Movie of the Day - May

May 1st, 2012 - Alot of people like to place "Blade" as the forerunner of the great comic book movie revolution. I, however, respectfully disagree. In my opinion, the first movie that showed comic book movies in a full-fledged, mainstream light was "The Mask". Taken from the Dark Horse mini-series, "The Mask" took the original comic book and flipped it on its head, replacing most of the overly violent dark humor with a more Tex Avery style slap-stick, a vehicle that could only be done by Jim Carrey. Funny enough, with at the time only "Ace Ventura: Pet Detective" under his belt, "The Mask" also stands out as one of Carrey's first films to feature the actor under the 'likeable loser' characteristic, a characteristic that still follows Carrey's roles to this day. As a whole, "The Mask" captures alot of what the comic book offered, with the darkness of edge city, the magic that the mask, itself, brings to the wearer, as well as a music overtone for the entire movie that screams "Batman" meets "I Love Lucy". As far as humor goes, its Jim Carrey, so the slapstick will, no doubt, make you laugh. My personal favorite scene is 'Cuban Pete', screeching the entire movie to a hault for a full fleged song and dance number. It also needs to be pointed out that, for a 1994 movie, the special effects are top notch, especially the sequence in which Stanley Iptkiss' dog, Milo, dons the Mask himself. As far as negatives go, sadly, the movie's co-stars simply do not hold a candle to Carrey. In her feature film debut, Cameron Diaz really offers nothing to the role of Tina, Stanley's love interest, but looking hot. From there, it's pretty much blande ontop of blande. Peter Greene's Dorian Tyrell is your basic crime boss. The late Richard Jeni is Charlie, the stereotypical best friend. Pete Riegert is Lt. Kellaway, a fall-guy style cop who keeps falling for the Mask's tricks (which is horrible, considering that in the comic book, Kellaway was actually the hero). What angers me the most is character of reporter Peggy Brandt, played by Amy Yasback. In the movie, she stands as Stanley's moral support...before she randomly is revealed to be working with Dorian, leading to an out of left field, and forgotten as quickly as it was brought up, twist. Granted, it led to a deleted scene with the character's death, but still...what the hell? "The Mask" still stands as one of Jim Carrey's better comedies, and still stands as a damn decent comic book movie in general. If you don't mind rather large plotholes and are able to embrace the good while foregoing the bad, you'll like it. I give "The Mask" 3 out of 5 stars.

May 2nd, 2012 - The Muppets are a rare breed of entertainment that can be enjoyed by anyone, any age, any race. From toddlers to the elderly, the adventures of Kermit the Frog and company are always entertaining. However, this is a new generation ruled by trolling, sarcasm, and a bullying fueled internet age. Are the Muppets still relevant? Well, that's exactly what this movie asks...and answers it rilliantly. "The Muppets" doesn't just succeed at being a good movie, but succeeds at re-inventing itself, not afraid to show how times have changed from the legendary "Muppet Show" to now. Seeing the way the Muppets come back together after a several decade hiatus is nice, including all the subtle nods to modern day pop culture, showing how the good natured characters of yesteryear react to the world around them. The idea of focusing on Walter, a young Muppets fan who he, himself, wants to become like his heroes was a nice and refreshing way to introduce the audience to the film, acting as the eyes and ears for the viewer. Jason Segel and Amy Adams are the fun human counterparts to 'the felt', with Segel also acting as writer and executive producer (as well as giving us the brilliant 'Muppet of a Man' song in the middle), but I feel like the side-storyline of their relationship issues seem a little out of place in this storyline, with the conclusion being a little too neat and tidy for my taste. Chris "Manaiacal Laugh" Cooper is pretty decent as a villain, but his turn at the end is sorta a copout. *SPOILER WARNING!* In the end, the Muppets fail to save their theater, but a bowling ball shot to the head makes Cooper decide to change his mind, giving the Muppets back their theater. This makes it feel like a last minute re-write to an overwise brilliant ending. *END OF SPOILER* Nevertheless, "The Muppets" is filled with light-hearted laughs, catchy themes, and guest cameos upon cameos. So the question stands: are the Muppets still relevant? You better believe it. I give "The Muppets" 4 out of 5 stars.

May 3rd, 2012 - It takes alot of talent to take mindsets such as depression and the reaction of failure and make it into a comedy, but "Hamlet 2" does just that. However, as funny as this movie is, two major flaws keep popping into my head. One, this is one of those movies where they crammed the funniest moments of the film into the trailer, so sadly, if you've seen the trailer, you've pretty much seen the entire film. Two, the tactic of 'play within a play' (ala the name 'Hamlet 2') is a fantastic callback to the Shakesphere style the movie poks fun at, but the play itself...its WAY too silly to be taken seriously, and yet, the film tries to play to a concept of 'controversy is good', and therefore, the play must be good...which is sorta a honkin' load. For the characters to have been working so hard on the play and having it failing in the end, THAT would have been hilarious, but to each their own. The cast is pretty funny with Catherine Keener (who is so damn good at getting viewers to hate her), David Arquette, and Amy Pohler (who steals the show), but I have to say it: as much as I love Steve Koogan, he REALLY needed to tone it down just a little. I don't know very many actors in my life, but Im fairly certain that most of them don't rollerblade in parkas without underwear. The movie, itself, is...okay. It tackles issues of race, status, and plays towards a funny outlook on bastardizing established properties, but alot of the movie comes off as 'meh' funny as opposed to hilarious. Its not a horrible movie, and with a few tweeks, it could be a cult classic. Still, its fairly decent, so I give "Hamlet 2" 2 1/2 out of 5.

May 4th, 2012 - Years before "The Avengers" could assemble on the big screen, they truly assembled for the first time in a series of straight to DVD Marvel animated films (not counting the "Avengers: United They Stand" animated series, but the less about that, the better). Based on Mark Millar and Bryan Hitch's amazing comic book series "The Ultimates", "Ultimate Avengers" tells the story of Captain America, Iron Man, Thor, hulk, Giant Man, The Wasp, and the Black Widow uniting as a team. The movie, as a whole, is gorgeous, top notched animation with a story that is told pretty close to the comic book. The voice acting is also pretty good, the production team chosing legit voice actors as opposed to well known celebreties, allowing the characters to take on lives of their own. My main complaint about this film is that at about 70 minutes, the film is extremely short, and considering that they needed to tell the story of the Avengers as solo heroes, their coming together, and first battle, it all feels a little rushed. Frankly, as good as the animation budget is, the movie comes off as more of an extended episode pilot to an Avengers animated series then it does an actual movie. Still, its a pretty good opening to the animated marvel film, and most Avengers purest will still find something to enjoy (especially Hulk getting his hands on Thor's hammer...trust me). I give "Ultimate Avengers" 3 out of 5 stars.

May 5th, 2012 - Taking an animated direct to DVD movie featuring the first on-screen official assembling of the Avengers, and following it with a barely even luke-warm sequel mere months after the original release? Yeah...probabily not the best of ideas. "Ultimate Avengers 2" does anything but live up to the releative entertainment that the original film had. It seems like the movie wanted to raise the stakes of the original, answering some of the unsolved questions, but really, the movie plays off as nothing more then a sub-par second act. The Black Panther, the film's central character, comes off as more of a bratty child who comes to the Avengers for aid, then passes them off when they try to help, acting nothing like the Panther we all know and love. The film is also noteable for introducing the War Machine armor, but sadly, with Tony Stark being the one behind the armor instead of James Rhodes, its really nothing more then fan service. Then we come to my biggest pet peeve of the movie (and yes, this WILL be spoiling the movie, so those who wish to avoid spoilers, look away now): the death of Giant-Man seems tacked on in every sense of the word. Yes, he is given a heroes death, but it feels like it was done for the sake of killing a character. The death, itself, is almost immediatly overshadowed by the death of Iron man, before being brought back immediatly by Thor...which seems really stupid. Why didn't he do the same for Pym? When I said that the first film seemed like a good etended episode for an Avengers animated series, this movie strikes me as a really bad, ill thought out season finale for that series. The animation is, once again, top notch (though the colors are alot more sickly and muted this time around), and voice acting legend Mark Hamill stops by to lend his voice to a character (though not an essential character for whatever reason), but this time around, the bad of the film highly outweighs the good. I give "Ultimate Avengers 2" 1 1/2 out of 5 stars.

May 6th, 2012 - This movie is everything I wanted an Avengers movie to be, and a hell of alot more. When Marvel Studios came up with a master plan to release 5 seperate superhero movies, then combine them into one superhero team flick, I had to see it to believe it. Well, I've seen it...and it's damn near perfect. This is the type of movie that I would be scared to death for anyone BUT Joss Whedon to helm, as only his 'jack of all trades' geekiness could have been able to handle so many properties at once. Everything simply looked and felt great. Robert Downey Jr. once again brings Tony Stark to life. Chris Evans stood tall as the star spangled man with the plan. Chris Hemmsworth showed his mean swing as Thor...and then there is Mark Ruffalo. When Edward Norton was replaced by Ruffalo, I was outraged and disappointed, feeling that there was no way he could live up to the character Norton built....man, was I wrong. Ruffalo took Bruce Banner and did the one thing Norton didn't do: he made the character his own. Playing him off as a nice guy who has to hide his deeper rage, but soon revealed that his secret was that he could control it. Speaking of the monster, the Hulk steals the show in this movie, as every single scene of him is pure gold. The film also adds some much needed character development in both Black Widow and Hawkeye, as well as Samuel L. Jackson's Nick Fury stepping up as the mentor I wanted him to be. Hell, even Loki finally proved to be the omega level threat I always knew he could be...I would also like to add my opinion of Agent Phil Coulson, but for those of you who haven't seen the movie (and why wouldn't you!?), I'll just say this: his fate was well done. One thing that I have to point out is the final battle. One word: wow. At almost a full 40 minutes, it is the comic book battle we've all dreamed of, showing the team fighting as one, and it felt so damn good to finally see. I have been racking my brain trying to give this movie a lower score, because I don't want to geek in me swaying the vote of the critic in me, but honestly, all the complaints I have about this flick would be nit-picking. This is probabily one of the best comic book movies I've ever seen, and I know its just a matter of time before it boots "Iron Man" out of my Top Ten Favorite Films list. I happily, proudly, and graciously give "The Avengers" 5 out of 5 stars.

May 7th, 2012 - Alot of people look down at this movie, consdering it one of the lower points of the straight to DVD Marvel animated films. Personally, I don't see it. Yeah, its kid friendly. Yeah, its nto as good as "Ultimate Avengers", but on its own, its a pretty good flick. Taking place in a world where most of the Avengers had fallen in battle, and Ultron has taken over, the children of the Avengers (the son of Captain America and Black Widow, the son of the Black Panther and Storm, the daughter of Thor, the son of Giant Man and The Wasp, and the son of Hawkeye) must fight side by side with Iron Man, the Vision, and The Hulk to defeat Ultron and save the world once and for all. Like all the Marvel films, the animation is top notch, and the story Craig Kyle and Chris Yost is up to par with their other titles, like "X-Men Evolution" and "Wolverine and the X-Men". All in all, I only have two complaints: one, this film, like "Ultimate Avengers" stands out more as a pilot to a TV show then an actual movie...but its a TV show I would watch, so its still entertaining, and two, the plot seems a little...conflicted. The Avengers are struck down by Ultron, leading to the children of the Avengers needing to be sent away and protected by Tony Stark, keeping them kept away while Ultron reigns supreme...I don't think that can be anymore out of character for Stark. He wouldn't keep the children hidden and let the world go to hell. he would starp them in with state of the art armor (the robot Avengers are pretty stupid too), and kick Ultron's ass. If you're a comic book fan, you might enjoy this movie, but it really is kid friendly, and you sorta need to check your expectations at the door. I give "Next Avengers: Heroes of Tomorrow" a 2 1/2 out of 5

May 8th, 2012 - I think the fun thing about "The Truman Show" is that, growing up, I think we all thought about this at one point or another: what if our entire lives were being filmed without us knowing it? What if the world really DOES revolve around us? This film is one of those rare times where the concept really does live up to execution, exploring the sweet, yet artificial, life of a man named Truman. Jim Carrey shows that he can be funny without talking out of his butt 'literally', making the Truman character someone we can all root for. My main complaint about this movie is, probabily, Ed Harris as Chrisof, creator of The Truman Show concept. Besides twirling a handlebar mustache, everything about him just screams characature. He's so overly serious and overly artsie that he's almost impossible to take seriously at one point, making the film's final conversation between Truman and his creator almost a little too surreal. Still, the film has amazing effects, brilliat writing, and an idea too good NOT to make into a movie. I give "The Truman Show" 4 out of 5 stars.

May 9th, 2012 - Jonah, Jonah, Jonah...you are FAR too good for the way Hollywood portrayed you. "Jonah Hex" is the definition of Hollywood taking a bad ass, rock solid comic book idea and completely missing the point of what the character is supposed to be. Jonah Hex (played to a...meh quality by Josh Brolin) isn't some revenge seeking, dead raising, snoo-snoo seeking douche. He's an everyman who just happened to be living in the late 1800s. He's a man who was branded with the Mark of the Demon for cheating during a fight to the death, not as torture for the film's baddie (and don't get me started with his wife and child being slaughtered too...). If you take the comic book element out of the movie and look at it as more of a straight forward western, you're still going to be a might bit disappointed. Jonah's supernatural abilities are incredibly random and bring the movie to a suspended expectationed hault, leading to disappointing scene after disappointing scene. John Malkovitch and Megan "Im hot, so I must be able to act. Weeee!" Fox offer little to nothing to the overall film, in fact Malkovitch goes the entire movie looking like he's jsut waiting for his paycheck to get away and do a much better movie. If you are a fan of the franchise, AVOID THIS STINKER AT ALL COSTS! I give Jonah Hex 1 out of 5 stars.

May 10th, 2012 - Sam Rockwell seems to frequent the Movie of the Day reviews quite alot ("Charlie's Angels", "GalaxyQuest", "Iron Man 2", even a brief moment in "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles"), but strangely enough, he has yet to appear in a leading man role. Well, that ends here with "Moon", a film that Rockwell not only stars in, but both is featured as the ONLY living character of the movie, but does double duty playing another role (which I don't want to give away because it spoils the movie). Rockwell, playing a character ironically named 'Sam', is forced to live on the moon, running a moon based power plant that ends up powering the entire world. With only a robot unit as his companion (voiced by Kevin Spacey), we follow Sam as he deals with lonliness, heartbreak, and a conspiracy that is bound to shatter his entire world. "Moon" is a gorgeous piece of artwork that shows just how good a low budget can be if it has enough imagination and a great script. I really do wish more people had heard of and seen this movie, because I really do see this film as one of the best sci-fi films of the 2000s. If anyone has a chance to see this, I suggest taking advantage of it. Its Rockwell at his best. I give "Moon" 4 1/2 out of 5 stars.

May 11th, 2012 - My review for this movie will be short, simple, and in the respects of a much, MUCH better movie.

S*** Burger.

That is all. 1/2 out of 5 stars.

May 12th, 2012 - What the....a Rob Schneider film that's actually....good? You better believe it! "The Chosen One", a film that is written, directed, and starring Schneider, is actually pretty damn good. Doing away with thoughtless ideas such as fighting children or being a jiggalo, Schneider actually tells a beautiful story about a man who hides a deep dark depression from the world, and looks to take his own life, but only by the unexpected intervention of a group of holy men seeing Schneider's character as "The Chosen One" causes him to rethink his life, friends, family, and actions. Sure, bits and pieces of the movie are a little overly mushy, and the last 10 minutes of the film seem a little too slapsticky for the overall tone of the film, but really, its good, and its worth a watching. Alot of people seem to hate this movie, but I have a theory that most of the hate are of those who enjoy the raunchier Rob Schneider films. If you are one of those few, this might not be your cup of tea, but I enjoyed it. I give "The Chosen One" 3 out of 5 stars.

May 13th, 2012 - "The Grudge" is far from being a bad movie, but Im not sure if I'd really, actually call it a horror film. Is it creppy? Your bet. But full fledged scary? Eh. "The Grudge" is interesting as far as remakes go because it actually has the director of the original Japanese "Grudge" film backing this one as well, which really keeps alot of the artistic intergirty kept inside, so if anything, this film could even be considered to be in the same universe as the original, considering that its essentially the same film, just with a more American based cast being located in Japan. The acting is...so so. Sarah Michelle Gellar and Bill Pullman are okay, but neither of their performances are anything to write home about. Back to what I was saying about it not being a rea 'horror movie', "The Grudge" did an excellent job in creating two ironic movie characters: Kayako Saeki, the vengeful ghost and main villain of the movie, and Toshio Saeki, the child ghost. Both of these characters are excellent for giving chills...but we never actually see them do anything besides being creepy. Everything they do happens off camera, making it a little more chilling then full fledged scary, but at the same time, it makes you feel like they weren't pulled to their fullest potential. Again, in the process of film making, this could be effective, but it makes it seem more like they are a creepy visual then a full fledged threat. "The Grudge", for its lack of focused horror, is still a pretty good ghost story, but if it could avoid a series of obvious filler and a more detailed script, it could be one of the best horror flicks made in the last ten years. I give "The Grudge" 3 out of 5 stars.

May 14th, 2012 - When classic, well known comic books are lost in development hell while trying to be produced, its funny how its the lesser known films that can jump through the loops and not only be made, but quickly become legendary in their own way. "Men In Black" is that type of movie, creating a world famous franchise based on a Marvel comic book that no one has heard of based on a division that was shut down decades ago. The movie has the perfect formula, laughs and sci-fi, balanced perfectly with A-plus talent backing it up. Tommy Lee Jones and Will Smith (Independence Day and Bad Boys aside, not quite at the box-office gold mine just yet) are the type of actors who one would never guess would click so well, but they are perfect together as agents K and J respectively. I think the thing that makes this film work so well is that there is all this comedic, adult oriented humor all around the agents, but the characters play it straight, leading to the jokes being even funnier. For a 1997 film, the effects are top notch, with a nice twist between CGI and make up bringing characters to life like never before. Sure, the story may be a little bland (aliens want to destroy the earth unless the MiB can save the day, racing against the clock, blah blah blah), but still, its done in such a perfect, unique way that one can't help but enjoy it. "Men in Black" is the type of movie where you absolutely DO NOT need to be a comic book fan to enjoy it, but you just need to be a fan of good movies. I give "Men in Black" 4 out of 5 stars.

May 15th, 2012 - From the mind of Frank Miller, "RoboCop 2" is...weird. See, the original "RoboCop", hidden under its blood, gore, and Kurtwood Smith telling me where I can stick it, was actually a tale of a good man being struck down, then reborn to put right what was once wrong. "RoboCop 2", however, is an hour and a half anti-drug PSA warped together with a story that is, frankly, far too stupid to be taken seriously. So...RoboCop is having trouble following his program, his human mind constantly taking over, so the most logical thing to do is to make a new RoboCop...out of inmates? There isn't enough weed on the planet to make any of that make sense! But really, that's not even the worse part of the movie. The worse part is...the villain....an 8 year old kid who throws 4-letter-words into every single sentence. The kid comes off as a crappy Bond villain who was thrown into the rejection pile, so vulgar and violent that he's like a living "South Park" character, only not making me laugh. Another problem that I have witht his movie is the continuity errors with the original movie. One scene showed a focus group wanting to replace RoboCop because he's a bad role model for children, and "never visits children directly". Didn't they have an entire scene with him meeting kids in the original movie? Didn't they show that he does EXACTLY what they are moaning about in the focus group? UGG! The problem with RoboCop is that it was an excellent movie, and it should have only been ONE excellent movie, not spawned out to a dreadful franchise. "RoboCop 2" is proof why not all movies need sequels....but the worst part of all is that the worst is yet to come. I give "RoboCop 2" 1 1/2 out of 5 stars.

May 16th, 2012 - Charlie Chaplin has always been one of my cinematic heroes because he was a jack-of-all-trades before there were jack-of-all-trades in cinema. He acted. He directed. He produced. He wrote. While he will be known throughtout history by his alter-ego, the Tramp, if you really want to see Chaplin at his best, you won't have to search any further then "The Great Dictator". Only an absolute genius could take subjects such as Hitler, the Nazi Party, and World War II and find a means to turn it into a comedy, but he found a way. Chaplin plays who roles in this film: the loveable, Jewish barber, and the Fureur of the powerful socialist party that just happens to seem alot like another party from the time of the second world war. What happens in the next two hours is everything you would want or expect from Chaplin: humor, heart, and a life lesson that the world should follow. Everything about this movie is gold with one BIG exception: the final speech at the end, while classic, lays it on a bit thick. I mean, for the 1940s and a world at war, messages of hope and peace were needed, but its one thing to be subtle about it, and another to force it down the viewers throats. However, if that is the only complaint, you're still in for a damn good movie. "The Great Dictator" is a parody style comedy that dared to tackle an issue that wouldn't be common ground for parody until decades, even generations, later, and it is every bit as smart as it is hilarious. I give "The Great Dictator" 4 1/2 out of 5 stars.

May 17th, 2012 - If I haven't made it perfectly clear, I LOVE RoboCop. The design. The voice. The style. Everything about this hero simply pops to me...that is, until, they made a movie that took my beloved hero and pretty much made a movie with seemingly the purpose to piss me off. Nothing about "RoboCop 3" works. The plot seems like its back to the same hat trick yet again, making me wonder if the city of Detroit is even capable of learning from past mistakes, the villains are at their most cartoony, we no longer have Peter Weller donning the guise of RoboCop, ROBOCOP FLIES FOR WHATEVER REASON, and probabily the thing that bothered me the most of all, Nancy Allen's character of Anne Lewis, is KILLED less then half way through the movie. What the hell!? You take the second most loved character in the franchise and give her one of the most pointless deaths in cinema history? OY! All in all, "RoboCop 2" pretty much killed the franchise, but "RoboCop 3" urinated on the ashes. Avoid this movie at all costs. I give "RoboCop 3" 1/2 out of 5 stars.

May 18th, 2012 - "SNL", please, for the love of god, TAKE NOTES! This is how you make a skit into a full blown theatrical film. In its entire history of making full blown motion pictures, SNL has argueably made only three good movies (not counting "Mr. Saturday Night" which, ironically enough, isn't really an "SNL" film since it's based on a Billy Crystal created character that was only rarely featured on the show) - "Wayne' World", "Wayne's World 2", and of course, "The Blues Brothers". However, "Blues Brothers" succeeds where the other films have failed because of one simple concept: while the other movies ("The Ladies Man", for example), simply took the one title joke it was known for a stretched out to about 90 minutes, "Blues Brothers" re-invented itself, showing concepts like the origins of Jake and Elwood Blues, their history, the drive behind their actions, and in their own way, the love between the two brothers. John Belushi and Dan Aykroyd are at their best, crafting these characters to be the embodiment of cool. My favorite scene in the movie is probabily the car chase through the mall, and simply how relaxed and uncaring they seem to be at all the chaos around them. Moreso, when the two finally do reveal their emotion (such as Jake begging for his life to the Mystery Woman, played by Carrie Fisher), it simply makes the scene all the funnier because of how unexpected the mood shift is. The songs in the movie are classic, buuuut not really being a musical fan myself, I can admit that some of them either come out of left field, or seem a tad bit too long. Aretha Franklin busting out "Think" is cool and all, but the song number comes out of the blue, and ends up not really leading to anything. Speaking of Aretha Franklin, this film is filled with cameos, and knows exactly how to use them. Ray Charles, supermodel Twiggy, Frank Oz, and even Steven Speilberg himself are only a handful of the guests this movie offers. The storyline is simple, but anything but bad: The Blues Brothers need to reunite their band and put together a show to save the orphanage they grew up in from shutting down. Its the same story you have heard over and over again, but most "raise money to save the orphanage" flicks don't consist of some of the best car crash/chase scenes in movie history, so like the movie itself, even the story is an ironic twist of itself. "The Blues Brothers" is an iconic film, and will probabily go down as one of Belushi and Aykroyd's best work. I give "The Blues Brothers" 4 1/2 out of 5 stars.

May 19th, 2012 - A found-footage movie about exorcisms are actually a fairly decent idea for a horror movie. However, one BIG way to make your horror movie suck: put the only good scenes of your movie in the trailer. That's exactly what "The Devil Inside" is: an overly stretched movie that has already shown you all the best scenes in its 2 minute trailer, leaving nothing behind but a long, relatively boring, confusing mess. Now, like I said, there is some serious good in this movie. Suzan Crowley as Maria Rossi (the main possessed woman of the movie) does a fantastic job, making a convincing portrayal as a woman who is possessed by four seperate demons at once. Every single moment she is on screen, she has a creepy vibe where you can't tell what she is going to do next, making her scenes all the better. Sadly, she is the only thing to really compliment about the movie. The rules of how exorcisms work and how a demon can overtake a body are constantly clustered and changed (one of the main priests of the movie suddenly, randomly become possessed...what?) and the movie ends...with a website url...oh yeah. After sitting through this movie, it ends by telling you that you have to get the REAL ending online, which is probabily the biggest gut punch of the entire flick. "The Blair Witch Project", while one of the first commercially successful found-footage movies, also proved that in the genre, you have to 'show, don't tell' to get your point across. Apparently, the memo was lost in the mail when it comes to his stinker. I give "The Devil Inside" 1 1/2 out of 5 stars.

May 20th, 2012 - ..........Where do I even begin? "Catwoman" is a movie that does practically the impossible: it fails at absolutely every single level of movie making. I suppose we should start with the obvious: a Catwoman movie WITHOUT CATWOMAN IN IT! No Selina Kyle? No Gotham City? No master jewel theif (I know, there is a scene of her stealing jewlery, but its forgotten jsut as quickly as its brought up)? Aside from the name and the whip, this movie called have been called "Miss Kitty" and could have completely avoided paying DC royalties. Next is the cast...who I simply feel sorry for. The cast is actually good, consisting of the likes of Halle Berry, Benjamin Bratt, and Sharon Stone...but they are all written and directed to be either one-dimensional or flat-out stupid. Benjamin Bratt's character, Detective Tom Lone, particularly annoys me simply by how much of a moron he is. He has all the evidence in the world pointing at his girlfriend and Catwoman being one in the same, but he can't piece it together? I don't think so. Another thing that bothers me is the CLEARLY computer generated Catwoman that was used for most of the stunt work. Note to the movie: "Spider-Man" was able to get away with being computer generated because the full bodied costume allowed the liberty. Catwoman, however, looks like Halle Berry, and your effects make it look like a video game Halle Berry. What makes this even worse is that the director, Pitof, is a SPECIAL EFFECTS SUPERVISOR! He fails worse at what his actual job is! However, the thing about "Catwoman" is...I can forgive all of this. The script. The acting. The effects. Everything. But the one thing about this movie that bothers me more then anything else is the cinematography...WHAT...THE...HELL!? Almost every single shot in this movie is either an extreme closeup of someone's face, or a shot that lasts literally about a second. There is a sequence in which Berry's character, Patience, is playing basketball with Tom. The editing is so fast and hard to keep up with, I can't even tell what they are doing. Shots last no longer then half a second. It was one of the first times watching a movie that my eyes actually started to hurt! "Catwoman" was one of the first movies I was almost considering giving no stars to...but Im going to give it a single star. Why? For three reasons. 1.) As irritating as this movie is, there is a certain...likeability about it. Despite it being bad (and trust me, IT IS!), its really hard to have the usual angry rage I would for a movie of this calibur. 2.) If you watch it in a different light, this movie can actually be damn funny. If you watch it as a parody of superhero movies, or just a basic comedy, you can get alot of entertainment out of it. Its more of a 'guilty pleasure' then a rage enducing flick. And 3.) there was one performance in this movie that I really did like: Alex Borstein ("MadTV", the voice of Lois on "Family Guy") plays the role of Patience's best friend, Sally, and she seems like the one person who is really putting effort into this movie, and it shows. Hell, if this movie would have been called "Sally" and center directly around the best friend of a superhero, that probabily would have made a hell of the film. In conclusion, "Catwoman" is an interesting film because, in many ways, its a horrible shot-for-shot remake of "Daredevil": hero gets their power from tramatic accident, wise-cracking best friend, love interest wants to bring the hero to justice, multi-millionaire main villain, hero framed for murder, and even shabby CGI work. You can go alot worse in comic book movies then "Catwoman", but like I said, its no where near a GOOD movie, but I find it hard to hate. 1 out of 5 stars.

May 21st, 2012 - For the last decade, fanboy and studios seemed to clash at the very thought of taking the anime "Akira" and making it into a live action movie. What people don't realize is that the movie has already been made, titled "Chronicle", and is...in a word...fantastic. Yes, this is yet ANOTHER found footage movie, but unlike the "Blair Witch Projects" and "Devil Insides" of the world, "Chronicle" doesn't depend on the found footage concept as a crutch. If anything, the fourth wall aspect makes the movie even better, pretty much the icing on this cake of awesomeness.The story is thought-provoking, making the audience ask "what would you REALLY do if you had superpowers?" leading to seeing the way three different high-school students begin to change once given powers. The effects are fantastic, creating visuals that even the best of superhero movies wouldn't go. My favorite scene, personally, is seeing the three learn how to fly for the first time, taking to the skies, and making the audience believe that the three have powers far beyond those of mortal men. On the negative side, the acting isn't exactly top-of-the-line, and alot of the story aspects are a bit too over the top and cliche for my taste (the dad is abusive, the mom is sick, the high-school bullies are overly violent, etc), but all in all, these are things I can easily get over. "Chronicle" could very well be the best found footage ever made, and if the "Akira" movie ever does get made, I hope its moderately as good as this movie is. I give "Chronicle" 4 out of 5 stars.

May 22nd, 2012 - If you look up 'guilty pleasure' in the dictionary, the "Last Action Hero" movie poster can most likely be found. While not exactly a good movie (props for the film actually trying to blend shoot-em-up action and magic together), there is quite alot about this movie that is almost impossible to hate. First of all, there is Arnold Schwarzenegger who, lets face it, was the end-all/be-all reason that this movie was made in the first place. This film represents cashing in on star power to the absolute, and frankly, could almost be considered a 2 hour commercial dedicated to his better works. Though, frankly, its somehow refreshing to see a movie that not only seems to be making fun of the actor, but if anything, has him in on the joke as well. Also, while I like the idea of seeing someone from the 'real world' enter the movie and is able to point out all the jokes and cliques, the kid is...really...really...REALLY annoying. In the beginning of the film, he is making fun of Sir Lawrence Olivia's performance of "Hamlet", claiming that he wants him to 'do something and not talk'. Right, because EVERY movie should follow action movie rules. The movie world itself is sorta a neat experience, even though some scenes come off as more of a cartoon then an action flick (including a random cartoon cat who runs around, voiced by Danny DeVito), and the real world opening premiere with Arnold playing himself is interesting, making it nice to see that the actor has a sense of humor. I think the biggest problem with this movie is that it was aimed to be a love-letter to action films, but honestly, this is the type of movie I would expect to be a family picture, probabily aimed more towards pre-teen boys. Older kids will love it, but the much older audience will most likelly roll their eyes. "Last Action Hero" isn't so much a 'fail' as it is a 'needs to try harder'. Truth be told, you shave off the last half hour of the movie, its not really all that bad, but the way it currently is, its nothing more then a guilty pleasure. I give "Last Action Hero" 2 out of 5 stars.

May 23rd, 2012 - I love Robert Rodriguez films. "Sin City", "Machete", and "From Dusk Till Dawn", are only a few of the films that I can watch time and time again, and enjoy them a little more with each viewing...however, as much as I love his movies, he cannot make a good kids' film to save his life. When the first "Spy Kids" movie came out, it was unique, stylish, and entertaining, but it was simply too goofball and silly for me to enjoy. When "Spy Kids 2" came out, it did little to nothing to impress me futher, but it was still sub-standard....and then "Spy Kids 3-D: Game Over" came out, and all I can ask is...what the hell was Rodriguez smoking!? Nothing (and I mean NOTHING) about this movie works. The film follows Juni Cortez (aka, the most annoying character from the series) as he enters a video game world to save his sister, Carmen (aka, the more talented character in the series, so god forbid we focus on her) as well as try to save the world from the evil Toymaker played by......Sylvester Stallone....crypes, man, you were friggin' Rocky! You're better then this! The Toymaker is nothing but a overkill, too silly to be taken serious character who is supposed to be much darker towards the end of the movie, but considering that alot of the movie features Stallone talking to computer generated versions of himself (most of while results in Three Stooges style sight gags), the translation is quickly lost. Though lets be honest, this movie was known for three things: the Spy-Kids name, the 3D (which, I will admit, takes advantage of being a 3D movie, and offers some rather cool effects), and cameos ( current and former Rodriguez colaberators George Clooney, Salma Hayek, Danny Trejo, Cheech Marin, and many more make appearances in the film). Yet, this is a kids movie, and alot of these things I can sorta ignore......however, my biggest problem with this movie is the ending. We spend almost an hour building the video game world, and how releasing the Toymaker into the real world can cause pure chaos, and in the end with chaos all around, the ending is wrapped up in TEN MINUTES! Not only that, but the ending with Stallone and Richardo Montalban (cripes, man! You were friggin' Khan! You are better then this!) is etremely underwhelming, and destorys the final shred of dignity this movie had. "Spy Kids 3-D: Game Over" was to be the last of the Spy Kids movies, and Rodriguez was moving on to bigger and better things.....or so we thought, but we'll get to THAT movie on a later date. Its too bad that such a creative genius like Rodriguez has to go back to the kid-friendly hat trick time and time again because, like Stallone and Montalban, he's MUCH better then this. I give the movie 1 out of 5 stars.

May 24th, 2012 - For this review, Im going to do a little something different. Considering that this documentary essentially picks apart critics and, essentially, makes critics out to be the villains of the story, I thought that instead for doing a solid review, I would instead make this out to be an open-letter to the films star and producer, Jamie Kennedy.

Dear Jamie, I like you. I really do. You are a very talented stand-up comedian, and were hysterical during your WB television show run, "The Jamie Kennedy Experiment". However, speaking as a film critic myself, it seems that we have gotten off on the wrong foot, considering that most people found your films "Malibu's Most Wanted" and "Son of the Mask" as less then favorable. See, you need to understand: just because I wasn't a fan of your films doesn't mean that Im not a fan of you. Movies are a BIG production to make, and when most critics review a movie, they aren't simply targeting you (or, at least the GOOD critics aren't). Critics review movies as a whole, breaking down different divions of the film, such as direction, acting, story, effects, audio, and other essentials it takes to make a good movie.

Let's take your movie, "Son of the Mask" for example. Now, this movie, in all honestly, didn't have the best chance of being a success. It suffered from the poison of 'sequel without the main actor from the original', and had a teaser trailer with a dancing CGI baby that people found as creepy. But the movie itself tried too hard to capture the magic of the original, but aside from the word "Mask" in the title, it seemed to have little from the original movie, and that's what people want in their sequels! They want the original characters. They want to see story progression; a concept that your film, Mr. Kennedy, failed to deliever.

Now, see, that was an extremely brief review of your movie in a nutshell. Did you once hear me say a single negative word about you, personally?

Deep down, that's the problem with reviews. For the most part, those who write them aren't trying to be personal. Yes, I know you'll have the occasional joker who will say "Im just being honest!", but for the most part, we reviewers are conveying a movie for one of two reasons: we are either giving a review because the movie is good, or giving a review because its bad, and for good reasons. Your movie, "Heckler" is the 145th movie that I've reviewed this year alone, and never once have I said anything along the lines of "This movie sucks because [fill in the blank] stars in it!"

As for your documentary, the interesting thing about it is that I actually agree with what you say when it comes to standup. Nothing is worse then someone standing up in the middle of your performance and heckling you. However, its when you say 'heckling' and 'critiquing' are one in the same that I found myself disagreeing. Considering that I've never once stood up at the movies and screamed at the screen, I don't think I would ever say that the two are even in the same league. Still, subject matter aside, the documentary is very well done, and its interesting to see dozens and dozens of entertaining getting a chance to give their opinion on critics, essentially seeing how the other half live.

The parts of your documentary that get to me are, sadly, your interaction with critics and hecklers. You, personally, ask people their opinions, and if they are elss then positive, a massive frown grows on your face, to which you then begin to sulk, wondering why they can't 'simply say something nice'. Jamie, your an adult, and the thing about adults is that in life, whether we know it or not, we are all creators and artists, and from time to time, we all screw up. What you should be doing is either one of two things: 1.) you say "Screw it! This is a movie that I made, and Im proud of it, so the reviewers can *beep* off!" to which, I can tell you, these people would have ALOT more respect for you, or 2.) you can say "Wow. This person sorta opened my eyes. They are right about a few things. I can learn from this and move on." But, seriously, crying about people not liking your movies aren't going to make them any better.

You have alot of talent, Jamie, and you have alot of heart, but sometimes, in life, you simply have to man up a little and understand that the world isn't always going to like you, and if you are lucky enough to find fans that like you for who you are, cater to them, and screw the rest.

I want to thank you for making this movie and putting alot of things into perspective. I think it helped me on my future reviews by being able to pontificate exactly what it is I should be focusing on in future reviews. I wish you nothing but luck in your career, and look forward to where your revelations about the world of heckling and reviews take you.

A fan,

Chris Hype

PS. 3 1/2 out of 5 stars.

May 25th, 2012 - I like to think of "Taxi Driver" as the reverse "First Blood". While Rambo in "First Blood" is a Vietnam vet who snapped because the world was instantly willing to turn on him, Travis Bickle is a Vietnam vet who snapped due to the troubles of everyday life. "Taxi Driver" really is looking at the world through the eyes of a deeply disturbed man, but the unique and incredible way that director Martin Scorsese captures the film allows us, the viewer, to actually see the world in Travis' eyes, and in a vaguely distrubed way, understand the reasons for his actions. Not only does this movie have two of the best performances in movie history from Robert DeNiro and Jodie Foster (who was only 12 years old at the time), but this movie has one of the greatest endings in cinema history as well, touching upon the ideas of hero-worshiping, mistaken identity, and 'right place at the right time'. My only problem with this movie (and I know, I am going to get ALOT of crap for saying this) is that the movie feels a little padded. The entire subplot with Travis having a crush on campaign volunteer worker Betsy (played by Cybil Shepherd) seemed to have been brought up and almost immediatly dropped without much reasoning. It could be argued that Betsy's rebuffing of his affections was the reason for him seemingly snapping, but if that's the case, it makes the ending of the film with him driving her home completely out of character. Still, with so much good in this movie, I can allow padding in the story to lead to such an excellent, and practically flawless, ending when it comes to the final shoot out in the end. "Taxi Driver" is one of Scorsese's best films, and will forever be known as one of the finest pictures cinema has to offer. I give "Taxi Driver" 4 1/2 out of 5 stars.

May 26th, 2012 - Hey, Folks! How do you completely and totally destroy the intergrity of your black comedy/sci-fi blockbuster that raised the bar for the way main stream media views comic book movies forever? Make a half-assed sequel practically made for kids, of course. "Men in Black" was a rather unexpected hit because it took alot of liberties and risks, almost immediatly finding its ground. The jokes were crude, but funny. The make-up effects were gross, but impressive. The story was simplistic, but the journey getting there was entertaining. "Men in Black II", however,overstayed its welcome with its forced jokes, became almost purely CGI, was REALLY dumbed down to target toward kids (Frank the Dog and the Worms were funny because they were drinking, smoking jerks, and were BARELY used in the original movie, NEVER overstaying their welcome. In the sequel, both are focal points to the flicks and completely different from their original design), but maybe worst of all, the story is SO FREAKISHLY SIMPLE! The second Rosario "Im WAY too talented to be in this movie" Dawson appears on screen, you can already guess the movie's finale...which doesn't even make that much sense to begin with. The acting is...what you would expect. Will Smith is Agent J. Tommy Lee Jones is Agent K. Rip Torn is Zed. These are the characters we all know and love, and once again, they are up to par. Lara Flynn Boyle, honestly, wouldn't have been my first pick as the film's villain, and Johnny Knoxville is, all in all, annoying as Boyle's comic sidekick. I guess in the end, the main problem with "Men in Black II" is that it lost its own identity, and in the process, it forget what it was about the first movie that people loved. I guess the best comparison I could make is that "Men in Black" is like a really beautiful car, and "Men in Black II" is that same car, but covered in dozens of obnoxious bumper stickers, trying to be cool and edgy. If you found the original movie forgettable, or your only gateway into the MiB universe was the 90s cartoon, you may like this movie. Though, if you adored the first movie like I did, get ready for quite a bad time. 1 1/2 out of 5 stars.

May 27th, 2012 - On one hand, this is an Adam Sandler movie that is rich with heart, playfull, well designed and thought out, and has rather stellar performances by those who are involved with it. On the other hand, this was the movie that gave us Cole and Dylan Sprouse, the "Suite Life" kids. In all seriousness, "Big Daddy" is one of Sander's better films, but the problem is that with Sandler involved, you know you are still in for 90 minutes of toilet humor relatively dumbed down humor (the child wants to call himself Frankenstein. Hilarious.) However, where this movie differs from the "Little Nickys" and "Jack and Jills" of the world is the amount of harmless, playful fun this movie has in how relateable it is. The best parts of the movie are, without a doubt, Sandler's interactions with the child, watching both characters grow and mature, changing eachother for the better. Anyone with kids (or anyone whose ever spent time with kids) can relate to the struggles, and ultimately, the rewards. In the spectrum of Sandler flicks, if they would have used the word "Hooters" a little less, and perhaps avoid the entire 'spit-string' scene, this movie could have very well been one of his best, but for what it is, its still entertaining, and overall, fun. With pretty good performances by Joey Lauren Adams, Jon Stewart, and Leslie Mann (sorry Rob Schneider. You can do ALL the stereotypes in the world...THEY STILL AREN'T FUNNY!), this is a surprisingly good comedy. I give Big Daddy 3 out of 5 stars.

May 28th, 2012 - "Miss Congeniality" isn't exactly what I would call a 'bad movie', but there are some parts to it that one must simply suspend their beliefs to. Let's be honest: Sanda Bullock is a goddess. She is one of the most attractive women of all time, so the idea that her entire department doesn't notice that she is attractive is just...down right confusing. Yes, I get it, she is one of the guys, but speaking on behalf of those with a Y choromosome, that actually makes her all the more attractive...but Im getting away from the subject at hand. The plot is a decent idea, leading to lots of jokes and gags about how one-dimensional and forced a beauty pagent is. The cast is...okay. Ernie Hudson, Candice Bergen, and the legendary William Shatner are all good.....but like "Catwoman", Benjamin Bratt once again plays the clueless cop who seems to not be able to focus on rational thought due to the flow of blood to his penis. Still, let's be honest, "Miss Congeniality" is a chick flick through and through, and for its purpose on that alone, its a pretty good movie. Its not great, but its certianly entertaining (though its ending was was surreal, I almost thought I was watching the boss battle in a video game). If you want just a fluffpiece romantic comedy, you can do alot worse then this movie, and it makes an excellent date movie. I give "Miss Congeniality" 3 out of 5 stars.

May 29th, 2012 - It was Samuel L. Jackson who wants said "Sometimes, you just gotta see a guy get his ass kicked", and once you think about it, these words are much more profound and true then we really give it credit for. "Shot Em Up" is not a fantastic movie. Like the "Crank" films, "Shoot Em Up" is designed to be such an over-the-top, ultra violent flick filled with all the sex, gore, and curse words that can be crammed inside that it almost becomes a parody of the action genre into itself...which makes this film all the more brilliant. If anything, "Shoot Em Up" is a black comedy that has a habit of pointing out all of life's smallest pet peeves, and having a solution for them that is at the most over the top sollution (examples: guy cuts you off on the highway? Crash his car into oncoming traffic. Punk has an earring that annoys you? Shoot the damn thing off). Its the fact that the movie never takes itself too seriously that makes it all the more fun. The best part about this film is, without a doubt, the cast. Everytime Clive Owen plays a role where he has a gun in hand, he becomes an instant badass, making him easy to root for. He is accompanied by Monica Bellucci, a prostitute who is well known for her ability to lactate (the fact that I actually had to type those words just makes it all the more fun), and Paul Giamatti, who steals the show as the film's villain: a psychottic hitman who also happens to be a loving family man who is slowly losing his grip on reality. The plot of the movie is a simple one: Mr. Smith (Owen) is roped into a mob battle after becoming the guardian of a baby that holds the key to everything from the way organized crime is run, to the leading candidate to the Presidency of the United States. While the actual reason for the need of the baby's death is something of a McGuffin (it IS actually explained...but the explanation is sorta confusing), considering that, again, the movie doesn't take itself too seriously, its hard to get mad at the plot having thousand of holes. People often ask me if its possible to suspend my belief and enjoy a good ol' fashioned likeably dumb movie, and the fact is: yes, I can...if its done well. There is a difference between 'stupid fun' and 'just plain lazy', and "Shoot Em' Up" is a stupid, yet extremely fun movie. This is a total tune out, popcorn flick, had alot of care and detail put into it, and it shows. I give "Shoot 'Em Up" 4 out of 5 stars.

May 30th, 2012 - I know I am going to get a ton of crap for this review, but....I absolute HATE about 80% of this movie, and that 80% can actually all be attributed to one single individual: Quentin Tarantino! Yes, I know Quentin co-wrote the movie. Yes, I know he and director Robert Rodriguez are practically best friends. Yes, I know Im being hypocritical since I said in my "Heckler" review that I would tackle movies as a whole instead of attacking a single person, but let's think about this for a moment: let's say that you, Joe Everyman, is brought in to write a movie script for an action-horror vampire flick, to which you create a character who is a violent serial rapist who is a.) one of the lead stars of the movie, b.) mentally tortures a teenage Juliette Lewis, and c.) sucks on Selma Hayek's bare feet (because you, the writer, have a notorious foot fetish yourself), then out of no where, WHAM! You, the writer, are casted as that very same character! At the end of the day, "From Dusk Till Dawn" is essential Quentin Tarantino's fanfiction that was actually given a budget, and as obnoxious as it may sound, just him being (and actually TRYING TO ACT) in this movie makes it almost impossible to enjoy. Hell, [SPOILER WARNING!] the movie has a moment where the tide could have turned and made the flick bareable when Tarantino's character turns into a vampire. Your mind immediatly thinks "Holy snap! The lead characters brother turns! Maybe he can now be the lead vampire! Now George Clooney's character will have to match wits with his brother! This is going to be awesome!"....to which Tarantino's character is killed off moments later with a fizzle. Now, insane rant aside, there is a bit of good in this movie too. George Clooney is a badass in this flick, and the other cast members like Juliette Lewis, Harvey Keitel, and even Cheech Marin (playing three different roles, no less) do a good job, but it's just the damn script. It takes FOREVER to get to the vampire run bar, takes even longer for the vampires to arrive, and literally 20% of the entire movie actually delves into the supernatural. Im sorry, I want to like this movie! Robert Rodriguez has an excellent eye for detail, and when he isn't writing for himself (which usually comes off as the killer, the rapist, or the raping killer), Tarantino is a damn good writer, but this movie, hype and cult following aside, simply really isn't all that good. I give "From Dusk Till Dawn" 2 out of 5 stars.

May 31st, 2012 - Two things you need to know about me. #1, I love professional wrestling. #2, I LOVE PROFESSIONAL WRESTLING! I need to make something perfectly clear: "Ready to Rumble" is NOT a good movie. It's a complete and total gross-out comedy that tries to cater to wrestling fans, but in the process, makes fun of wrestling fans...but still, Im hard pressed not to enjoy it. "Ready to Rumble" is my guiltiest of guilty pleasures, getting me just right in between being uberly quotable, and clearly having alot of love for wrestling itself. Sure, it thinks we take the spot alot more seriously then we do (aside from RVD being stripped of the ECW title and given to Big Show. That was a load...), but in a world of fantasy, its kinda neat seeing what wrestling would be like if the two men inside the ring really did want to kill eachother. For the film that it is, the cast is.....good. David Arquette and Scott Caan play the roles of overly enthusiastic wrestling fans pretty well, and score some definate laughs, Oliver Platt bounces between the 'king of wrestling' and redneck drunk in the blink of an eye, and Joe Pantoliano plays the Vince McMahon-esk owner/villain perfectly. This movie even has Martin Landau as the old timely trainer, and does a damn good job of making you believe he can kill you with a submission hold. The best part of the movie, without a doubt, are the wrestling cameos, featuring some of WCW's best, ranging from Goldberg, DDP, Sting, Booker T, Rey Mysterio Jr, Billy Kidman, the late, great Macho Man Randy Savage, and more (also, it'd be wrong not to mention how much of this movie came together thanks to the late Chris Kanyon, who worked as the film's wrestling advisor, stunt double for Oliver Platt, and even makes an on-screen cameo as a fan towards the end of the film. Hell, he even plays the villain in the Bif naked music video that went with the movie). Still, Im afraid as much as I liked this movie, I still have to admit: its anything but a 'good movie'. It's severly dumbed down, jokes are pushed past their point of being funny, scenes are repeatative, and Oliver Platt getting kicked in the sack can actually get a little old fairly quickly. This was a movie that was made to go hand in hand with the popularity of wrestling, and when it comes to my ability to seperate wrestling mark from film critic, I can only suspend my disbelief so far. It's not a great movie, but what can I say? Guilty pleasure. I give "Ready to Rumble" 2 1/2 out of 5 stars.