The Greatest Battle Lies Within

(Because my university has currently blocked YouTube and all other media viewing websites, here's the link to the preview of today's film)

Another blockbuster release, another midnight showing, another highly anticipated film...and another more than slight let down. Spiderman 3, I'll say right off the bat, was not what it was cracked up to be.

The critics are giving this movie a B- on yahoo, and the viewers are giving it a B. One of the rare times that critics and moviegoers are so very close in their "grading" scale for such a film. And there are more than a few reasons for such an event.

The acting, while still in conjunction with every other Spiderman film, was disappointing at times. Kirsten Dunst stepped it up for once, actually becoming a character instead of an actress playing a part. Suddenly, her emotions were real and the audience could sympathize with Mary Jane Watson instead of listening to Dunst. Tobey Maguire has never been a let down when it comes to the Spiderman movies, and he didn't let me down this time either. His character, now that's a different story, but I digress. Topher Grace, on the other hand, has seen better days. And much better characters. Playing Venom was simply not the role for him. A scrawny photographer who is overly emotional, and not nearly as intimidating as he should have been, Eddie Brock wasn't the Venom he should have been. An avid reader of the Spiderman comics and aware of the villians, I was more than disappointed. Brock was a burly man, intimidating and quite butch. Not the push over that was depicted. A better choice could have been made. Gwen Stacey, played by Bryce Dallas Howard, was decent. Although the character was all wrong, Howard did more than a good enough job portraying the blonde competition of Mary Jane. And Sandman, Thomas Haden Church, although not really a villian in my opinion, was appealing as well. It was the rest of the movie that left something to be desired.

Now, the storyline. Come on. I understand Raimi's goal and his twisted sense of humor, but the absolutely ludicrous depiction of both Spiderman and Parker's infection by the Simbiote were laughable when they should have left the audience confused and perturbed with the situation. For example, when the suit begins to "infect" Parker, I really don't need to see him dancing down the streets, pointing and winking at everybody, walking like a clown, and dancing on the bar during a jazz performance. It doesn't really portray what the entire idea of the simbiote was.

Spiderman 3, while well intentioned, just didn't live up to the hype. The storyline was fair, the villians (although lacking a certain Mysterio that was promised) were well chosen (just not the actors), the idea was good. But the product left much to be desired.

It's still worth seeing for those Spiderman fans, either of the comic or of the films. But don't be expecting too much. You'll leave disappointed. And in my case, wishing you had waited a few days and spent the hours from 12 a.m. until 2:30 sleeping.

What hath God wraught?

This weekend's movie of choice? "The Reaping." A movie that, when it first came out, I had little to no intentions of seeing it. The basic plot follows an ordained minister, Hilary Swank, who, after the death of her family, has turned her back on God. Since that point, she's become a professor at a predominant university in Louisiana and spends her "free time" investigating so-called miracles and negating them, offering instead a scientific explanation. After being contacted by a man from a town called Haven about a possible plague and a town that blames a 12 year old girl for it, she goes to Haven to investigate.

I sat in awe of the entire film while it played. I loved it. However, if you're an atheist, you probably won't like this movie.

The script, while to me it was slightly predictable, was acceptable. The events that occurred made sense and were presented in a way that the audience, whether they know the Bible from cover to cover or not, will be able to keep up with the plot line and determine their own opinions. And the actors were pretty convincing. Swank actually delivered an almost stellar performance as I actually believed some of her emotions for the first time in a film. David Morrissey, a less-than-mainstream actor, comes up as her co-star and does a decent job of it. His character is Doug, the man who has asked Swank's character to come to Haven. He's charismatic and slightly charming at the appropriate times.

While the "professional" critics are rating this movie pretty low, I'd say it's far too underestimated. It'd be safe to call this movie a religious thriller, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it horror. It had it's scary points; I found myself jumping a bit in my seat, squeezing my hands a bit tighter, and getting a bit nervous every once in a while. But if you go in to this film expecting to come out unable to sleep, you're going to be disappointed. Instead, go in expecting to see tension personified on screen and the typical religion versus science struggle that may actually surprise you.

If you're looking for a good movie to see, this one is definitely worth it.

The Scariest movie I've seen in a long time

I didn't go to the theater this weekend.

Now, after you pull yourself up off of the floor, begin breathing again, and realize that this is, in fact, reality, let me say this. Instead of going to the theater this weekend, I ended up renting about 7 movies to watch and review. And to start off with, I'm picking this one. An independent film called "Dark Remains."

I'm a scary movie buff. I love being scared, I love ghost stories that make your blood curdle, and I can't get enough of horrifying scenes that make you want to scream. Sad part is, I have yet to see a movie that's done any of that since I was watching "Pet Sematary" when I was 8 years old. Until I picked up this stunning movie. Granted, the first time I rented it and watched it was a few months ago, it still scares me and keeps me lying awake at night, incapable of sleeping.

I sat in my livingroom, with the lights on, watching this movie with my fiance, hoping that I'd finally have a good review from a supposed scary movie (See my review on Hannibal Rising if you don't know what I mean). And I was not disappointed. My fiance and I were fighting over who got to hide behind who while the misdirection and entirely unforeseen plot twists caught us off guard every time. It was impossible to look away, at the same time, I really, really wanted to.

The story is of a young couple who live in a large city in Atlanta, GA. with their daughter. After she is killed while they slept down the hallway from her, they move into a secluded mountain area in order to grieve and escape the towns whispered rumors. But strange things begin to happen. Julie, the wife, who is an amateur photographer, begins seeing disturbing images in her photos and begins to investigate them deeper and deeper, until both her and her husband, as well as her neighbors, seem to be in far deeper than even she could've expected.

For anybody who has ever been even slightly entertained by a horror film or a ghost story, this is the perfect story for you. We haven't seen many descently done horror flicks and it's entirely rare to see one done as well as this, especially independently. The make up job is so very realistically gruesome that you're not sure whether what you've just seen was just a character in a movie, or an actual ghost.

Either way, if you pick up "Dark Remains," get ready to be scared. And be sure to keep the light on. You may find that you really do need it.

***Edit*** For those in the St. Charles, MO area, the only rental store that has this particular film available is Hollywood Video. It is also available on NetFlix***

I am the Goddess of War.....2

Since Tuesday night around 7 O'clock, I have been spending every spare moment I have, sacrificing time for eating and sleeping, even studying (because I am just that much of a geek) in order to play my newest video game for the PlayStation 2. God of War 2.

My beloved Kratos, who is still as devine as ever, even covered in the ashes of his dead family, is still battling the Grecian Gods in his neverending battle to rid himself of his horrid memories of killing his own family while under the control of Ares, the original God of War. In the first game, Kratos kills Ares in order to escape his bonds of slavery. After making a pact with the god in order to beat down his enemies, Kratos became a rampaging maniac and, in the midst of his slaughterous ways, killed his wife and daughter.

After that, he developed an insane grudge against Ares and saught revenge which he got en mass by killing him and becoming the new God of War. Now, in the sequel (yes, this is me, advocating a sequel), Ares is betrayed by the Gods and stripped of his powers. Because of this, he must go find the Sisters of Fate in order to go back to the time when Zeus first betrayed him, rewrite history, change the past, and return the world to the way he wants it to be.

Amazing cinemography, new moves, more hidden surprises, harder and longer levels, more bosses, more challenging puzzles, and simply a better game which I never thought possible have brought God of War 2 up on my list of must have games. I'm just glad they didn't release it exclusively on PS3.

My only complaint is that the creators got so much of the Greek Mythology so very, very wrong. Granted, it's mythology; it isn't exactly right or wrong to begin with. But there is a general consensus as to what did or did not happen. And for the most part, God of War 2 is lacking a few essential factoids in the plot line. But if you can ignore that and focus solely on the game, you won't be disappointed. Not in the slightest.

300

It happened early this morning, around 12:10 a.m. Something absolutely amazing. The curtains moved to the side, the lights dimmed, the crowd cheered and then became entirely silent. And for the next two hours, I sat in complete awe of the masterpiece that was and is "300."

For a movie that I've been looking forward to for nearly 6 months, it exceeded every expectation that I had for it. Based on the graphic novels, essentially comic books (and I mean that in a good way), by Frank Miller, this movie was one of the least comic book-like movies ever to be made. The entire movie was filled with the most brilliant cinematography that I have seen so far this year; I'd even go so far as to say that it was better than Pan's Labyrinth which, for me, is saying more than I expected.

When I first heard about this movie, my initial assumption was that it was going to be filled with senseless violence but it wasn't. The gore that was involved was appropriate and fitting, not too much but not too little. Granted, I'm a person who likes to see that type of thing, especially when it's well done and realistic which was a feat that "300" reached for, attained, and exceeded again and again.

David Wenham, who plays Dilios, one of the Spartan soldiers, narrates the film. But it happens in such a way that while you realize you're being narrated to, you don't mind. I've never been a fan of narration in movies. After Double Indemnity and Citizen Kane, I believed the days of movie narration to be over and entirely obsolete. But in "300," it's done so stylistically that it's needed. Almost essential to the plot. And the entire story ends up coming around full circle.

Gerard Butler, one of my favorite actors, brought King Leonidas to life, so much so that it was impossible to escape being brought into the film. You ended up feeling as though you were one of his men throughout the entire thing. And you couldn't help but respect him. Dominic West, who played Theron, was the perfect bad guy. I found myself hating him so purely that by the time I got to the parking lot, I had to remind myself that it was an actor playing a role.

I've been obsessed with the Greek culture since I was in junior high school. So of course, I knew how this one was going to end. Yet still, I sat in my seat waiting for things to happen, and for the course of mythology to change on film. It didn't; they stuck to what was documented, however bittersweetly that may seem to the audience. I both loved and hated that fact.

If you don't want to see 300, see it anyway. If you want to see it, see it today, and again tomorrow. If you haven't heard about it, hear about it now, trust my opinion and go see it. No matter what, you won't be disappointed.

Pass it on

So all of my entries thus far have been reviews. But in all reality, the point of this blog is for me to share my thoughts on the entertainment industry, as my overall ambition is to become a journalist specializing in arts and entertainment.

Now this entry is going to be focusing on one topic that I hold very strong opinions on, and that is the glorification of so-called celebrities who aren't qualified and don't merit such action. Case in point, Anna-Nicole Smith. A woman who rose to stardom after posing in playboy, marrying rich, her husband dying, and going through a scandal in trying to obtain the fortune her husband possessed. I see no reason to make this woman a staple in young, impressionable minds, as if she is something to mimic. Yet, since her recent death, that's exactly what she's become. Not only that, but she's all that those on the news can talk about. The fact that this woman died is overshadowing the war and countless other much more important and much more newsworthy events. I can't even remember there being this much media coverage when former presidents died. Yet here we are, glorifying this woman who, in my opinion, isn't worth the paper she's been printed on.

True, she lost weight. Woo hoo, so have a billion other people. Only they might have done it without pills or plastic surgery. So I don't really feel that much of a need to worship some star because of that. She posed in playboy. Meaning...what? That again, I should remain in awe of her presence? Sorry, not going to happen. She married a rich guy who then died. Good for her. She did her thing and got paid. That doesn't mean I want my little sister idolizing her.

Plenty of people will tell you that she went from rags to riches and she has such an inspiring story. BOO HOO! She might have gone from rags to riches, but she did it in a dishonorable way.

The only "newsworthiness" that can be attributed to her death is that it's timely. But guess what? It's old news now. So if I hear any more about it, I might just have to scream. And if one more guy comes out of the woodworks claiming to be her baby's daddy...I might just put myself in the running.

Hiro can by my Hero

It's official. I am addicted to "Heroes." It's probably unhealthy and it's probably not everybody's favorite show. But I am absolutely in love with it. If you haven't watched it, watch it. If you hate it, you're broken.

It's the story of a few exceptional people with superhuman capabilities. Throughout the course of the first season, you meet several of the "good guys," Peter Petrelli, Claire Bennett, Hiro Nakamora, Ando, Matt Parkman, and several others. The point of the series, at first is to "Save the Cheerleader, save the world." A vague message, but one that, after some time, becomes clear as to what it means and what needs to be done.

To be entirely honest, it took a few episodes for me to become hooked on the show. The first three or four episodes held little to no interest for me but after a while, I found myself entirely intrigued and I couldn't miss even one Monday night episode.

But I digress. The show itself is great. It's taken the typical Justice League type cartoon, made it live-action and given it some realistic quality. Beyond the idea that human beings could have these superhuman abilities, the hatred that the viewers develop for the villains is just as tangible as the affection and attachment you'll have for the Heroes.

Give it a shot. If you haven't watched it so far, it's on NBC on Monday nights at 8 p.m. If you've been watching it and love it just as much as I do...congratulations.

What would you think of a favorable review?

Seeing as I have this compulsion to review a movie I actually like, I figured I'd go old school and find a movie I know I already like and give you a review of that one instead of what I've been doing. Especially seeing as every new movie coming out these days is either a remake of a movie that was just made last year ( I.e. "The Zodiac") or a sequel (see "Rocky"). There are a few that I am excited about so be on the lookout for a review on "300", "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix", and "Pirates of the Caribbean At The World's End" as soon as those come out.

Today though, I'm focusing on a personnal favorite of mine, "The Boondock Saints." The story itself can get the viewer hooked just by hearing it before they even see a trailer for the movie. It's about the MacManus brothers, Connor and Murphy. The twins live in an Irish community within Boston; a tight-knit area with close connections and warring mafia families. When the Russian mafia starts moving in on the Italians, war begins. After a particularly nasty run-in with the Russians, the MacManus brothers receive what they believe to be a message from God, telling them to become vigilantes, which they immediately do. They go after all criminals; Russians, Italians, and street scum alike. The Italians end up hiring the best of the best hit men to "take care" of the brothers, now publically being called Saints. And the rest is up to you to see.

This movie is amazing. Entirely funny, entertaining, yet serious and entirely applicable and appropriate to every day life. I found it particularly appropriate because, for the most part (Minus the murderous rampages), I agree with certain aspects of the vigilantism. But the movie itself is made so very perfect by the actors themselves. Connor and Murphy are played to a T, almost to the point that the audience is forced to ask themselves whether or not these two men actually have done these acts. Their "sidekick," Funny Man, is the same way.

Willem Dafoe makes a stellar performance here as well that you'll have to see to believe.

In my opinion, this was one of the last original movies to be made. The acting was exceptional, the story was inspired and thought provoking, there was actually a point the story which doesn't really happen very often, and the humor was funny without seeming forced.

The Number 23

It was a particularly movie filled weekend for me. Not only did I choose one, but two movies to view and offer my thoughts on for this weekend. You've seen my thoughts on one of them. Here comes the other.

"The Number 23." What can I say? I was slightly more than disappointed. For a movie I had been looking forward to for quite a while, it really didn't live up to the hype. Advertised as an "obsessive thriller," it turned out to be more of a predictable conspiracy theory with a subpar ending.

At least this movie had alright acting. This time, it was the narrating that was awful. Done by Jim Carrey himself, the narrating seemed more sarcastic; as though he were attempting to be another character in one of his comedies instead of a serious drama. His tone was annoying; often condescending to the point where I simply stopped listening and just started watching the pictures go by and making up my own dialogue.

The thought behind the story had merit. The 23 Enigma has been long thought of and studied in the psychological world. So making a psychological thriller was really a good idea. However poorly done it was. Some of the statistics, far fetched as they were, even had me thinking in my seat, tabulating whether my social security number would add up to 23 (it doesn't), if my address could add up to 23 (it does), etc. But the ending of the movie left me upset, left me wanting more. And I found myself unfulfilled.

Without spoiling the ending, it stinks. It's predictable, you can see it coming a mile and a half away, and you don't have to be a genius to know how it's going to end. The slightly entertaining points of the movie, the three that I can remember that amounted to about 3 minutes out of an hour and forty five minute long movie, were far outweighed by the predictable story line, annoying narration, and, at times over-the-top paranoia.

If you want my opinion, which if you've read this far you either want my opinion or are too bored to care, wait for this one to either come to Blockbuster or to make it to the rotation on a free movie channel.

Another creative, good idea killed by lack of ability.

Until next time.

The "Ghost Rider" that shouldn't

This weekend's movie of choice was "Ghost Rider." This is the first movie in a long time to have me stumped. There were times during the movie where I felt as though it was going to be the best movie of the season, and others when I wanted to take advantage of the opportunity I had to sleep for about two hours.

For any comic book fan, especially those who were particularly fond of the Ghost Writer series, it's a pretty good comic-to-big-screen movie. But, in my opinion, the acting still left something to be desired.

Eva Mendes' portrayal of journalist, and love interest, Roxanne falls flat from the beginning, leaving much to be desired from the previously entertaining actress. The part of Roxanne has the potential to be played as a very stimulating character; a strong willed, hard-nosed reporter with the same approach to her personal life as she has in her work. Instead, we're left with a character who swoons over the hero and ends up playing the typical fawning female.

Nicolas Cage's rendition of Johnny Blaze, entertaining as it is at times, still seems disappointing in the end. The obligatory hero monologue that ends all comic book movies, a usually stirring wrap up of the heroes ethics and morals already displayed, comes off as boring, rehearsed, and almost insincere. I, simply, had expected more from Cage, a fan of the Ghost Rider series.

The story itself is a good one. A man sells his soul to save a loved one, only to lose said person but still have to settle his debt. When the debt is called in, Blaze, aka Ghost Rider has to choose; continue on his righteous path but leave behind all hopes of love and family, or cling on to his passion for Roxanne, risking both her life as well as his. The rest of the story is simple; the Rider has to find out what Blackheart, the son of the devil is after, stop him, and ultimately destroy him.

The effects, while cheesy at times, are pretty good. Blackheart both frightens and intimidates however, the voice effects used for him leave the audience with no other option but to have a slight chuckle at his expense. But I suppose, in the end, you're always supposed to have at least one part of the bad guy to laugh at.

All in all, Ghost Rider's a descent film. It's no Spider-Man by any means, but it also isn't nearly as much a travesty as the Hulk was.

"Lost" Not Losing Anything

After a 13 week hiatus, Lost has returned. And even though it's ratings are continually falling, I still find myself captivated by it from 9 until 10 p.m. every Wednesday night.

This past week, an episode entirely hyped up by ABC, was said to answer many of the viewers questions. After an hour of intriguing story, twists, turns, and a couple of more questions, the answers were provided. As in Lost tradition, the answers weren't fully developed and didn't come close to satisfying my need for knowledge.

While the critics, professional and not-so professional alike, have varying opinions, the reviews all end up with the same complaint: no answers. I for one love that aspect of the show. Withholding answers to the most important questions, only giving me minimal amounts of information at a time, and keeping the past secrets of the characters somewhat hidden are part of what keeps the mystery of the show alive.

For those who don't know, the idea behind "Lost" is to tell the story of a plane (Flight 815) which has crashed on an island on it's way to Los Angeles from Sydney, Australia. Each show highlights one character and shows the viewers parts of their past through various flashbacks interlaced throughout the story of what's going on on the island. The specific island that they've crashed on is inhabited by the so called "Others." The rest of the story, you'll have to see for yourself.

"Rising" the dead

Weekends in my world mean only one thing; at least one trip to the movie theatre. I spend the week researching the newly released movies, reading reviews of both the critics and the viewers, and finally deciding which movie it is that I really must see. This past weekend, after doing all of aforementioned work, I finally settled on "Hannibal Rising."

Now my specific trend is that if the critics hate it, I'm going to love it. If the movie goers love it, I typically do as well. This movie looked as though it was going to be perfect for me. But for the first time, I was sorely disappointed. After absolutely loving "Hannibal" and "Silence of the Lambs," I was convinced that this one was right up my ally. An hour and 45 minutes later, I was wishing I would've killed a few less brain cells and gone to see "Norbit."

The idea behind the movie was a good one. The making of a mass murderer that the entire world has been infatuated with for generations. Not only that, but telling the story in a way that's going to make the viewers feel sorry for this murderer, which they actually did accomplish...eventually. The problem with this movie was that the acting, although Hannibal was stoic as we've become accustomed to, it was over-acted to the point of disbelief. The plot was entirely predictable and boring. Each time Hannibal set his sights on a victim, it was a course of repetitive events that ended up leaving the audience bored where we should have been intrigued.

In my opinion, the Hannibal story was dead after the previous movie. I liked the idea of writing this story, but making this movie was just going too far. The movie itself was too drawn out and being in the theater for less than two hours ended up drawing out and seeming more like four.

So if you're looking for a movie for this weekend, pass over "Hannibal Rising," and go for something a little fresher.

Sick of Sequels and Retiring Remakes

Every weekend, movie goers poor into theaters hoping to see the next best movie of the year. The past year or so, however, they've been sorely disappointed, with the only movies coming out being short of stellar and entirely unoriginal.

I, for one, am anxiously awaiting the next movie to come out with an original script, a new idea, an unknown actor, and a plot that has yet to be seen. I've seen enough "Rocky" films to know that even if he loses, the fans will still cheer him on at the end of the fight. There've been enough "Die Hard" movie's made now, that we should all have grasped the concept that John McClane always wins, never dies of blood loss, and the bad guy never dies after only one bullet to the head.

Taking a look at the movies that open within the next week, all that one can see are multiple remakes, and the same story with different actors. The one and only possible exception would be "Pan's Labyrinth," a dark fairy tale for adults set in 1940's Spain. However, the rest of the movies I seem to recall having seen previously.

Take for example, "Blood and Chocolate." A story about evil werewolves in the dark underground who are searching for a secret who can only be beaten by a woman who is also a wolf but not quite evil but apparently much stronger than the bad guys. I seem to remember this one when it was called "Underworld."

Then there's "Freedom Writers" only I remember it when it was called "Dangerous Minds."

There seems to be a common trend throughout Hollywood these days, and for this movie addict, it's become quite a problem The predictable story lines and the retelling of age old stories have gotten old. I don't need to see "Cinderella III: A Twist In Time" simply because script writers have run out of ideas. Neither do I desire another remake of a 1980's horror film like "The Hitcher" simply to see if it can be done.

Maybe we need to get some more writers in town. Either that, or Hollywood has a less than appealing future, and movie-goers won't have as hard of a time getting through lines on opening night.