there are some that come close and Amadeus is one of them. It's almost like one of Mozart's operas with great sound and beautiful images moving together in harmony.

There is a director cut of the movie. It is around thirty-five minutes longer and I don't see the point as I previously said if you add or take away anything then it will sis to be perfect, but I'd be lying if I said that I wasn't interested. I have not seen the entire directors cut but I've seen a few scenes, they are worth seeing but the selesai feature is a great movie as it is.

If I was asked to name the greatest movie of all time I wouldn't name my favorite, I would name the most well-made movies I've seen. Only a few films would make it like Citizen Kane, Singin in the Rain, Apocalypse Now and Amadeus.

"Video Games by their nature require player choices, which is the opposite of the serious strategy of serious film and literature, which requires authorial control."

-Roger Ebert 

Wreck-it Ralph is Disney's go at making a story with Video Games as their backdrop. Video Games have become the new big business art-form of the last thirty years with the really big new games bringing in higher money than the big movie releases, the technology and storytelling depth has grown more and more sophisticated. However, I have always felt that Disney is really good at being long lasting but really, REALLY bad at being contemporary.

Wreck-It Ralph is the story about a bad guy in an old video arcade that has lasted the test of time for thirty years. The name of the game is "Fix-It Felix Jr." where the setup is kind of Donkey Kong-like where Ralph (John C. Riley) wrecks a building and Felix fixes it up, it looks like fun. But the years of under-appreciation have taken their toll on Ralph and he wants some of the love that comes with being a hero, the only duduk perkara is he's the villain. So Ralph leaves his own game to see how well he fares in other games.

The formula of this movie is Tron meets Nightmare Before Christmas and a few drops of Toy Story in there. Those are some of the most widely liked movies of all time and you'd expect this movie to be the same, well unlike those movies only time will tell that for certain but this movie is very likable, from head to toe.

I would not qualify myself as a gamer. Ow, I have games, I play games but they don't take up the majority of my time nor do they take up the majority of my thinking time. I usually just have one game that I play the hell out of for a few weeks straight, and then tuck it away for a while. But at the same time, I am not a layman to the medium and I got all the in-jokes they were doing in the movie.

Disney is, of course, one of the greatest giants in the world of animation in both traditional 2D and 3D animation. Wreck-It Ralph is exactly what you'd expect with top notch animation with bright colors. I appreciate most the unique animation that each character in each Video Games have, the people in Ralph's game are from the older days so they move very stiff with quick transfers between motions. The people from Sugar Rush are more fluid and expressive. This is a marvel of the not only a certain type of animation but the blend of all kinds of different animation blended beautifully together. The game companies took great care that their characters would not be miss-represented in the movie, so much so that they had their people working side by side with the Disney people so that their characters moved just right. They even took the care to make sure that Bowser held his cup correctly.

When I saw Grace Randolph's review of Wreck-It Ralph she said that you have to bring candy to the movie because of the Sugar Rush scenes in the film and they just make you really want candy. So I headed her advice and I went in with a little cup of Pick-an mix and this was the way to go because looking at Sugar Rush with its vivid colors and incredible texture on all the different candy I was very grateful to have some candy at the ready.

I love the supporting cast, first of all, there's Sarah Silverman as Vanellope a glitch that exists in Sugar Rush and is flat out adorable and hilarious. Jane Lynch as Sergent Calhorn the lead character from Hero's Duty (a Halo parody), as a tough as nails, no-nonsense cynical action hero. I love Jane Lynch as Sue Silvester from Glee and whoever loves her in that will love her in this, true shes just doing the same thing but its the old method of if it ain't broke don't fix it, plus she gets to say things that Sue would never get to say. Alan Tudyk as King Candy who seems to be channeling Ed Wynn which leads to an incredibly nostalgic performance.

I rarely go and see movies in 3D and this was no exception. I only go and see a movie if I hear that the 3D was something that the creators thought about from the beginning and it was on their minds through the production of the movie, I didn't hear anything like that for this movie so I didn't. The movie in 2D is perfectly fine with crisp clear images and engaging enough action scenes without having to have things thrown in your face.

Wreck-it Ralph could have gone very wrong but thank goodness it went very right, this is exactly the kind of movie that is advertised in its trailers. A fun movie with lots of comedy, great visuals, clever writing, jokes and memorable characters. Go to this movie if you are a gamer or not a gamer if you are young or old and you will have a fun time.

Rating: 3 1/2 stars out of 4

Paperman Review
Accompanying Wreck-It Ralph is a little short film (much like Pixar do). Paperman is gorgeous and stylish. I love it for many reasons but mostly because it does what I consider to be great animation, making the characters seem alive. When you look into the expressions and the body language you can see the gears turning inside their heads and can believe that there's a brain behind there.

Paperman is a great short that might even outlive Wreck-It Ralph itself.

Zombies are all the rage these days, not even since that days of George A. Romero have the undead been so popular, I suppose Zombies have never really gone out of fashion but still there popularity now is bigger than ever with movies, comic books, video games and the hit HBO show The Walking Dead. There just seems to be something about this generation and a horde of undead flesh eaters (God that's depressing).

Warm Bodies is the story of a Zombie apocalypse world where its exactly what you'd expect, destroyed cities, Zombies roaming once filled places like shopping Malls and Airports. Then we meet our main character a Zombie who's name he cant remember but he's  pretty sure that it began with a R (so that's what we'll call him). He just wanders around like all the other Zombies but he also has a few deeper thoughts running through inside his head, like wheres he going with his life?

Later we meet Julie (Teresa Palmer) the daughter of the leader of the last human survivors, here dad is played by John Malkovich (yeah!). Shes a good Fe-Male character who's strong and fun. Eventually Julie and R encounter each-other, some Zombies get their heads blown off and some humans get eaten, but the sight of Julie looking attractive with a shotgun in hand, gets R's blood pumping (literally). I have to wonder, we learn that the Zombie apocalypse has been going on for eight years, so no young Zombie has ever encountered a pretty human?

The movie is based on the book by Isaac Marion of the same name. The idea alone of a romance between a living human and a zombie is pretty original and refreshing but can it be pulled off right was the question? Yes, this is a fun movie and it serves well to be played out by two great talents. There is also even more unique touches added to the material, apparently when Zombies eat a brain they get that persons memories and being that Zombies cant sleep or dream they really want to eat some brains.

I dont usually say things like this but Nicholas Holt is a STAR! He is a great talent that has a lot to offer and I'm sure will go on to do great other things. He is so likeable and capable with the material that he's given, but also generous, giving the other actors room to shine. After seeing him in About A Boy and how much talent he already had at that young age and then seeing him years later in the TV show Skins with his new mature material and now here with great comedy, he will go on the become a legend.

The movie premiss is born from the same of the Twilight movies/books and if you have just read that and decided not to watch the movie then just relax because Warm Bodies isn't like that. The basic formula of human getting into a romance with that of a supernatural being is a good one, the difference is Twilight is weak while Warm Bodies is funny and engaging.

This is one of those movie with a soundtrack, and if you are one of those people that loves the best of the eighties then you'll enjoy listening to this. The tracks selected are solid and funny, but even though I said best of the eighties there are still some older and some newer songs to browden the taste range. Its just a solid soundtrack and theres even one momnet where they even get a rather good joke out of it.

If there has ever been a need for a Zombie romance (probably not) or if that idea alone interests you then this movie will work. There are plenty of wasted potential in movies but Jonathan Levine does a good job of Directing and adapting the material from the book. Not that the genre needed it but Warm Bodies makes the rotting bodies of Zombies even more refreshing.

Rating: 3 1/2 stars out of 4

There was a continuing feeling that was going through me while watching Cloud Atlas, hope. With the release of more and more daring unique films like The Tree of Life and Samsara this movie gave me hope that movies are not dying, they are only beginning to bloom.

Cloud Atlas tells many tales over many years, in many different life times with characters and situations constantly changing, age, ethnicity and mostly the century that they take place in. The movie constantly cuts to a different story that eventually reveals itself to be a masterful whole in itself.

This is truly a miracle of a movie. The Watchowski's along with Tom Tykwer gathered up the funds they needed for this project all on their own and assembled a cast that I think may be unmatched in the history of the movies. With over one hundred million dollars as their independent budget this makes Cloud Atlas the highest budget independent movie ever and arguably the best looking.

I think that if you come across an ambitious writer or filmmaker and you give them a book and say that its un-filmable then they will say "ow really". The book Cloud Atlas, by author Dave Michell belongs in the pile of books that are considered to be untranslatable into film. Well now here come these visionaries to take that challenge and prove everyone else wrong.

The cast rotates with each story, one has Halle Berry as a reporter in the seventies accompanied by Keith David, Tom Hanks is a tribesman in the future, Jim Browdbent is a publisher in trouble in the modern day, Ben Whishaw is a young composer with much talent and potential. Tom Hanks is the most reoccurring out of all of them, everyone knows Tom Hanks as "the nice guy" well here he not only gets the chance to play some roles that take him in more of a different direction but also some parts that you would have never imagined him in if you would have had a million years to think of it. Have you ever thought of casting Tom Hanks as a crooked doctor? How about a cockney skin head, foul mouthed writer? Didn't think so. The second would be Hugo Weaving, a classic Wachowski choice, playing mostly villains (naturally), there is even one story that he even gets to switch genders. You even get to see Hugh Grant put on an American accent (no its not that good, but at least you can say you've seen it).

The movie works more like a collage than a traditional three act movie. It weaves its stories together and you can look at one point of it and admire that section, or you can take a step back and admire the selesai image that forms when you view them all together.

Clearly the movie is saying that reincarnation is real but what comes with that? Have you ever heard a piece of music, or seen another person in the street and felt that you knew them? Or heard that piece of music before? Our lives are all a part of the great amalgamation of a whole and the whole is made up of the little pieces that are our lives, that may one day spiral towards one great truth, or whole, or just will always lead to the next door in our never ending journey.

During one section with Ben Whishaw as a young composer, he writes a melody that is named Cloud Atlas. The movie itself is like a piece of music with a theme and a chorus and a few repeated notes throughout the movie, one such repeated note is a blue stone that gets passed down through the ages.

The music, ow my the music. Cloud Atlas already has one of my favorite movie scores of all time, it is the music of dreams that you are sure you've heard before but cant seem to remember where from or when. It is a truly magical tune that will stay with me to the end of my days. Right now while I'm typing this review I'm listening to the soundtrack.

There are some Quantum physicists that theorize that all time is happening simultaneously, clearly there's a little of that theory going on here withing the writing, the past is happening right now and so is the future, it is only our perception of the three dimensions that stops us from seeing all of time itself. But still beyond that, reincarnation is more than who we were previously but the people we will become and will meet.

Cloud Atlas is, as the old saying goes "its a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma." This films true purpose or message will never fully reveal itself because it will always change and adapt to whenever I or anyone else watches it.

Rating: 4 stars out of 4

Sometimes all it takes is a title of something to get you hooked in.

Punk Rock Jesus is the Limited Series comic book from DC's Vertigo line about a not to distant future where scientist are going to clone Jesus Christ. I came for the interesting title, but I stayed for the brains.

The comic doesn't even start off with our "Punk Rock Jesus" it starts, most likely in present day, in Ireland with a little boy named Thomas seeing his family killed right in-front of him and then his uncle comes and takes him into the I.R.A. We then cut to years later when the boy grows up and the year is now 2019. There is now a new show starting called J2: The Second Coming. The show is about a group of scientists that have supposedly acquired a sample of the actual Jesus of Nazareth's DNA and are now going to clone him and bring on the second coming. The child is eventually born and he is cleverly named Chris.

This plot idea could be played for laughs or for straight up satire (which I wouldn't be against) but while reading I was constantly amazed of how sophisticated and well thought out the story was, but also how scarily believable some of the ideas were. For example the leading man in charge of J2 is a man named Slate who very creepily controls nearly every aspect of the project, there is a scene where they can see what Chris will look like when he is around twelve, Slate notices that his eyes will be brown and the common image people have is Jesus with blue eyes, so he orders the genetic modification regardless that it could damage the child. Another scene where Slate orders for Chris is prom date to be the school cheerleader, a classic pretty white blonde girl, but he originally asked out a black girl. That is scarily believable that a TV show with so much funding and power would make such a move.

I first learned about Punk Rock Jesus from the official DC Youtube page where Sean Murphy said he would be writing and drawing a comic about the future where Jesus has been cloned. My first experience of Sean Murphy's work was in Joe the Barbarian where I was always impressed with his unique artwork, however I had no idea what he was capable of as a writer. My first thoughts was that this would be like when Todd McFarland took over Spiderman where he was an artist first and a writer second, putting more thought and energy on the visuals aspect of the comic rather than the story and narrative.

Sean Murphy is an artist but to my surprise also a really solid writer. While reading the comic I had a feeling that this is Philip K. Dick in comic books, they should say on the cover for advertisement "Punk Rock Jesus, Philip K. Dick's BACK!".

To my surprise beyond the talent of Sean Murphy himself there was also Karen Burger as Editor and Todd Klein as Letterer. Karen Berger has earned her place as one of comics greatest Editors with allowing great writers room to express their visions without silly censorship restrictions with titles like Alan Moore's Swamp Thing, Neil Gaiman's Sandman and Grant Morrison's Arkham Asylum. Todd Klein is one of the greatest Letterer's in the business with his word balloons being distinct to each character, however he doesn't have many chances to put his signature on the work here, which is a shame. 

Sean Murphy's art is a mix of Jamie Hewlett and Katsuhiro Otomo, with stylized, angular character designs and big sharply drawn cityscape's and very sci-fi technology. His work works in Black and White very well although I'm not entirely sure why, maybe because it invokes the feeling that this is some cheep underground comic with heavy inks and the cheep paper, sometimes while I was reading it I checked my fingers to see if the ink had come off (it never did).

One thing that I feel I have to bring up about Sean Murphy's art (and its a weird one) because its mostly because the book is in Black and White but whenever there's a black character I cant tell that their suppose to be black, there's only two black characters that I can recall off the top of my head so it wasn't a major recurring dilema but it still sticks out to me. An example of Black and Caucasian done well in Black and White comics is Craig Thompson's work in Habibi where, with the use of great careful line shading, it was clear which character was of which ethnic origin. However again nobody is at fault it was just something that stuck out to me.

I first thought that the comic was an ongoing title and so when I first saw it on the shelves I decided to give it a pass but then with closer inspection I saw that it was a limited six issue run and as soon as I saw that I picked it up without a seconds hesitation. The story takes its time to tell its story and I admire it so much for that, it doesn't get straight to the punchline of Jesus is back and he's a punk rocker, isn't that funny. There is a genuine story here that needs to be fleshed out. Chris isnt even born until the last few pages of the first issue and doesn't become a fully formed punk until halfway through issue four. However there is still a part of me that wishes that this was an ongoing title so that we had more time and development with this unique world, situation and characters.

Sean Murphy is an atheist, that's important to note so you could make an assumption of what the overall message will be at the end of the book. Well while I'm sure no  one will predict the exact ending a comic written by an atheist is surprisingly sympathetic to religion. Keep in mind that at the end of issue four Chris goes on stage and flat out delivers a severe fuck you to Christianity. Some of the more sensitive readers will be turned off by this but if you are then didn't you read the title? Chris does become a punk rocker and this is what punk rockers do. But still by the end of the series there is still an upbeat message and feeling, maybe not the best to Christianity but a good feeling for the human race.

To my disappointment this comic hasn't gathered a lot of hate from fundamentalist Christians or Catholics, why? Because that is usually the best kind of publicity that would have really boosted the sales of this comic. Ow well the sales seem to be solid and hopefully it'll become a cult classic in the future.

If you picked up Punk Rock Jesus because the title made you laugh then you may get a few laughs, because there is comedy here, but please stay for the intelligence, sophistication, unique artwork and just an overall great comic book.

Rating: 4 stars out of 4

Spring Breakers is a psychedelic fever dream that shows the glamour and the nightmare that kids can get up to on that legendary time known as spring break. There are many great party stories that surround spring break and more than an abundance of horror stories.

The movie is about four girls that are trapped at school and want to indulge in the joys of spring break, they however cannot go because they are trapped in school for the holidays because they lack the funding, so they decided to not get a job and instead commit a robbery.

The four girls are Faith played by Selena Gomez, Candy played by Vanessa Hudgens, Britt played by Ashely Benson and Cotty played by Rachel Korine. The girls want too go to spring break because... its spring break. They want to get drunk and go crazy. The dilema with these girls is they are void of a personality, I have no idea what each ones background is or what they are like, what they want. Well OK I know a little about Faith and I know that the other girls are hardcore psychos.

The casting of Selena Gomez and Vanessa Hudgens, two big Disney stars, is very interesting. It makes what they do all the more horrifying because you see them and and you instantly think, kid friendly, they they threaten to beat a mans head inn, and it becomes a warped funny scene.

Thew music in Spring Breakers consists of mostly modern hip music like Dubstep. Now I myself hate Dubstep, I should hate the choice too use it in the movie, but the movie displays a nightmarish theme to it so the choice to use Dubstep is actually really appropriate to me. The other choices consist of weirder, sugar filled pop songs that you would think of in a movie like this, let alone played to the visuals they get played to.

The movie gets a shot of energy into it when we meet the character of Alien. A rapper gangster with dreadlocks and grill teeth. This is a point of James Franco's career that will always be highlighted, as what I'm not entirely sure but this is unlike any of hi other roles and I defy anyone that would have guessed that James Franco could do this.

The movie has a cool look to it, with bright neon colours as well as some trippy moments as well as some nicely shot beach scenes.

There is a lot of nudity in this movie and as you'd probably expect, its female nudity. Literally one of the firsts shots in the movie is a full close-up of a woman's breasts in-front of the camera and you can tell what the director decides to focus on with the female characters when it pans away from their faces and towards their breasts, thighs and so forth.

Spring Breakers is an interesting movie. Its interestingly shot, the visuals are interesting and within its bizarre realm of a scyced out mind. If you are a boy in your late teens then you will more than likely get a kick out of this movie. I liked the movie for its undeniable originality and even more undeniable original casting. It is undeniably an original viewing experience that will stick with you and think about. It's not boring and its not forgettable.

Rating: 3 stars out of 4

As a critic, my job is to analyze and overall tell the audience whether the product that I'm reviewing is worth their time or not. Typically for all my prattling my thoughts get summed up to how many stars I give it out of four.

This is the way that most critics and reviewers have worked for a long time and will use for a lot longer. It is also the method which I will keep using for the end of my reviews. But still I am aware that the system of the star rating and even all ratings are really a silly thing to do.

There are those (some of my friends included) that rate movies out of ten and even go deeper with rating like seven point three. They say that they take those ratings seriously and I believe them. But for me I just cant rate like that and even if I was forced to rate like that I wouldn't take it seriously. I use the four star rating and I like that rating system because I can both rate and read rating of that scale and know what each rating means. I know the difference between a three star movie and a three and a half star movie.

The way I approach the four star rating system goes like this. Three stars is a good movie, if its a comedy then I laughed the right amount and got a kick out of it its worth the price of the ticket and I enjoyed myself. Three and a half stars means that the movie was very good, say an action movie that was actually clever and with good action that I was invested in and it is probably one of the best movies out right now. Four stars means that I think the movie succeeds on every level and it will be a classic for all time. It is the two and a half star rating that's a little tricky, it means that I wouldn't send my best friend to see the movie and there are probably better movies out there, it means for every good thing I can name I can name a bad thing. It means that if there's nothing better available then its worth at least one watch, that rating is tricky for those little awkward movies that aren't bad but dont really have a lot of good things going for them.

My friends have pointed out that three stars out of four equals seventy-five percent. That's true but I honestly dont look at it like that, I see the four star rating system as a more abstract system for my favorable feeling for the product.

Other ratings, like say out of a hundred percent are just as hard for me to take seriously. However I excuse the websites that use that rating system because they either, have an entire staff to calculate and work out the overall rating or like IMDB or Rotten-tomatoes they average out there rating from a huge inbox of other ratings.

Ratings should be relative and not absolute. What I'm rating is important to take into the equation. For example, I gave the direct to DVD animated superhero movie Planet Hulk four stars out of four. Now that doesn't mean its on league with Casablanca or The Godfather, that means in the standard that I hold for direct to DVD animated superhero movies it succeeds on all the levels that I expect of it, as well of course that I had an amazing time watching it.

What I am rating is also essential, rating a movie is actually pretty easy. A movie is around ninety to one hundred and twenty minutes (give or take). The movie ticket is affordable as is the DVD, should you choose to take my advice and go for it. This also includes graphic novels. However TV shows, books and a comic book series are a total different ball game. Books are not as expensive as movies, they may be even cheaper, but an average book is around two hundred and twenty pages and it takes longer to read that than it does to watch a movie. TV shows could even be five seasons long with ten episodes to them, that could add up to two hundred hours that I am expecting my audience to sit through (assuming that I recommend it). Same for a long running comic book series, comic books in bulk are expensive and forty issues will take up a fair share of space across your shelf. So ratings must be relevant to your product.

Most critics prefer to have a rating number that's even, this is so that there is a clear line where the product becomes good or bad. Some of my friends question me when I tell them that I rate with the four star rating, I want to know where the five star rating came from. The four stars was the original method of rating and I have no idea where the extra star came from. Frankly I would prefer it if there was either a four star or a six star rating so that there would still be an even number rating system.

It was Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert that used the thumbs up thumbs down rating system for their show Siskel & Ebert. Now that rating system itself has itself been criticized for being too digital, or black and white. There's truth to that but in the end isn't that what all ratings are about, whether the product is worth your time or not, there are variables and you can be more accurate and say its mostly worth your time or its top notch.

Speaking of Siskel & Ebert here is a fascinating look on how they themselves view the art of film criticism. These are the masters, listen closely. 


Top lists are also a broken form of ratings. Whenever you number a list, from one to ten, then immediately almost everything else that didn't make the cut, or even the other names on the list are diminished because of the number one winner.  Another way to handle a top ten list is by simply having ten slots to fill and have the winners in alphabetical order.

In the ends ratings are silly because they can never speak for the entire readership that one reviewer might have or no mater now polarized one view might seem there will always be one person that hates it or another that loves it. I feel that there is something primal to the rating system, something in our brains that just makes us want to be told whether something is very good or bad.

Either way rating aren't going away anytime soon and I dont intend to stop using them myself. But even when I read a rating or when I myself use a rating, I'll still know deep down that there quit silly.
ca-pub-5686845690982584

Its fun getting together with old friends that you knew back in your school days, why? Because you can reminiss on the times that you had and whats new with them or yourself, how you and they have changed. But sometimes there are those that don't seem to have changed at all and seem to be exactly where they were twenty years ago.

The Worlds End is about a man named King, Gary King (Simon Pegg). He was a big shot in school, had friends and had one night of epic proportions and seems to have been celebrating that night ever since.  He even seems to realize that his life has never moved on since that night so he realizes that his life needs closure to move on, but not until he reunites all the pieces back together.

The movie is about King reuniting his old friends that had a dream to complete the golden mile, where they attempt a pub crawl through their entire town of all twelve pubs where they will end their journey at the last one named "The World's End".

The other members of the group are, of coarse, Nick Frost as a former alcoholic who has grown to be quite a content businessman, who looks back on the time with King with contempt. Paddy Considine as a very modern man living in London and working out, all that good stuff. Martin Freeman is now a successful estate agent who has become a very modern, PC individual. Eddie Marsan a simple car salesman who is now partners with his father and has a quaint house with a wife and kids.

During the pub crawl the town just seems to get weirder and weirder until it is revealed that all of the towns people, or at least most have been replaced by robot doppelgangers (Huh?). So starts the groups shallow epic quest to complete their pub crawl and stay alive.

Edgar Wright directs and co-writes the movie and he is still a joy of a talent to watch. He comes to any project with loads of enthusiasm and creativity. He always creates tight screenplays with comedy that works off the characters as well as the situations themselves and this is no exception. The jokes are both character driven as well as physical.

The Worlds End is the third of the self named "Cornetto Trilogy", the other two being Shawn of the Dead and Hot Fuzz. This is probably the weakest of the trilogy, Shawn of the Dead is one of the greatest comedies that I have ever seen and Hot Fuzz is really fun but slightly weaker than Shawn. The Worlds End is by no means a bad movie but it has its faults and there was never a huge laugh from me.

What I enjoy most about this movie and what its main selling point is above all the other movies is the action scenes. What I mean by this is the hand to hand action scenes that the characters go through. I would have never guessed but Simon Pegg and Nick Frost have now become action stars. Yes I'm sure that there are some stunt doubles for some of the shots but for the straight up hand to hand scenes I'm pretty sure its them and there rather convincing.

One of my friends made a good point that this should really be called the fence trilogy and after thinking about it he was right. There does seem to be a reoccurring theme of fences in these movies, there is always a scene where they either have to jump over a (or a series of) fence or crash through them (Buster Keaton style). In fact there is only a Cornetto in this movie by a brief fly by cameo, if anything.

By the end of the movie the plot essentially falls apart but the characters stay true. It is a rocky journey at  the end but the first two acts are so strong that they just about make up for it.

And so ends the Cornetto Trilogy. I'm sure that all three of these movies, whether they be on their own or together as a marathon will be the source of great enjoyment for this generation of comedy.

Rating: 3 stars out of 4

Despicable Me 2 is the start of another franchise for Illumination Entertainment. Like the first movie it has its charm, wit and color as well as a little heart for luck. It has the same characters, some new characters and gives you more of what the audience has been asking for.

The movie picks off where the last one left off, with Gru a former villain and now a full time father. Looking after all three of his daughters. Civilian life is going well for Gru but its not meant to be because he is soon requited by the Anti Villain League, an organization dedicated to battling super-villains. They have brought in Gru to tackle a villain who poses a much bigger threat.

The first Despicable Me is the Frenchest movie that I have ever seen, from its comedy to the drawing style. Director Pierre Coffin is French so that makes scenes but he really turns the dials up to ten on everything he does. This movie is just as French with...well everything. This really is a sequel that stands on the same level as the first movie, nothing is less but also nothing is topped form the first movie. 

The minions this time get more screen time and more emphasis from the last movie and you really see that both the director is playing favorites and the movie is listening to popular demand. That's not really surprising seeing that they are in fact voiced by the director himself. Yes they are funny but frankly their charm is beginning to grow thin, not too much...yet. But they need to be aware of this, its like having too much candy, you just begin to feel sickly. I dont feel reassured that they are getting their own spinoff movie.

One of the delights of this movie is the new character of Lucy Wilde, Gru's new partner. She is voiced by Katolik Wiig and that's a big plus for me. I love her work as Lola on The Looney Toons Show and she brings her great comedic talents to this role to. She is essentially Lola as a spy and that's just great. I got the feeling that Wiig was working on the script level of her character because so much of the character was her exact style of comedy. My favorite character in the movie and was worth the experience for me.

One of the problems with the comedy is that I was always able to predict where the joke was going or what the punchline would be. A huge part of comedy is the surprise, the unexpected, so if your able to predict everything and there's no new twist or something unique to the comedy then it will never reach the point of true hard laughter and just reach grinning and/or chuckling stage which is what I was in for most of the movie.

The villain this time is El Macho. He is now voiced by Benjamin Bratt, but he was originally voiced by Al Pacino. Yes, Pacino voiced the character, the animators dubbed the character to his performance but at the last possible moment Pacino pulled out of the movie and he had to be replaced three months before the movie was to be released. The reason for why Pacino pulled out is a little unclear, apparently he was unpleased by his performance so he pulled out. As for Bratt, he has the rather unfun task of having to match his performance to what has already previously been performed by Pacino, which weighs down his performance. I'm not sure if I would have picked up on that if I didn't know that, but I did so it was on my mind. Still what we get is a rather fun villain, who's colorful with a flare for life.

What I admire most about the movie is the scale. Nearly all the jokes are visually based and they go to very extreme lengths to get the joke across. When a joke needs to happen which involves multiple characters, then there are many characters on the screen etc. 

Despicable Me 2 has enough going for it so that the children will definitely have more than a good time. The adults will be fine they wont hate themselves for. The movie wont really teach your children anything or carries itself with any great weight but it still does no harm. Its a simple fun kids movie that delivers a simple fun time.

Rating: 3 stars out of 4

If there was an argument that you could look at movies like time capsules then Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles II Secret of the Ooze is the equivalent of a smoking gun of evidence for that argument.

The movie was released a year later after the first movie and picks up where the last movie left off. But in-between the movies it seems like only a few weeks has past since then. Their now living with April (re-cast by Paige Turco) and it seems as if their still fresh off their victory over the Shredder.

The character of Keno (Ernie Reyes Jr.) is added to the movie just about at the start. He's and asian kid that knows martial arts and wants to help with Turtles is stopping the bad guys. He's not a bad character and it is nice to see some diversity being added to the movies, its just that he really isn't that interesting or engaging of a character. He may be a teenage ninja but not a mutant turtle.

This time the movie leans more towards the cartoon by making it less risky with the language and the action. There are no more "Damn's!" and the Turtles use their weapons less. They resort to using whatever props they can get, like instead of his bow-staff Donatello will use a foam bat (cause that will incapacitate the enemy), or Michelangelo with use hotdogs (Huh?). It seems like all the edge to the first move has been smoothed over to make it more kid friendly. But it was the edge that made it more than a run of the mill movie that was made from a children's cartoon, it was simple and accessible enough for children to watch and enjoy it but also there were enough adult images and themes for the adults to get into as well give the kids a reason to re-watch the movie when they got older. Now all that's gone.This movie is a live action cartoon complete with swish and sploosh sound effect when the Turtles move or throw something.

This movie focuses on the origin of then Turtles and the question I'm sure people have about the details of their mutation. We learn that it was a big super lab company that made the Ooze which was the cause of their mutation. The scientist in-charge of the laboratory is played by the great David Warner. He brings so much credibility and fun to the role and injects it to the movie as a whole.

Being that Shredder and his Ninjas lost to the Turtles last time it stands to reason that they need an edge this time, as-well as up their scale as any good sequel does. So they get the same Ooze that mutated the Turtles and give it to a Wolf and a snapping Turtle that gives us Toka and Razar. Their big and threatening but the movie makes up for it by giving them infant minds.They look threatening but act funny, for kids.

The climax of the movie has the fight move to a Club where, of all people, Vanilla Ice is playing, the Turtles start fighting Toka and Razar while the crowd and and Ice start getting into it and and they bust out a "Ninja Rap". It is a completely ridiculous, over the top, has no place in the world of believability and yet there is just something so glorious about it. I say I watch movies to see something I haven't seen before and ow my does this tick the box.

The movie is dedicated to Jim Henson. Henson passed away a year before the movie came out and the great costumes of the Turtles stand as a testament to what a master craftsman the man was.

This is a worthy successor to the first movie, it has more fun, ups its game and gives us answers to the Turtles origin that we might have had since watching the first movie. But while the first movie naturally had some elements that made it a product of the nineties it still had a few timeless qualities to it, but this movie is almost pure nineties.

Rating: 3 stars out of 4

As far back as I can remember I have known the words Star Wars. I am not part of the generation that knows when those words were not stamped into the public contentiousness, like Charlie Chaplin, The Beatles or Coca Cola. Star Wars is part of the culture that I live in. Episode one is considered to be one of the greatest disappointments in movie history.

The movie starts with the traditional title scrolling and then we are on a ship with two Jedi knights, Qui-Gon Jinn (Liam Neeson) and Obi-Wan Kenobi (Ewan McGregor). They are there to discuss negotiations with a group of aliens about how they operate or what not, it doesn't really matter because there's a light-saber fight soon enough.

For 1998 the CGI is amazing, yes some of the shots are dated by today's standards but not that much and even then the good shots could easily pass by today's standards.

When George Lucas was first developing and writing Star Wars he was working with his colleges such as Steven Spielberg and Francis Ford Coppola. By the time this movie went into production he was influenced by his children. There's nothing wrong with that but he seems to be playing the movie to what they want rather than what they need.

This was probably the reason for the character of Jar Jar Binks, one of the most hated, despised and loathed characters in recent pop-culture. It's not just that he's clumsy, its that never is he interested in doing the right thing or being brave, if you were to ask him what he wants he would probably say he wants a simple life of comfort, but he is dragged into the plot as an attempt to please the children viewers and all he does is done by accident. Not once is there a noble thought that drives him. 

Later in the movie we are introduced to Anakin Skywalker. Jake Llyod delivers one of the most infamous child acting performances in movie history. He has been held as a staple of bad acting from a child. Personally I don't hold it against him, is he bad, most certainly, but he's a child, true there are other great examples of children actors but they are gems. This was a bad case of a young child just not being a good actor, ow well, its just something you'll have to swallow.

George Lucas writes obrolan in a very novelist way and that is perfectly fine way to write. I like many, many other people greatly enjoy reading novels, but therein lies the problem. This is a movie and as a movie the actors must read it out loud and a novel is not meant to be read out-load, you read it in your head because if you did say it out-load you'd sound stupid (which is how the characters sound).

The definite long lasting icon of the movie is the villain Darth Maul. A Sith warrior that wields a dual lightsaber. He looks very mean and threatening with red and black tribal skin and sharp horns around his head. Ray Pak provides great physicality in his performance, being slow and stoic to fast and threatening with is incredible acrobatic talents for the fight scenes. He comes in, he's awesome and he leaves, done great job!

Unlike with the original movies the film-making technology had reached a point where you could create an entire world like those from the concept artists boards. And here we do, we see vast cities and castles that look like the great fantasy and science fiction illustrations come to life and landscapes that are reminiscent Roger Dean's Yes album covers. But with the scale comes a lack of personality and character, the filmmakers now have a vast glorious backdrop for their characters but all their time went into the backgrounds that their characters are poorly drawn.

When it was all done and I walked away from it I thought about it and what I really remembered from the movie. I didn't come up with much. The pod race was cool, nothing great, the music and the Darth Maul fight was glorious I admit, but with that gone. There wasn't much I could think of to come back to or recommend. Go once and you will find good scenes, then move on to the original trilogy.

Rating: 2 1/2 stars out of 4

Attack of the Clones is the worst Star Wars movie. At this point all focus had been lost and it would play to the lowest common denominator. This is rock bottom for the entire movie franchise. 

Episode two picks up a few years after the last one left off, with Anakin (Hayden Christensen) now an elderly teenager and he and his master Obi-Wan Kenobi (Ewan McGregor) have shared many adventures and are working partners. They are needed to protect the former queen, Padme (Natalie Portman).

Anakin and Padme head to the planet of Naboo where a lot of questions popped up to me. One, she says that she "wasn't the youngest queen elected" who the hell voted for a child? Two, what exactly is the age difference between these two? Anakin has clearly aged but Padme looks the same, are they four years or ten years apart? And then there is the creepy obrolan that the actors are forced to say, very unconvincingly. It is some of the most awkward moments that you will have to sit through in scenes that is meant to be heartfelt.

In the last movie Jake Llyod gave a bad performance with a bad script. In this movie, Hayden Christensen delivers a terrible, grading, insufferable performance with an abysmal script. All of Anakin's obrolan consists of either creepy attempts at romance, him claiming to be the best and hating Obi-Wan Kenobi for not giving him more responsibilities. I wonder why he wouldn't trust the insufferable little twit.

Still in all the actors there is faith to be found in Ewan McGregor's performance as Obi-Wan. You really do believe that this man will become the wise old Alec Guinness, he even adds some subtle Guinness tones to his delivery. 

The villain for this movie is a former Jedi by the name of Count Dooku, played by the always gripping Christopher Lee. Lee has the perfect voice for a villain, booming and with a hint of condescending.

During the movie Obi-Wan is on the trail of a bounty hunter and I realized that planets serve as neighborhoods in this universe. If someone knows your on a planet then they'll track you down pretty fast. Aren't planets big, with lots of hiding places? What kind of technology or force powers do they have if being on a planet narrows down their search immensely. 

The  highlight of the movie comes near the end where we get to see Yoda (Frank Oz) go lightsaber to lightsaber to Count Dooku. He is like a tiny man-frog with his skill. This really doesn't make any sense, one is why is he fighting with a lightsaber when he clearly has more than enough skill with the force? The second is that if he is so skilled and agile then why does he have the cane and move so slowly, could it be a deceptive act? But at this point in the movie it doesn't matter because you've already been bogged down with so much boring, poorly played-out scenes that when this scene comes along it is a merciful oasis. The scene is fun, silly and pretty awesome, you wont regret it.

If you can watch this movie and either say it wasn't really that bad, or even after it you still want more Star Wars then you should be fine because this is as bad as it gets. It has less memorable moments that Episode I and the moments that you do remember are bad.

Rating: 2 stars out of 4

After all the stupidity, bad writing and crap performances that everyone had gotten out of the prequel Star Wars movies you would be forgiven if you gave up on them, especially after Attack of the Clones. But if you decide to stay, you wont regret it.

As soon as the movie begins you start to feel better with an incredibly fun space battle scene with super elaborate C.G.I. that feels well executed, rather that messy. It starts the movie off at a brisk passe and you feel as if there's back story that you need to catch up on, you know, like the first Star Wars movie.

The Clone war is continuing, with both sides furiously fighting but it seems like it is coming to an end. Meanwhile at home Anakin (Hayden Christensen) and Padme (Natalie Portman) are living out their marriage in secret but they know that it will come to an end, because Padme is pregnant. Meanwhile Chancellor Palpatine (Ian McDiarmid) is making some strange sneaky moves that raise concerns among the Jedi.

Doug Walker brought it up in a video and he was right about so I feel I should address it. In a crucial scene Anakin and Palpatine sit down in an opera stadium and the chancellor tells Anakin of an old tale about a once greatly powerful Sith Lord. Walker was right in saying that beyond the aesthetic of the scene being well shot and acted it added a mythology into the mythology. All the other great mythologies, like Lord of the Ring, Avatar and Game of Thrones have had their own tales and fables within them, like the real world. It makes the world the characters inhabit seem lived in and real. Before, in the original trilogy, it was like we were living the legend of (lets say) King Arthur, but there was nothing that came before it. Now there is one.

Hayden Christensen really doesn't deliver a good performance as Anakin. His obrolan is unconvincing and flat, but where his delivery fails he does come through in presence. Within his stoic posture and dark stares you can see his hate and fury and believe that this was behind Darth Vaders helmet the whole time. And his character has improved, he has moved past the whiny teen stage and has become a more gracious young man.

Still the shining light in all the bad acting in the movie is Ewan McGregor. He has come full circle with his performance from the young learner with potential in Episode one and now the proud master. He really delivers it in a scene near the end where he expresses all his disappointment in another and his failure. He is already a very, very fine actor but in these movies he shines like a sun in a dark galaxy.

Like in the last movie we get another Yoda fight and this one is even better that the last one. The scale is epic and there are risks. As well as that Yoda gets to combine his incredible lightsaber stunt fighting with his mastery of the force.

I realized that a common complaint of the prequel movies is that we know exactly where these characters are going and who survives and who doesn't. Well that's true, but what about the people that start with the prequel movies? George Lucas could have just put in a movie with no stakes or threats but if you see those movies first then you will be underwhelmed.

In this movie is the best lightsaber fight ever. In the original trilogy they were slow but the emotion and the stakes were real, so far in the prequels the fights have been fast but the weight and emotions have been flat. Now in the climax we get both fast wielding lightsabers and stakes that are charged with building emotions, all framed in a great location.

Yes there are bad performances, yes there are still stupid moments but this is the first Prequel movie to get close to the feel of the original while incorporating modern visuals and techniques. If you came out of Attack the Clones and still wanted more Star Wars (or at least didn't abandon the prequels) then Revenge of the Sith is your reward.

Rating: 3 stars out of 4

"However vast the darkness, we must supply our own light.” 

-Stanley Kubrick 

What a magnificent experience Interstellar is. Just when you think you know it all and have seen it all a movie comes along that makes you look at everything you though you knew and makes you look up and realise there is still the unexplored and the journey's not over yet. 

The movie takes place some time in the future where the Earth is going through some kind of food and dust crisis. There is constant dust, even heavy storms of it and the educational system focuses on creating farmers rather than scientists and explorers. A man named Cooper (Mathew McConaughey) is a former pilot that is now stuck working a farm with his father and two children. His daughter and youngest Murph (Mackenzie Fox), named after Murphy's Law, believes there is a ghost in her room that is sending her messages. Cooper follows those messages one day and they lead him to a secret underground bunker where he learns that NASA is putting together voyages through a wormhole to other planets. While they are working on this a scientist named Brand (Michael Cane) is working on a formula to convert gravity to energy. 

Mathew McConaughey delivers one of the greatest performances of his career in this movie. He is a vulnerable man that believes in the human race and loves his children. He has journeyed to the vast edges of infinity, he has stepped foot on another planet, seen time bend right in front of him and yet all he wants is to secure the future for his children. 

Writer Jonathan Nolan, decides to skip out a few seemingly obvious details. We never learn the year or what age any character is, or how exactly Professor Brand's research will help the planet, it is a little noticeable but I feel thats the way for it to go. We don't know what exact year this is but we can guess that its about two generations away, so a movie watcher will always be able to see this movie and never be brought down buy the date the movie came out. It is an emotional way the approach the movie, not an intellectual one. 

Cooper joins the expedition along with Amelia (Anne Hathaway), Romilly (David Gyasi) and Doyle (Wes Bently). They enter the wormhole, shaped like a sphere and they cross the boundaries to where the possible planets are. Theres also the extra catch the the planets have different gravity, and being that gravity warps time, an hour on one planet equals seven years on Earth. 

Interstellar clearly has drawn major influence from 2001: A Space Odyssey. There are similar shots, themes and visual effect that remind us of it. But this move is not a ripoff, the movie more channels 2001 and uses it as a source for inspiration, from the visuals to the themes, even the ending is just as mind bending as that movie. Hans Zimmer's score is also very reminiscent, not as memorable I feel but only time will tell for sure. There is even a moment where I swear he cleverly inserts it in.

While they are on their mission the are accompanied by Tars, a helper robot that I guess must always be a part of these kinds of missions. Tars is visually the least charming movie robot ever, it (coincidentally?) looks like the monolith from 2001 but is also opposable.  However in personality it is rather charming, being voiced by Bill Irwin and having humour and honesty levels that can be adjusted.

One kasus I usually have with Nolan movies is his characters are not characters. Nolan comes from a philosophy background and its rather obvious. The characters are all on different sides of a debate rather than just being them. Well here it works more organically because all the characters have more of an emotional drive to them. They are more like people rather than just there to debate the different sides. 

Go see this movie in the theatre, do not wait for it on home release. I will buy it when it comes out but do not let the opportunity pass you by. Sit in the theatre with the huge screen to capture the scale of vision the director has and the vastness of space, hear the sharp sound that is sometimes so visceral and loud that you will feel a rumble while sitting in your seat.

I already know that this is a great movie. I will see it again, then again and then keep seeing it. I will probably see other things after another viewing but I will be coming back for the appreciation of the beautiful whole.

Yes this movie was unarguably influenced by 2001. But maybe what it's really doing is picking up the torch. Taking movies, visual effects and storytelling and pushing them forward to a new age. 

Rating: 4 stars out of 4

St. Vincent is like a nice hug from a person you don't really get along with. You know there not perfect, and you are more aware of their flaws, but you know the hug is genuine.

The movie follows Vincent MacKenna, a drunk, gambler, fowl mouthed loaner that hires a pregnant prostitute named Daka, played by an unrecognisable Naomi Watts. He doesn't really like people that much. Things don't go well when his new neighbours moving truck crashes into his tree which breaks the branch and crushes his car and fence. Vincent demands that Maggie Bronstein pay for the fence and the branch, he'll sue the moving company.

Bill Murray is as good here as he was in Lost in Translation. He is very controlled, not being a over the top but a real person. He uses more comedy but as a fallback for his uncomfortableness around other people. He does however put on a Brooklyn accent which he sometimes uses for certain parts, its ok at times but he never commits to it all the way.

Melissa McCarthy is also very good here. She is more real than we have ever seen her, she's a mother that is divorced from her cheating husband and works hard to make sure she can support her child. This isn't a character we haven't seen before but the character is so well drawn that McCarthy is able to bring her to life in a realised way. It was probably also a wise decision for her to have a straight role under her belt before she becomes too typecast.

But the true stand-out is Jaeden Leiberher as Oliver. He is synical beyond his years, there are the regular child actors, good child actors and there are the phenomenons. Leiberher is able to hold his own alongside McCarthy and Murray, two well established film stars. This is a kid with a bright future.

Oliver goes to a catholic school, even though he "thinks he's Jewish" his teacher, Brother Geragthy (Chris O'Dowd), welcomes all faiths from Buddhism, agnostic, he is Catholic which he of-corse says "Is the best religion because it has the most rules." He encounters bullies, as must every child in movies it seems. He takes the bus home because his mother works so much to support them.

Eventually Oliver and Vincent's paths cross, and Vincent sees a chance to make some babysitting money. This movie is the american eqivalent of About a Boy, although the main character in this movie might be even more dysfunctional than Hugh Grants character.

This is a movie that is hard to pull-off. It needs a character that is grizzly on the outside, but has a warm centre but at the same time be a believable human being. These are not real people but they are charming in their own way and are as good as they can be.

Rating: 3 1/2 stars out of 4

I cant help but wonder what kind of highs and lows Richard Linklater and his crew went through while working on Boyhood. The script would be easy enough to shoot but it is the madness and the dedication required for the production that is truly the awe-inspiring element to the movie. 

We follow a boy named Mason (Ellar Coltrane) a boy like any other, he likes to stare at the clouds and out the window and just wonder. He, his mother (Patrisha Arquette) and sister (Lorelie Linklater) live out their life in relative comfort, but there are always those complications that has them move or readjust everything. Every other weekend he and his sister get visited by his father (Ethan Hawke) he's a pretty cool, fun guy but only really there for the fun times.

The movie solely, completely exists in the now. Whenever there is a scene it is always about what is happening to these characters now and what is popular to them in the time it was filmed. Hardly are there ever talks about what was or what will be. The characters talk about what they are doing or are interested in now.

The most incredible thing is that these characters are really aging because obviously the actors are. Never can I say I have really seen that in a movie, or simply never has a director been willing to bring a project to life like this.

The movie is filled with a lot of classic Linklater moments and dialog. There are some inconsequential characters that walk by and simply say something memorable, and some unique obrolan that you know only link later could have written that or at least phrased it in that way. Do they all come back for some great reason? No, they are just the odd memorable moments that make-up life.

I have to admit that when it was getting close to the end I was becoming increasingly aware of the time. It seemed like the current scene was a good point to end on, then nope! Another scene stats playing out. But still, being that the movie is well over two hours long and its only the last few minutes that you start to think its getting a little slow, that's fine. Plus it took Linklater over twelve years to make the movie, he can make it long if he wants.

It took time and patients from everyone involved in the movie and it payed off. I look forward the the sequel Manhood.

Rating: 4 stars out of 4

Whiplash is a red-hot-blooded movie that takes the act of playing in a grup musik and sucks you in and crushes you in it's world.

The movie doesn't waist a single second of itself. We see Andrew Neimann (Miles Teller), drumming like no other. He drums with a passion. Then walks in Terrence Fletcher, the big coach for the winning band. When he walks into a room everyone else is silent. You could play good, you might be playing in the right tempo that's on the sheets but he will stop you if your "Not on my tempo." He also gets to say some of the most colorful insults you'll hear in a movie. J.K. Simmons as Fletcher is amazing. He fizzles with energy and preciseness. He could have been the fiery, unrepentant jerk teacher but Simmons injects soul and understanding to the character.

Teller is like Mark Zuckerberg's performance in The Social Network, with robotic delivery in a few scenes, some social awkwardness and perseverance to be the best. If being the fastest drummer means going all night until your hands bleed then he does that, then dunks them in ice water.

There is a slight romance that happens within the movie but already the movie and the characters know that this isn't where Andrews real interest lies so its brushed aside rather quickly. I've never seen a more efficient and non-apologetic approach to the romance section of a movie.

The sound of the movie is among the best of them. The music itself is some of the good old jazz stuff, so that in-itself is nice, but the atmosphere of the music room, the feel of a finger moving across a music sheet, someone inhaling before playing their part. You can smell the strings and the sweat.

To accompany the music is the pitch perfect matching of picture to music. The movies editing is some of the sharpest I have ever seen. The whole movie is as if David Fincher took on a musical. The cutting between the instruments, the sheets of music, Fletcher conducting and the players themselves is something that forms and perfect fast passed experience.

There are other characters, that are finely enough drawn and acted, but it is so hard to remember them because in the movie we have and unstoppable force on one side and the immovable object of Neimann and Fletcher. I don't know which was which, I'm pretty sure they switched between the two during the course of the movie.

I had my blood pumping throughout most of this movie, at the end I was ready to go running or climb up a wall. This is only director, Damien Chazelle's second film and it is a winner and I think we may have a great filmmaker on our hands.

Rating: 4 stars out of 4 

Jupiter Ascending is a movie that is style, special effect and lavish production values over nearly any kind of substance.

The plot is difficult to explain, or I didn't really understand it. There are other lifeforms in the universe, Earth is only a small part of the great kingdom that runs the galaxy. There is also a family that is the richest and most powerful that seeks Earth for reasons, this particular family is run by three siblings. There is also the reincarnation of their mother on Earth, reincarnation works as a form of genetics. People need her because of political rights, so they send bounty hunters after her.

The girl in-question is Jupiter Jones (Mila Kunis) who's father is murdered before she was born, and lives with her mothers side of the family, getting up at 4:30am to clean toilets in the best hotels. Even though she could never afford it she has an eye for the beautiful jewellery and fancy dressy. On her trail are bounty hunters one is Caine (Channing Tatum) a genetically engineered ex-solider with elf ears and dog teeth.

Mila Kunis is quite good in the movie. She handles the unbelievability of the whole situation with a cynical, real girl feel. Channing Tatum is fine as this part animal bounty hunter, he has to do things like growl and he downplays it as much as he can. In a lesser actors hands this would be an embarrassing performance but with Tatum in the lead he is able to come out of the movie with his reputation intact.

To be sure this is a good looking movie, the costumes and ships are impractical as anything but they are still beautiful. The dresses, the sets, the creatures all look like something out of great science fiction or fantasy illustration. Unfortunately the screen becomes too packed with so much things on-screen at the same time and becomes a struggle to get a grasp on what your meant to look at or even what it is your looking at.

I find that I'm unable to truly hate a good looking movie. After all a movie is, if nothing else, a visual medium. So if a movie is putting something on-screen that is dazzling to the eye, then is that not the purpose of a movie? To be sure there is more to it but the visuals are most prominent.

Eddie Redmayne is the villain Balem, he is genuinely terrible here. I have no idea what he is doing or why the Wachowski's thought is was good. There is zero subtelty or control to the performance. It is however fascinating to see an actor just cut loose like this.

Michael Giachino delivers a solid score that is epic, sweeping and with some string work that is reminiscent of Bernard Herman. But ganjal he is peppering a meal that is not very good to begin with and it does not save it.

This has all the cliches that the Wachowskis are known for, the chosen one, messy plot, too strong an emphasis on visuals not enough on basic characters and weird moments of fetichism.

The movie plays out and there is obrolan that you can barely grasp, then there will be an action scene that goes on too long. You must establish characters first and then play out the action so that we care about them, but the movies soul focus is to dazzle not to engage. That means that what we see is basically lights and noise.

As bad as the movie is it is memorably bad. This is not a simply forgettable movie this is a movie you will remember and complain about, but you may also want to revisit it on a drunk nigh with your friends.

This is a movie that might work better in seeing it in Youtube clips rather than a whole movie. Just tune into the cool looking parts and know that your missing out on context, but thats ok because theres little if you'd watch the movie anyway.

Rating: 2 stars out of 4

Focus is a smart, sharp, hustle movie that is charming and intelligent enough so that the average movie viewer will be very impressed with it and the more avid watcher will appreciate the extra effort.

Will Smith plays Nicky Spurgeon, a fast-talking, smooth-moving hustler that knows every trick of the trade and lives by the policy of "Die with the lie." No matter how contrary that sounds. It isn't really hard for Smith to play this character, he is after all one of the most charismatic screen actors ever. So he gets a character just as boisterous as him, he wears the character like a stylish suit. He live by the policy of "Die with the lie." No matter how contrary that sounds.

Margot Robbie is Jess Barrett a beauty that wants in on the hustle game. She seems to be a prodigy, being able to improvise swipes and can steal anyones wallet and/or watch like nobodies business. Seeing a very attractive woman on-screen is nice but Robbie is also so engaging and sharp as a presence that I see a good future for her. Looks and talent is rare, so I suggest you savour it while she's on-screen.

The dynamic and chemistry between Smith and Robbie and their sharp tongued banter is the true delight of the movie. These really are two characters that work together but also come with their own friction.

There is a character thats part of Nicky's crew. Farhad (Adrian Martinez) a large, weird looking, extremely colourful smart-ass. I have never really seen this kind of character before. He is so entertaining and so well acted that I want to see a movie based entirely around this character. Yes he really is that much fun.

The hustles are fast passed and intense. As you'd expect its Nicky's philosophy that you must commit to the facade so the hustle really works. This leads to some rather well played twists but eventually you come to simply not trust anything thats going on and are always wandering if this is real or a con. You'll probably be able to call whether or not its an act  just by guessing.

It is the writing thats the real strength of the movie. Each character has a voice and personality that works off each character differently.

The movie is smart, its not as smart as it thinks it is at times but for the most part is a fun dance tat it invites the audience to dance with. A cool visual style, sharp dialogue, layers with refreshingly energetic performances make the simple hustle genera fun to be in again.

Rating: 3 stars out of 4