ModestGeniusXL

Captain Phillips

You all are probably getting tired of me starting off posts with the obligatory apology about how I don't post out here often enough.  All 12 of you that still read these.  And you're growing weary of me always referring to all 12 of you.  You would think that with as infrequent as I post now that I could be more original.  I promise to do better in the future.  Until then, let this serve as a long-awaited entry.  About a movie, of course.

"Captain Phillips" is the latest flick to bring a huge news item to the big screen.  In 2009 the hijacking of the U.S. container ship Maersk Alabama by a crew of Somali pirates quickly became a national story.  But even moreso when it was learned how he was rescued.  Tom Hanks portrays the embattled captain as we see the story evolve through not only his eyes but also those of the Somali pirate captain, Muse (Barkhad Abdi). 

I remember the actual news story like it was yesterday.  Hard to believe that it took place nearly 5 years ago.  I would have thought there would have been a movie about long before now.  It seems like Lifetime has made a movie about every other traumatic news story that has taken place.  In this particular instance, I'm glad someone had sense enough to make it a big production to give it the justice that it deserved.  I can't even imagine what this would have been like filtered for a made-for-tv format.

One thing I never understood about the whole pirate issues in that particular sailing area is why the United States allows it to happen anyway.  I understand that there is no avoiding those particular travel routes.  They did an alright job of explaining that in the film.  They even showed the measures that the ships take to prevent hijackings.  What I don't get is would it really kill the U.S. to put just one trained armed soldier on those ships?  Maybe even two.  It would be too expensive to do that you say?  Well they sent a warship and a battle cruiser full of Navy seamen to get Captain Phillips.  Along with a Navy SEAL Team.  Now how much do you suppose all that cost?  I would say one soldier or two per ship would much more inexpensive.

I'm still not sure how I feel about them taking the time to go into a brief backstory with Muse.  At first I wondered how it was even possible because I thought all the pirates died.  Apparently not as he was captured and now in an American prison.  Still, I perceived that storyline as being an attempt to humanize the pirates so they didn't seem quite as faceless when they were inevitably killed.  But why?  Yes, there are several decent Somalis out there.  No, these guys weren't among them.  No need in trying to make us feel some compassion for the bad guys.

What I remember most about this story when it happened was hearing how SEAL snipers took out three pirates nearly simultaneously in that lifeboat.  I always thought that was pretty amazing.  However, I was also thinking of the old-fashioned lifeboat where there is a clear unobstructed view and no cover.  The thing the pirates had Phillips in was dang near like a submarine.  Hardly any clear view at all.  Yet these snipers were still able to get clean shots from a huge distance while the the boat bobbed up and down on the rough sea.  I had even more respect for them after discovering all that. 

But that was nothing compared to what Phillips did to aid his own rescue.  First, the fact that he was able to keep a calm head while still on the Maersk Alabama (by the way...where in the world did they come up with that name when they named it?) pretty much saved the entire crew.  Then he had the wherewithal to get the pirates worked up to the point where they made themselves better targets so that the SEALs could do their job.  Had he not done all that, this would have been a very different movie with an unhappy ending that wouldn't have played well with a lot of audiences.

There are a lot of stories r'ipped from today's headlines' that would not make good Hollywood movies.  "Captain Phillips" definitely was not one of them.  There was so much going on that we wouldn't have believed it had it not really happened.  Leave it to Hanks-- who has basically become the king of leading men depicting real life stories --to give us a Hollywood portrayal that glorifies the actual events the way they deserve.


My rating:  A -

Gravity

How long has it been since we have seen a good dramatic film about space?  I would have to go back as far as "Armageddon".  And even that one got crucified by the critics.  This one, on the other hand, they loved.  Probably because it was MUCH more scientifically realistic.  Or maybe because it had George Clooney in it and he can seemingly do no wrong.  I could care less.  I just wanted to see how they were going to get out of that predicament that was shown in the trailers.

In "Gravity", Dr. Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock) is a brilliant medical engineer on her first shuttle mission with veteran astronaut Matt Kowalksy (Clooney).  They are supposed to be on a seemingly routine spacewalk.  However, when a satellite explosion on the other side of the earth's orbit causes a chain reaction that endangers the mission, disaster strikes.  In a matter of seconds, the shuttle is destroyed and Stone and Kowalsky are left to fend for themselves.

A dilemma that movies like this one will face immediately is the fact that the actors have to be good enough to carry the story by themselves for extended periods of time.  All alone.  Almost like Hanks in "Cast Away".  If they don't have the same type of charisma, it can lull the viewer to sleep.  Clooney does have that.  Bullock is hit and miss.  And her character here was a little on the dull side.  I almost feel like they had to come up with a way to her get scantily clad so there was something else to keep us interested in watching.

My biggest problem was the convenient coincidences that were created in order to perpetuate the story.  So supposedly an explosion took place that caused debris to destroy their space shuttle.  Then how come that same debris didn't take out both of the space stations that they were trying to make it to?  Okay...sure it did eventually, but it just so happened to not take place until Stone got what she needed from the space station.  And would she really be able to navigate through an operating manual so easily to navigate a spaceship she's never been in before? 

After the explosion that left them stranded, the film moved rather slowly.  Even slower after one of the astronauts was left alone.  I don't want to spoil too much (even though I probably just did) so I won't divulge which one.  But come on now...I'm sure we've all seen enough disaster movies by now to know that both of them weren't going to make it back alive.  Still, when it got down to one, the pace slowed down considerably and I was nearly put to sleep.  It's not like there was fantastic scenery to keep one stimulated. 

I've come to the conclusion that sites and/or critics like "Rotten Tomatoes" and myself clearly are not on the same page.  There has been few instances when I have agreed with a film that received a glowing review like "Gravity".  Or maybe I just went in expecting too much.  I thought I was getting "Cast Away" in space.  That would have been an excellent flick.  Not this snorefest where the best moments are given away in the trailers.


My rating:  C -

 

 

Kick Ass 2

Has it really been since September 21st since my last post here?  Man, I suck.  That's all my bad people.  I really have no excuse either.  Haven't had a shoot in a minute and finished my last editing over a week ago.  Oh wait...there was that whole "Breaking Bad" marathon that I embarked upon.  And I actually planned to do a "Battlestar Galactica" marathon after the conclusion of that so good thing I finally got an update on here before that.  And what do I post?  Well a movie review, of course.

In "Kick-Ass 2", we find that  his heroic antics having inspired a citywide wave of masked vigilantes, Kick-Ass (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) joins their ranks to help clean up the streets, only to face a formidable challenge when the vengeful Red Mist (Christopher Mintz-Plasse) transforms himself into the world's first super villain with a new name that you have to see for yourself to believe.  As for Hit Girl (Chloë Grace Moretz) she tries to hang up her Hit Girl uniform to do the high school thing at the request of her guardian Detective Marcus Williams (Morris Chestnut).  It doesn't quite work for her though.  So it's just a matter of time before she joins with Kick-Ass to help thwart the city's new threat.

I barely caught this one before it left theaters.  And the timing could not have been better.  My dude Big E was in town visiting for work.  It's always been a tradition that we check out a movie when one of us visits the other.  As long as time permits.  A superhero flick like this one was right down our alley.  It didn't even bother us that this one was getting ripped by the critics.  Sometimes  what makes a movie enjoyable is the company you keep while you watch it.

There were some issues that I couldn't help but overlook.  Like how the police put out an imitative to arrest any masked/costumed adult in an effort to catch criminals but they only seemed to be locking up good guys.  Then to make the plotholes worse, when Kick-Ass and Hit Girl send out a message on the internet soliciting new allies for a massive end game battle, oddly enough, no police authorities ever catch wind of that.  Close to 200 costumed/masked folks squaring off in a free-for-all brawl and the police have no tips whatsoever?  Yeah...ok.

The biggest problem though was how independent they made Hit Girl. Not from a personality standpoint (which was totally understandable) but financially.  How was she able to afford a secret hideout stockpiled with a plethora of every weapon imaginable.  Maybe she just found a way to relocate everything after Big Daddy (Nicholas Cage) died in the first one?  How would that have even been logistically possible at her age and size?  And then there's also the CUSTOM crotch rocket she had.  That was a bit much.

I can forgive all that because of the other things this flick had going for it.  Like both Jim Carey and Donald Faison playing masked vigilantes.  The two of them are already comical enough as it is.  Give them a disguise where they're playing adults dressed up to fight crime and you've just given them (and us) early Christmas presents.

The best part was how they stepped up the violence a notch in the sequel.  That was to be expected since you have to go harder with any sequel.  However, I did not think they would take it to the extremes to which they did.  I don't want to spoil it for the few of you that may actually see this, but just keep in mind they had no problem killing off a major actor in the first one.  Just the overall amount of blood and violence in this one put the first one to shame.  Honestly, I was okay with that.  I mean it is rated-R.  Might as well earn that rating.

"Kick-Ass 2" did have a different vibe than its predecessor.  It wasn't quite as darkly playful.  It was certainly dark and there were definitely humorous moments, they just didn't mesh it together as well as the first movie did.  Still, that didn't make this sequel nearly as disjointed as critics were slamming it for.  Although nowhere near the classic that the first one was, it was still rather fulfilling.


My rating:  C+

 

A Couple of Flicks

Technically, I could have squeezed three reviews into this post.  But that would have made this one a tad too long.  Then the dozen people that actually still read this blog would have gotten turned off.  We certainly don't want that.  So I'm keeping this one confined to a quick review on two films I saw a while ago that I'm just now getting around to.  As usual, you can blame XL-Images on the delay.  To be honest, I wouldn't mind more delays like that.  There haven't been enough of them since relocating to Texas.  That's another post altogether though.  Anyways...

You're Next
I would have never seen this movie based off the couple of trailers that I initially saw.  It looked like nothing more than an under-glorified version of the much better done (and higher budgeted) "The Strangers".  The one thing that this had going for it was I didn't particularly like the ending of "Strangers".  Would this ripoff get it right?  And would it perhaps surprise me all around since it was getting rave reviews (according to commercials for the movie) calling it "Absolutely horrifying!"  In short...not so much.

I will give them credit for doing an excellent job of starting it off with a bang with a great opening murder sequence.  Unfortunately, that was probably the only thing this joint had going for it.  The acting from WAY too many for the main characters was horrendous.  Like the dad supposedly being so distraught over his wife getting killed that he breaks down bawling yet not shedding a single year.  The acting was so bad that it got to the point that I was looking forward to folks getting killed off.  Just so they could stop torturing us.

The plot of "You're Next" wasn't too predictable.  If you were five-years-old.  Even I was able to finger the culprits behind the murders not even 15 minutes into it.  Okay...maybe it took about 20.  However long it was, it was still too transparent.  And it was about the furthest thing from "horrifying" that you could get.  It turns out that this was an indie flick that somehow got major studio funding expecting us to accept the cheesiness for a legitimate horror film.  I've even seen indies done better.  This one could have easily waited for cable.

My rating: D

We're the Millers
Jason Sudekis has finally gotten to the point where I know him by name instead of just "that one funny guy from SNL".  Even though I still need to double check on how to spell his name.  But just the fact that he has that name recognition with me now is proof of the fact of how I reliable he has now gotten with putting out good products.  Seeing this one wasn't entirely a no-brainer, but his involvement certainly helped the decision.

I probably shouldn't waste one paragraph alone on Jennifer Aniston in what will turn out to be an abbreviated review.  However, her performance here really deserves it.  Does she yet have it takes to be funny off a "Friends" set?  Well she displayed as much in "Horrible Bosses".  She did it a little bit here.  What she did more than anything else was show us that she's taking pretty dang good care of herself at 44-years-old. 

The best parts of this movie were easily the ones you see in the trailers.  With the exception of one involving a spider bite where one of the funniest lines from the previews was inexplicably cut from the actual movie.  There are still a few good laughs here and there though.  Thanks mostly to a pretty good cast surrounding Sudekis and Aniston.  Especially my man Nick Offerman of "Parks and Rec" fame.  And Ed Helms being consistent as usual.  Although the trite road trip formula doesn't get refreshed much here, it at least has moments where it is refreshingly amusing.

My rating:  C+

 

 

 

The Wolverine

Yet another one that I really had no desire to see.  Which is rather ironic because Wolverine has actually always been one of my favorite X-Men.  Second only to Nightcrawler.  Who really needs to to get his own movie, by the way.  Especially since they left him out of "X-Men 3" with no explanation as to why not even a cameo.  But the thing is I wanted to see more X-Men than just Wolverine.  And I got the distinct feeling from the trailers that it would be Hugh Jackman carrying the film.  I do love me some Marvel though so I eventually ended up caving. 

"The Wolverine" takes place shortly after the events of "X-Men 3".  Logan (Jackman) is back in the familiar stomping grounds of his Canadian countryside as he tries to gain some semblance of normalcy.  He gets summoned to Japan by an old acquaintance whose life he once saved.  What should have been a brief visit evolves into Logan protecting a fragile Japanese heiress (Tao Okamuto) while his impromptu bodyguard Yukio (Rila Fukushima) tries to keep a deadly premonition from coming true.

The crucial element driving this particular storyline was the fact that Logan has his healing power taken from him.  It was an interesting concept to delve into since we have never gotten a chance before this to see how Logan would behave if he was more mortal.  However, there were a couple of things about it that I wasn't feeling.  First and foremost was the manner in which he lost it.  He comes into contact with the villain Viper (Svetlana Khodchenkova) who is the one responsible for making it happen.  But that's not even her forte.  Why didn't they get another villain who was known for that capability?  One that also would have been better known to us Marvel oldheads like Leech?  Yes, it would not have then fit with the plot line they were trying to establish, but they could have just went another route.

Also, there was a factual misstep they made when Logan was without his healing factor.  He would keep getting battle wounds that would cause scars.  Then when he would unsheath his claws, those wounds still heal.  Anyone who knows anything about Wolverine knows that everytime his claws come out they pierce his skin.  It just automatically heals when they go back in because of his healing ability.  Without it, there should have been scars on his knuckles.  Not to mention that it should have hurt him when they came out.  They never addressed either.  Big mistake.  Okay...thanks for staying with me for that nerd moment.

I guess technically there were other Marvel characters in this one.  I have personally never heard of Viper and she was pretty prevalent as one of the main villains.  I have never been a fan of the Silver Samurai since he was really just a big robot and there's nothing really superhero-ish about that so his climatic battle scene with Wolverine didn't really do much for me.  The cameos of Jean Grey (Famke Janssen) were nice even if she never displayed any of her powers.  But the scene stealers with their cameos (albeit the end credits) was both Professor X (Patrick Stewart) and Magneto (Ian McKellan).  Their brief moment made the whole movie worth it.

I wasn't as disappointed with "The Wolverine" was I thought I would be.  It did reinforce the fact that Jackman can't carry an entire film by himself as the Wolverine character.  It was obvious that it was all set up for him to do so since it was essentially a no-name cast with him.  However, those unknowns didn't do too shabby in helping to make this one a little interesting.  Still, if they are going to inundate us with a fifth Wolverine film then it would serve them well to make sure to put some other known mutants in it.  Although I'd probably still end up caving again anyway and seeing another installment in theaters.


My rating:  C+

Chernobyl Diaries

How has there not been a horror movie made about this place before now?  Or was there one that came out in the 80s that I don't remember?  Pretty sure even if it was a terrible horror movie that I would have recalled it.  Especially since it would have been released during the heyday of scary movies.  Yet it took a 2012 flick to fully utilize one of the easiest horror movie concepts? 

"Chernobyl Diaries"  follows a group of six young vacationers who, looking to go off the beaten path, hire an "extreme" tour guide. Ignoring warnings, he takes them into the city of Pripyat, the former home to the workers of the Chernobyl nuclear reactor, but a deserted town since the disaster more than 25 years ago. After a brief exploration of the abandoned city, however, the group soon finds themselves stranded, only to discover that they are not alone.

There were only two reasons that I even bothered with this.  The first being that it was another original story Oren Peli.  The same cat who brought us the first "Paranormal Activity".  And I still maintain that folks either loved that or hated it. I loved it.  Enough that I was willing to give this joint a look.  Even though it was clear he was biting the same shaky-cam, pseudo faux documentary look that made his first movie a success.  But it doesn't translate to every movie.  The second and most obvious reason was it coming on HBO.  I was bored so I watched it.

Call me stupid, but I couldn't understand why someone would want to do an extreme tour of a place that was a nuclear disaster anyway.  So what if it was 25 years later?  Would you want to run the risk of assuming that it's safe from all the radiation?  Not sure I would even take the chance if I was an impetuous college coed who thinks he's invincible.  But at least they were smart enough to do it during the day.  Not realizing, of course, they would end up getting stuck there at night.

The sad thing is that they had a pretty great premise to be begin with in the first place.  The location just screamed of the possibility of having some type of nuclear disfigured zombies roaming around.  Possibly even in the daytime.  But they never really take full advantage of it.  They spend so much time trying to rely on that documentary-type format to give you authentic-looking shocks that there is nothing really shocking about it. 

After investing an hour and a half into "Chernobyl Diaries", I can't help but think they would have been better off cashing in on the concept when the place was still relevant.  It would have added a bigger creepy factor to it.  It wouldn't even matter if the effects wouldn't have been as good since they didn't have the technology then that have now.  It's not like they utilized it here anyway.  This was just about as scary as "The Princess Diaries".


My rating:  D+

 

Jobs

Yeah...G and I had a bit of a movie marathon this past weekend.  It helped give him something to do to take his mind off the whole huge gash in the arm thing.  Wait...did I fail to share that story out here?  I sure did.  It will still have to wait.  This post is supposed to be a movie review.  Not an entry about how G manned up while getting 9 stitches.

"Jobs" is Hollywood's latest foray into the biopic genre.  This time in the form of the story behind the genius that was Apple co-founder Steve Jobs (Ashton Kutcher).  The movie details his ascension from college dropout to one of the most revered creative entrepreneurs we have seen in our lifetime.  Even if we don't get to see how he actually came up with some of his now best known inventions like the iPod and eventually the iPhone.  But we'll get into that later.

Speaking of G, he surprised me once again with his eagerness to see something like this that I thought wouldn't be his cup of tea.  He never seems so much into the informational programs that I watch on TV.  Ok...granted they are shows like "Snapped" and "Celebrity Crime Files".  Still, I just didn't think he would be too much into biopics.  I underestimated the fact that his fascination with Apple products like the iPhone, iPod and the iPad was the reason why he had an interest in a flick about the driving force behind those.

I have never read the book about Steve Jobs, but I had a sneaky suspicion what to expect.  I imagined it wasn't far off from the story about how Mark Zuckerberg made Facebook a juggernaut.  Meaning in order to make it happen, dude had to pretty much be a world class jerk and probably screw over a friend or two.  That's exactly what we got.  That doesn't make it all predictable though.  I was interested to see how and in what capacity Jobs did those so they didn't disappoint in that regard.

Jobs was not a very likable person.  At all.  Not in his personal life and certainly not in his professional life.  What we see is a man that is so obsessed with perfection that he's willing to achieve it at any cost.  He seems to have very little regards for the feelings he hurts, the lives he tarnishes and certainly not the bank accounts he empties.  But given everything that Apple had accomplished under his regime, is that really surprising?  And do any of us regular schmoes really care he was like that as long as our Apple products are superior like they're supposed to be?  Heck no on both accounts. 

I know very little about what Jobs was like in his younger years.  I'm not sure many folks that aren't devout Apple geeks would.  Therefore, it's not fair me to say how much Kutcher had actually channeled him.  I just wouldn't know.  I know from Jobs' later years that the one thing he did have down was  Jobs' trademark slouchy-hunched gait.  But as far as his personality?  No clue.  More than anything, unless he was walking, all I kept seeing while watching that movie was Ashton Kutcher.  I didn't really get so much the feeling he was Jobs except for the very brief glimpse they showed of him as the latter day version complete with the gray hair and beard.

There were a couple of things that were very disappointing for me and even G.  They did not go far enough into Jobs' life.  Because of that, we never got to see what all went into the development of the touch screen technology Apple innovated.  How do you not touch on that when that was the most game-changing technology that we have seen in perhaps decades?  But more importantly for me was the fact that they didn't even address the cancer thing.  I would have loved to get a peek behind the scenes to see how he dealt with the discovery of it and then his eventual passing.  Finding a way to incorporate those crucial facets of his life would have been worth it for them to spend less time on his co-founding, exile and return to prominence with Apple.

It seemed that placing the meat of the film in that finite moment of Jobs' life didn't permit Kutcher to expand his range as much as he could have.  So the fact that it appeared Kutcher was more Kutcher than Jobs wasn't entirely his fault.  Because of that gaping hole that didn't get filled, once "Jobs" came to an end both G and I both had that "That was it??" feeling.  That should never happen with a film.  Especially a biopic.  It's not like there will be a "Jobs 2".


My rating: C +

 

The Butler

If I wanted to be completely accurate, I would have prefaced the title of this one by putting "Lee Daniels'", but y'all know how I feel about that.  Not that I'm saying Daniels has that same Tyler Perry complex where he feels the need to remind everyone that he made something.  It's just annoying to me whenever filmmakers do that as it's an attempt to upstage the work itself.  That being said...let us get on with the more important business of the review itself...

"The Butler" tells the story of White House butler Cecil Gaines (Forest Whitaker) who served eight American presidents over three decades. The film traces the dramatic changes that swept American society during this time, from the civil rights movement to Vietnam and beyond, and how those changes affected this man's life and family.

First and foremost, I must say that as soon asI found out this was yet another film that would showcase important moments of Black history, I wanted to make sure my sons would see it.  Before I could even mention the idea, G expressed to me that he wanted to check it out.  There wasn't even any persuasion needed from me.  That made me feel extremely good knowing that a movie of this stature was something he wanted to see at his age.  It made me feel that I'm doing something right.

It was rather impressive was the parade of well-known established actors that Daniels was able to get to portray the different Presidents depicted in this one.  They included Robin Williams as Dwight Eisenhower, John Cusack as Richard Nixon, Alan Rickman as Ronald Reagan, James Marsden as John F. Kennedy, Liev Schreiber as Lyndon B. Johnson.  What was even more notable was how good all of them were in their roles as the respective Presidents.  Not dead-on ringers, but certainly very believable in every instance.

Watching Cecil deal with the duality of his butler role and his home life gave me a whole different respect for the domestic servant role.  It was almost like a male version of "The Help" as we are shown how difficult it was for our ancestors to hold their tongues in the interest of maintaining a sustainable source of income for their household.  It had to be especially difficult for someone like Cecil when we see what life experiences he had to go through before ultimately getting into that position.

I was intrigued to see how Oprah Winfrey would come through with her role as Cecil's wife.  It's not like she had to prove herself since we all know she had it in her; it's just that it has been so long since we've seen her in a featured role that I was thinking she may be a little rusty.  Apparently not.  She gave us a character that ended up leaving you conflicted with how to feel about her.  She wasn't the best wife she could be in the beginning, but was it entirely her fault?  Regardless, she stuck with her man through thick and thin which had him doing the same.  All while dealing with children that didn't always agree with the traditional values the two of them rightfully tried to teach.

The rest of the supporting cast was nothing less than phenomenal.  The one who threatened to upstage everyone though was David Oyelowo as Louis Gaines.  He was absolutely polarizing with every minute of screen time he had.  Especially watching his gradual transformation from a restless teen to a social conscious college coed to militant youth until he eventually become the mature community-focused politician.  Oyelowo brought so much depth to the character that no matter which phase of his life was in you were still able to empathize with him in some way.  You could always see that his heart was in the right place, just not always getting there the way it should.

As much as Oyelowo stood out, he wasn't alone.  Just when you thought you could write off Cuba Gooding, Jr. for no Academy Award performances since "Jerry Maguire", he comes through as the White House lead butler.  And I never would have thought Lenny Kravitz was able to be so convincing that I would forget who he was even was.  But it also helped that they made him look a little heavier.  What was up with him looking like he had three necks??

I knew going in that there would be some emotional moments in this one.  I wouldn't expect anything less from the man who brought us "Precious".  However, I had no idea it would come in the form of a scene that touched so close to home.  It was when Cecil was witnessing the inauguration of our nation's first Black President.  It instantly had me thinking of the conversation I had with Popoo shortly after it actually happened.  I became overwhelmed with a mixture of all the beautiful Popoo memories combined with the feeling that everyone from his generation would have experienced as a result of the monumental occasion of that inauguration. 

Now I know I said that I didn't think any other movie could come close to being as good as "Fruitvale Station".  That may have been a bit premature.  I failed to realize that 2013 is a year where we are getting inundated with an unusual amount of quality Black films.  That's keeping in mind that we still have "The Best Man Christmas" and "Black Nativity" on the horizon.  In the meantime, I'm looking at a year where I could very well have a tie for the best movie of the year.


My rating:  A

The Apparation

Sometimes the name of a movie alone is enough to entice you.  Only if you're a fan of the genre.  It would at least be enough for you to read the synopsis to see if you would be interested.  That was the case here.  It also helped that the movie poster for it looked so amazing.  Could it be that I would find a hidden gem of a horror movie that I had somehow overlooked?  Well there was only one way to find out.

In "The Apparition", young couple Kelly (Ashley Greene) and Ben (Sebastian Stan) begin encountering frightening events in their home.  They discover they are being haunted by a presence that was "accidentally" conjured during a university parapsychology experiment. The horrifying apparition feeds on their fear and torments them no matter where they try to run. Their last hope is an expert in the supernatural, Patrick (Tom Felton), but even with his help they may already be too late to save themselves from this terrifying force.

It was an interesting move to start the film out with the actual experiment itself.  The problem was there wasn't a lot of backstory put into who this apparition was.  In fact, there was none whatsoever.  We just see this old picture of this creepy looking guy and know that he's the one they're trying to channel.  No explanation as to who he is, why they chose him or anything.  It would have helped to give us something about him like he murdered his entire family and the neighbors and the body was never found.  Something besides just the fact that he looked creepy.  But to be fair, dude had that part done easy.

The "accidentally" part was in quotes because it's obvious they released the evil presence on purpose.  In fact, that part was a blatant ripoff from "Ghostbusters".  They wanted to somehow store it in some special device that contains evil spirits once they were able to get it into our world.  Now why in the world would anyone in their right mind think anything good come of attempting something like that?  But they are college kids who don't know any better.  And if they did know better then we wouldn't have a movie.

Actually, there wasn't much that was original to this flick.  They seemed to borrow a little from a lot of different horror movies that were done much better.  Attempting to capture a ghost like "Ghostbusters". Strange things start happening around the house to freak them out like "Paranormal Activity".  They employ the concept that the apparition haunts them wherever they go like "The Grudge".  Now that I think about it, there were several more instances that were a little too "Grudge"-like.  Even the movie poster leans that way.

I will give them credit that there were a few decent scares in "The Apparation".  However, it's not as though they did it through any original initative of their own.  It wasn't bad for a B-budget movie that was a free watch on cable, but clearly the movie poster was the best thing about the flick.


My rating:  C -

 

 

Here Comes the Boom

Almost forgot to do a review of this one.  Fortunately, I saw it coming on cable again and I was reminded that I still hadn't spoken on it.  And the fact that I watched a second viewing of it was a good indicator of where you can foresee this post going.

In "Here Comes the Boom", former collegiate wrestler Scott Voss (Kevin James) is a 42-year-old apathetic biology teacher in a failing high school. When cutbacks threaten to cancel the music program and lay off its teacher (Henry Winkler,) Scott begins to raise money by moonlighting as a mixed martial arts fighter. Everyone thinks Scott is crazy - most of all the school nurse, Bella (Salma Hayek) - but in his quest, Scott gains something he never expected as he becomes a sensation that rallies the entire school.

I've made no bones about the fact that James has become one of my favorite actors.  He's on that virtual list I have of must-sees whenever an actor/actress puts a movie out.  At least until he or she starts making joints that put that are questionable.  Then I have to start using more discretion before I invest the time in their work.  Halle Berry is a prime example of the latter.  But for now, James is doing just fine.

It was nice how James was able to get a little more fit so he at least looked believable in this role.  I'm no MMA expert by any stretch of the imagination, but from what I've seen from highlights, the James of the "King of Queens" days was not going to be winning any MMA matches.  I couldn't even see him getting on any fight cards.  Who would book him?  However, he had slimmed down a bit here, looking like he could really hang if he had to.

One thing that still bothered me was how he was getting paid for each fight.  His loses his very first fight and gets paid $750.  Where do they do that?  I know cats that have been doing low-level MMA for a bit and they don't make that kind of loot.  Especially in a losing effort.  If it was like that, why wouldn't every Joe Schmoe be getting in on the action?  Heck, I'd even take a chance in a fight or two if I knew I would make that much just for losing.

I don't think I can ever get used to Henry Winkler playing the meek characters that he's been mastering in his later years.  I understand that he's gotten good at it.  So good that we've become accustomed to seeing him like that.  So good that we can tend to forget that he was Fonzie.  Can he at least get one role where he's and older version of Fonzie?  I mean I'm not asking him to bust out with the old cool tough guy  niche that Sam Elliott has got pinned down, but at least once it would be good to see more than just a glimpse of the Fonzie we all know and love.

If you have seen any trailers at all for "Here Comes the Boom" then you can pretty much already correctly guess that the plot is predictable.  Still, James successfully delivers yet another likable character filled with so many quirky and laughable moments that only someone of his caliber can deliver.  And just like that, his streak with me continues.


My rating:  B