SpiffDico Reviews

A Good Day to Die Hard (2013)

Why?! How could you do this?!

[8 March 2013]

"Die Hard" is one of those films, that is considered to be a perfect gem to movie goers and action fans alike. With one perfect film, two good ones, and one that was mediocre, you kind of expect what would become of the 5th movie. And let me say this, I have never been so disappointed in a film than this one. If you thought 2 or 4 were bad, take a look at THIS one!

So what's the plot of the film?...Boy is THAT the million dollar question here. Now let me say this, this is one of the first films in a long time that I had walked out on, and it wasn't just because I was tired, but that NOTHING WAS HAPPENING IN THIS FILM! All I could gather was that John McClane goes to visit his son Jack in Russia, but it turns out that Jack is a spy, who is in cahoots with a Russian terrorist, or something like that, and John gets dragged into the mix. That's all I could gather from it. So when I retried watching it online, I was still in the same mixed of confusion on this plot.

Let's discuss what's wrong with the movie, aside from its terrible plot (or lack of, I should say), and that's the action scenes. Not too long in, we're put into a car chase, that feels like something out of a "Transporter" movie, than it does a "Die Hard" film. It's just constant car chase, with hardly a shot that lasts three seconds, and physics that are so out of reality, that it's just insulting to this franchise. What made "Die Hard" so great and memorable was it's reality, and how you could picture yourself in the same situation, doing the same thing (if you were in good shape). In this film, it not only disregards that fact, it completely DESTROYS it! This isn't a "Die Hard" film, it's a generic action film that not even Steven Seagal would put on his resume. The dialogue in this film is pretty much most of the same thing over and over again, about Jai Courtney and Bruce Willis talking about father-son relations and how they didn't have those moments, etc. And I'm not exaggerating here, this is literally what goes on throughout the film. As for the villains, oh wait, WHAT villains? They're just Russian terrorists. Again, not exaggerating. Jai Courtney was also very boring as Jack, and I felt he could have done so much, if they had gotten a better script and director (we'll get to them shortly.)

Also, I'd like to ask one major question here: *ahem*...WHERE THE HELL IS JOHN MCCLANE?!? This is the number one thing I was asking myself every single minute of the film, and I didn't see him at all. I saw Bruce Willis playing John McClane, but I didn't see John McClane. You could have called him ANYTHING and you would have had the same exact film! There isn't even the slightest hint of John McClane's charm ANYWHERE in this film, aside from a slight one-liner, but that's it. That's not John McClane, that's John Matrix from "Commando," just played by someone else. I mean, give "Indiana Jones 4" SOME credit, at least it HAD Indiana Jones.

This film was directed by John Moore, the same guy who directed "Max Payne" and "The Omen (2006)," and I honestly would rather watch both those films than this ever again. It shocks me how the original director for this movie turned it down to work on the sequel for "300," should have been the first sign of this. The script was written by Skip Woods, who was the writer for "Hitman" and "X-Men Origins: Wolverine." How his script got green-lit is beyond me.

Overall, "A Good Day to Die Hard" is not only the worst of the "Die Hard" films AND one of the worst films that I have ever seen, it is the absolute WORST sequel I've had the misfortune of sitting through! This is so far the worst film that I have seen this year, and I hope there's not another that tops this.

Rating: 1/10

Drive Angry (2011)

Kick ass through 3 dimensions!

[5 January 2012]

I got to tell you, out of all the Nicholas Cage movies i've seen over the years, this one has to be the most fun. The basic idea of Nicholas Cage escaping hell to fight a cult to rescue his granddaughter, all while being chased by a guy who calls himself "The Accountant" (no joke), is something stupid, but in an enjoyable way. By the way, what I said was in the trailer, so no spoilers. The 3D effects looked pretty fun, and the climax at the end has to be one of the most intense. Though i do feel bad, that this is highly underrated. So, i highly recommend Drive Angry to anyone who loves Nick Cage movies, action films, awesome crap films, or just movie goers in general.

Red Riding Hood (2011)

Worse than Twilight

[5 January 2012]

Possibly, the BIGGEST waste of Gary Oldman I've ever seen. More so than Lost in Space and Quest for Camelot. I knew Gary was doing this movie, just for a paycheck. But yeah, this movie was just crap. There could have been so much more to it, but so much potential was wasted throughout the film that it's impossible not to say WHY it's so bad. The acting throughout the flick is boring, and that's the word that describes the movie. Boring. I never got interested in these characters and I might never. The film tries so hard to be like Twilight, but it's a bad thing to be much like anyway. Also, the director of the first Twilight movie is directing it, so that should be a sign that the movie was going to be lazy and pathetic.

Limitless (I) (2011)

This film has no limit to it's amazement.

[5 January 2012]

Now let me just say, Bradley Cooper is one of those actors who gets the same amount of responses as Shia LaBeouf. You either love him or hate him. They have some good films, and some bad ones. And I do think that the two of them are good actors. Plus, Cooper is an actor that no matter what film he's in, I can find some enjoyment out of him. I mean, have you SEEN Hangover? But I digress. Let's talk about Bradley Cooper's movie, Limitless. Now, when this movie came out in theaters, I wasn't really that interested in seeing it, because it didn't look like my kind of movie. And unfortunately, I was wrong. This movie's pretty good.

Limitless is the story of Eddie Morra, who's trying to get his book selling and his career straight, after his girlfriend just dumped him. After acquiring a certain drug, he's able to boost his focus by tenfold, and try to pull his life back into order. But due to this, he's gets into a certain conflict, where the people around him are threatened, and needs a way to get out of the mess he's gotten himself into. The movie gives off a pretty good Inception vibe, on the fact that you really need to pay attention to it, and it really has some good action with it.

Cooper plays Eddie, and gives a good performance throughout the film as he does with others. Robert DeNiro plays Carl, Eddie's boss, and gives it the typical Robert DeNiro performance, and is good in anything he's in (And I mean ANYTHING). Abbie Cornish, who you may remember as Sweat Pea in Sucker Punch, plays Lindy. She gives a pretty solid performance, and it works in this movie. Plus, her talent isn't wasted in an action film that has absolutely no story. The rest of the characters do a pretty good job with what they're given, so I don't have much to complain though.

That's all I got, so overall, Limitless is a smart action film, with an interesting story, and knows how to give story and action well. Is it as good as Inception? No. But I'll give credit, that it IS close. It definitely is Bradley Cooper's best action flick since the A-Team.

Sucker Punch (2011)

Film...just sucks.

[5 January 2012]

This movie fails...now, i'll be honest, i haven't seen any of Zack Snyder's work, like 300 and Watchmen, so i don't know what his directing is like, but this movie...was probably not his best....at all. Looking at this film, it just made me confused about the plot, because it didn't make sense on any level, and leaves a whole bunch of plot holes. I mean, there's this whole thing in the intro, where the mother dies, the stepfather gets angry because he wasn't included in the will, and kills one of the daughters, while the other is sent to a mental institute. And guess what? THEY NEVER BRING IT UP AGAIN!! I kid you not! they forget it! i mean, COME ON Snyder! if people loved your work with Watchmen and 300, then why are you failing on this?!....there are other things like that, that annoyed me.....but i'll give the movie credit, it wasn't boring. it had decent action, even though it was in the mind of a little girl who's practically in her underwear (Wha?!), the acting wasn't that impressive, especially from that chick from Dragon Ball Evolution (CHI CHI MY ASS!) and this film felt more like Sailor Moon to me.....I'm not kidding. This literally feels like i've been watching an episode of Sailor Moon, stretched into 2 hours. overall, it's just a basic popcorn flick, that's just low on story, and just disappoints. I wouldn't recommend this, but if you're up for seeing it, go for it. though i'd wait for a discount theater, or wait till it's out on TV or netflix/redbox or even on demand, it got one thing right, for me...it sucked.

Insidious (I) (2010)

It's scary...but I wouldn't call it the best.

[5 January 2012]

Alright, might as well talk about the newest movie i've seen. And that movie would be Insidious...honestly, i liked this movie. no joke, i found this to be a really good movie. Though, as i look back on it, it really was suspenseful, even though its scares, were all jump scares. gee, haven't seen THAT before. speaking of which, i felt like this was kind of a remake of Poltergeist, but in a good way. i actually started to like the characters, and the story. it really is like Poltergeist, except all of the flab of it was cut out of it. but that's not all. it not only felt like Poltergeist, but it also felt like Paranormal Activity (thank god i saw that, before this), and Nightmare on Elm Street (the good version). Now when i saw the trailer for this, the plot was already explained, but i forgot it (woot! barely any spoilers!), and that it was being directed by James Wan, the director and writer of the first Saw film, and producer of the rest. I felt like this was going to be crap, but i was wrong. I recommend this film to anyone who's a fan of horror, or to take a date with (in case they get scared, if you know what i mean). it's definitely the best horror film that's come out, since Paranormal Activity 2 (saw that too. can't wait for the 3rd film). though, after all i said, it's not bad, but nothing special. i only said that, since it's a GOOD horror film, unlike Red Riding Hood...........Oh god, why did i sit through that.....

Unknown (I) (2011)

Not very Unknown now!

[5 January 2012]

Let me tell you, I love Liam Neeson. he is a fantastic actor, especially with action films. i mean, i loved the A-Team, but apparently, my favorite of his work goes to Love Actually. But this was damn well done. The way that Unknown is directed is very well paced, and the acting is amazingly well done. The way that the character Liam Neeson plays of trying to find out who he really is, has an interesting vibe to it that keeps you on the edge of your seat, wondering what's going to happen next. Plus, the action scenes they show is well shot, and gives you that adrenalin rush that good actions films give us. Not to mention, the twist at the end, is purely amazing, and it explains the confusion that anyone who sees this film gets. So, if you like Liam Neeson and/or action dramas, this movie is for you.

Rango (2011)

Reach for the skies..Lizard!

[5 January 2012]

Looking at the promos for this film, i feel like that this movie was just going to be a basic 3D kids movie, with Johnny Depp acting like himself (except a lizard), dealing with mistaken identities, and that it was going to be a fun time...That, and the fact that Abigail Breslin is in it. Sorry, can't help it. But yeah, when i went to go see this movie with my brother, we were both surprised on how dark it was. The images were pretty gruesome, the humor was a little lacking, and it has a habit of swearing a lot in it. But only the basic "hell" and "damn", nothing else. It's actually quite an accomplishment to make this a kids movie, because it's not, even for Nickalodian studios standards. I mean, i could see Disney getting away with it, back in the 90's, but this i think was pushing it. But does that make it bad? No. It's a pretty good movie, that i guess i can recommend to some people.

Alvin and the Chipmunks: Chipwrecked (2011)

Not AS "Chipwrecked" as everyone says

[5 January 2012]

"Alvin and the Chipmunks" is a franchise that's been getting much popularity with many kids of passing generations. The film series, based on the 80's to 90's cartoon, based on the 50's album, tells the story of the relationship of Dave Sullivan taking care of 3 chipmunks who become rock stars, and it's been told as it's been. The film series is something that most people find to be anything, but masterpiece material.

With the first film, it was a decent film that introduced the new generation to Alvin, Simon and Theodore, on how they met Dave Suvil, played by Jason Lee, but didn't do as good as was expected. The film, however, was far from terrible, so it was something one could watch and enjoy from time to time. The second film however, didn't do as well as the first. It felt too much like the first film, with David Cross being the film's antagonist again, and repeating some of the same jokes. With the new film, only four words would describe it.

It's not the 'Squekquel'.

The new film does try to work in a new kind of concept and bring something new into it, but mostly falls flat due to most clichés. This is the only movie where David Cross isn't the villain and it doesn't involve any of the chipmunks or chipettes in cages. I do give credit for trying, but it's not enough to say that it's as good as the original. I'm not saying that it's TERRIBLE or anything, but it's not good either. Some of the jokes in the beginning along with some scenes with David Cross are what I seemed to have laughed. The pop-culture references and songs sung in the film are sort of recognizable, but some aren't ones that I'm not very fond of.

Another thing that is kind of upsetting is the cast of characters. If they're going to alter the voices anyway, then they could've just gotten some new actors to do it anyway. But then again, some people are desperate for work and will do anything for a paycheck. Would I say it's bad? Mostly, but it has it's moments sometimes. Would I pay tickets for this in the theater? Technically, I did, but for others, I'd wait to rent it.

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011)

Fincher's comeback film

[5 January 2012]

There have been many films this year that have caught interest in many. With the film 'The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo', directed by Fight Club director, David Fincher, many fans of the book that the film's based on were cautious, since there has been a Swedish film that was faithful to the fist book of three. I, myself, was as cautious as them, only it was due to Fincher's last film, 'The Social Network'. Many had been pleased with the film about Facebook creator, Mark Zuckerberg, mostly due to being users of the site. Even though I've used the site as well, I can't help but feel that the film had lacked much character into this and that Eisenberg, who portrayed Zuckerberg in the film, gave a performance of a golden toaster; might look impressive, but there's not much to it. Now with David Fincher's newest film, what can be said about it. Well, it can easily be past as a much better film than Social Network will be to me.

With what the story goes, Daniel Craig plays Mikael Blomkvist, co-owner and author for Millennium Magazine, and is now being hired to solve the case of the disappearance of the great niece of Henrik Vanger, played by Christopher Plummer. While finding some clues, he then calls upon Lisbeth Salander, played by Rooney Mara, to help him out, all while developing a strong relationship together. For being one of my most anticipated movies of the year, I had high hopes thinking it would be one of the best films I've seen this year, with all the hype it's been getting. But alas, it's not as much as they say it to be. Granted, it wasn't anywhere CLOSE to bad, but it was still kinda underwhelming. Though, I still would watch this more times and find it more developed than 'The Social Network', even if 'Dragon Tattoo' is two hours and forty minutes long. The performances delivered by each of the actors was well done and didn't in the slightest bore me, with much suspense given to the story, and not once using jumps to scare the everliving pants off us. It takes it's time with it, bringing up to the strong ending that the characters will have to deal with. Even though I never read the book, nor did I watch the Swedish versions, I found it to still be a good film at the least.

Overall, 'Girl With the Dragon Tattoo' is an exciting thriller with excellent acting from a great cast of people, and with some scenes, you'd know why they would give this film an 'R' rating. It's not done so much, to what most comedies today want to do, but in the essence of making an exciting thriller.

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol (2011)

The Impossible Became Possible...This was really good.

[5 January 2012]

Looking over films based on TV shows are almost impossible to make better, let alone just as good, as the show was. Somehow, most of the turn out to be complete garbage, like:

The Avengers Get Smart Transformers 2 Beverly Hillbillies Yogi Bear The Smurfs Doug The Last Airbender (shudders)

But, that's not to say there have been a few decent ones, like:

Ninja Turtles 1,2, & 4 The Adams Family Batman: Mask of the Phantasm Batman Beyond: The Return of the Joker The A-Team G.I. Joe: Rise of Cobra Transformers 3 Transformers: The Movie Most of the Muppet movies

Many have had hit and misses over the past thirty years now, but today we're going to be talking about the film series, based on the TV show, Mission Impossible.

Now, bear in mind, I haven't actually seen ONE episode of the TV show, so all I can really do is look at the films as films along. I might as well give my synopsis on the other films first then. The first film, directed by Scarface director, Brian de Palma, is about IMF agent, Ethan Hunt, played by Tom Cruise, framed for the murders of his comrades and selling government secrets to the villain of the film. Now it's up to Cruise to get the files back and clear his name. For what it was, it was a cheesy action film, with Cruise doing what he does best. For what it was, it was pretty good, thanks to Ving Rhames delivering a pretty good performance. The second film, directed by John Woo, was not as good as the first, but somehow did a very creative job at bringing forth an okay film. Cruise was still Cruise, Rhames was still bad-ass, and Anthony Hopkins in the film was nice in it too. Now the third film, directed by Super 8 director and creator of Lost, J.J. Abrams, managed to make it the superior film. The plot of it, was Ethan was getting married and about to retire as an IMF agent leader, but when his team tries to get rid of an object dubbed 'The Rabbit Foot', he and his team have to fix things up, with his marriage on hold, and him returning. Simon Pegg was a nice addition to the film, and gave a well done performance. For a while, it was a good finish to the franchise, and for what it was, we would remember this trilogy to be cheesy...That is, until today, when Iron Giant and Incredibles director, Brad Bird decided to bring forth another film.

So how does the new film stand out?...well, I gotta say...I now understand WHY it's got a 95% on Rotten Tomatoes.

Mission Impossible 4: Ghost Protocol takes place five years after the last film, as Ethan Hunt is broken out of jail, and learns from his team that someone is planning on starting a nuclear war with Russia and America. Soon, the IMF is down to Hunt and his team, along with William Brandt, to finish off this mission and clear the IMF's name. For being his first live-action film, Brad Bird managed to make this Mission Impossible film, not only good, but fantastic! I enjoyed a LOT out of this film, from beginning to end, and it really stands out as the best of the Mission Impossible film series. This is definitely one of the best action film that I've seen this year, and it stands out as one of Tom Cruise's best work. The acting is great, the action's great, and the story is, surprisingly, well done. But, apparently, it does have it's cheesy moments, that even Ving Rhames finds to be stupid.

Overall, MI4GP is great, might have it's moments of stupidity, but I found it great. If you're looking for a good action film or a good Brad Bird film, I highly recommend it, but if you don't like Tom Cruise or the Mission Impossible films, then you probably won't like it.

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (2011)

This film's no mystery to see.

[5 January 2012]

When talking about the greatest fictional detective of Britain Sherlock Holmes, and the many movies based on this iconic character, many have seen the most memorable of actors, Basil Rathbone to be the one we think of the most. Lines like 'Elementary, my dear Watson' have been used from generation to generation, letting others know of the legacy of the character Sir Arthur Doyle had given to the world.

Since 2009, director Guy Ritchie had given this generation a NEW Sherlock Holmes, portrayed by former SNL comedian, Robert Downey Jr, who had gained the role of also portraying Iron Man. Downey had given a fantastically stunning performance in both the Iron Man AND Sherlock Holmes films, that it's difficult to explain how more good he's become. The way that he pays good tribute to the character of Holmes and what Rathbone had given, he also manages to create his own Holmes as well. He's smart, witty, and strong willed, especially with his amazing predictions. As for Jude Law, he himself brings new depths into the character of Dr. John Watson, Holmes' sidekick. The chemistry between the two is in such well depth, that it almost makes you think that the two of them are brothers. With that, the original stands as a strong, well determined piece of art that is both fun and intense.

With this new film, it's much of the same. It continues the story of Holmes, with a new case that could possibly be his last, or at least that's how I felt about it. Sherlock and Watson are reprized by the duo of Downey and Law, as they try to figure out what plan is in develop by Professor Moriarty, played by Jared Harris. Harris gives off the attitude of a smart villain, giving everything his best shot, and does a well done job at doing it. Stephen Croft plays Sherlock's brother, Mycroft Holmes, and gives a few good laughs with his cheery performance, and his ways of assisting his brother in the film.

Is the film as good as the original? No, I found some scenes to be a bit slow, boring, and not well examined. But is it good? Yes. Is it worth the ticket price in theaters? Yes. I guarantee that audiences who enjoyed the first film will enjoy this new film, and it deserves a viewing every once and a while. If you got the time, then Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows is one of the perfect works of art, and in my opinion, one of the best films of the year.

The Muppets (2011)

It's time to welcome back the Muppets!

[5 January 2012]

For most people, they know who the Muppets are. Ever since the mid 50's, the late-Jim Henson has made the Muppets become such iconic figures. Kermit, Fozzie, Gonzo, Miss Piggy, Rowlf, Sam the Eagle, Swedish Chef, and many others. They've had an ongoing history and ever since, have gotten much from Jim Henson and Frank Oz, even getting their own show and a few movies to it as well.

The first film, "The Muppet Movie", showed the origins of the Muppets and how they met up. It had the great feel of a road trip movie, as well as spawning many cameos from famous actors at the time of the late-70s, like Mel Brooks, Dom Deluise, Steve Martin, Bob Hope, Carol Kane, Richard Pryer, even Orson Welles. It was a great start, for a great gang of characters we all have now come to love, which is why it was the film that most people remembered. As for "The Great Muppet Caper" and "Muppets Take Manhattan," I don't remember much of it, but everyone has said that they were pretty good for what they're worth, so I'll take their word for it. As for "Muppet Christmas Carol," it was something that really had much passion to it, with keeping true to the Charles Dickens classic. With it being the first film the Muppets did without Jim Henson, after his tragic death in 1990, "Muppet Christmas Carol" showed us that no matter what, the legacy would never die out. Now for "Muppet Treasure Island," I do remember some things from it, like the opening number being such an enjoyable way to start a movie, and Tim Curry giving one heck of a great performance. But aside from that, not much else can be said about it. With their last theatrical film, "Muppets from Space," I haven't seen. Many people have stated that it wasn't really good or that it was alright for what it was. If that's what people think, then more power to them, since I cannot compare my opinion with them.

Now let's get down to the newest movie. How does it hold up? Well, I have to be honest, it's pretty good. It's a fun, entertaining, enjoyable, family movie. It's got just about everything you'd expect in a Muppet movie. Singing, dancing, cameos, an interesting story, 4th wall jokes, and obviously, the Muppets. With what this new film has given, it works and is appropriate to show kids of this generation who they are, as well as give off a great deal of nostalgia to those who've grown up with them. Even though, Frank Oz and other Muppet veterans have disregarded it, as a mockery, just to cash in on the 'Judd Apatow style of gross-out humor', like with the fart shoes you see Fozzie wear in the trailer. It didn't bother me much, despite the fact that I'm not a fan of Judd Apatow to begin with. Even Kermit can agree that it's just a cheap joke, and it's hilarious to know that an iconic character knows that films that follow that similar format that think they're funny, by using the 'f' word constantly, or just making dumb gross jokes; that type of humor does work sometimes, if it isn't overused, but when it's used throughout the majority of one film, then it gets old really fast. Going back to the new Muppet film, it really does its best to try and be something new, instead of just a mindless remake like most movie studios have been doing since the late nineties. Surprisingly to most, this movie is actually a continuation of the Muppets, instead of rehashing the whole thing from scratch. It shows where Kermit and friends have been, what happened, and how they get back together again.

Jason Segel did an excellent job co-writing the script, and giving off one of the best performances of his career in a movie. I could tell with the look in his eyes that he was a big Muppets fan, and wanted to give them the film they deserved after such a long time. Not only that, but with him being a Broadway kind of guy, he really has an amazing singing voice, from the opening song that he does, that's really catchy. I also enjoyed the chemistry between him and his adoptive Muppet brother, to where you could feel a bit teary eyed at the sad scenes with them. Amy Adams did a great job with this too, and was pretty enjoyable as the lead actress. She was funny, she was charming, and knew how to give such a great performance. Plus, I gotta give props to Chris Cooper, for almost every scene he was in making me laugh. The cameos they had in this film made me pleased, counting out most of them, and for how they made they're screen time so great in such a small amount of time.

Now even with how good this was, the only complaint I had with the movie was the ending. Not that it was bad or anything, but it built up to a point where you feel it taking another direction you never thought they'd go, like a very adult and mature ending. I felt that with all that build up, you think that they'd actually had the guts to go there. But despite that, I found it to be one of those perfect movies.

Overall, The Muppets is a film that has a lot of passion and shows great respect to the franchise. I highly recommend it for anyone who wants that feel of nostalgia, or someone who's just looking for a good film to go to. It surely won't disappoint.

Puss in Boots (2011)

Kitty's got enough lives to make it!

[5 January 2012]

Now before we begin, I'll make this quick on what i thought of the Shrek films. The first one, at the time, was a clever work of art that got Mike Myers and Eddie Murphy as a pretty good duo of animation voices for quite a while now. It was fresh, new, and one of Dreamwork's best CGI animated features. Shrek 2, was absolutely amazing. It took everything that made the original Shrek good and made it an amazing comedy! It introduced Puss in Boots as a spin-off of Zorro just hysterical, ESPECIALLY since he's played by Antonio Banderas, who played Zorro in the Martin Campbell movies, Mask of Zorro and Legend of Zorro. Overall, Shrek 2 is by far one of the best sequels that could ever be made by Dreamworks. Now for Shrek the Third and Shrek Forever After, all i got to say for those films is.......meh. they were okay.

So now, Dreamworks still has a good hold for the franchise, but now with Puss in Boots. So how was it? well, let's discuss it first.

The movie's what you expect it to be, an origin story of the whiskered outlaw with boots. It explains his backstory on how he became an outlaw and what he did to redeem himself of being no longer the villain his home town thought him to be, seven years after he was betrayed by a former comrade. For what it gives us, it's a pretty entertaining movie and shows a lot to give.

Antonio Banderas reprises his role as Puss, and does a good a job as he always he does. Salma Hayek plays Kitty Softpaws, Puss's love interest and a master thief. She could take the shirt off your back so fast, it'd take you 10 seconds to realize you lost it. Hayek's not unfamiliar with working with Banderas, so she knows the right style of acting to choose with him. Zach Galifianakis plays Humpty Alexander Dumpty, and is pretty good in the role. Despite being in the Hangover movies with barely anything funny once in a while, he at least tries to give a pretty good performance. Guillermo del Toro has a pretty good cameo in the film, and it works out well, since he's also the executive producer of the film.

One more thing I want to talk about is the 3D in this film, and this film's in the category for good 3D. Animation. The animation in the film, while CG, is gorgeous. Dreamworks has a thing for making such well made animated films, becoming it's own stronghold for CG animation, along with some of their films to have some well done action. Sure, i still prefer hand drawn animation, but i'm not saying CG animation is bad. I'm just saying it's overused. But back to the 3D. Like i said, animated films are one of the only category in movies that work best for 3D. And for this, it looks amazing. Is it as good as Pixar 3D movies? No, but it's still worth it.

Overall, Puss in Boots is a fun family film that really knows how to be entertaining. It's comedy, action, and dark story all in one.

Just Go with It (2011)

Sandler's next film...is pretty basic.

[5 January 2012]

Honestly, i had expected everything that was coming from this movie. The premise, the resolution, most of the jokes...and i was happy about knowing it...Now, let me tell you this, real quick; Comedy is like one of my least favorite genres. why? well, when you see a good comedy, it's fantastic. when you see a bad movie, you can laugh at how bad it is. But with a bad comedy...NOTHING is funny about it. And i'll admit, this one made me laugh a lot, and was actually entertaining, for how well it was executed. The jokes was alright, there are some things that aren't really expected from this, and the acting, especially with the children, were good. I don't think i've seen kids act that well in a film with Adam Sandler, since Big Daddy, which was my first AND favorite Adam Sandler movie. But, other than that, it's nothing special. I wouldn't actually recommend this, but if you want to see it, then go for it.