ModestGeniusXL

Battleship

I can't front and not admit that I was one of the biggest doubters of this flick when I first saw the trailer.  I had been saying for the longest that it was nothing more than Michael Bay's attempt to give us some filler until the next "Transformers" movie hits.  Well I still stand by that.  Nevertheless, I found myself with some spare time one afternoon and after seeing some folks talking about the great effects, I caved and decided to see it.

"Battleship" appeared to have a bit of a misleading name since it is VERY loosely based on the famous Hasbro game that we are all familiar with.  This super-budget movie involves a fleet of Navy vessels that are out doing war game manuevers when they encounter an armada of unknown origins set on destructive goals.  It turns out the alien life came to earth due to a signal we had sent out years ago in search of intelligent life.  Now that they have arrived, it's up to a select few Navy vessels to make sure they don't bring about the extinction of the human race.

My problem with this movie from the onset was the same that I'm sure many people had.  Anyone that grew up with this game knows full well it was never about any alien lifeform.  They never even specified what type of Navies were involved.  It was just two regular Navies going at it.  And the trailers to "Battleship" don't seem to indicate anything remotely close to the type of action the game portrays.  To their credit, there is one scene in the movie where they finally key in to the element of the game.  It doesn't last very long and it is reaching quite a bit (as much of the film does), but at least they did incorporate it.

Being such a huge "Friday Night Lights" fan I unfortunately became dismayed the minute I found out that Riggins (Taylor Kitsch...but he will always be Riggins to me) was in the starring role.  He just hasn't been able to sell me on any movie he's been in ever since seeing him on "FNL".  It certainly didn't help that they tried to pass him off as Gambit in the "Wolverine" movie.  That was bad enough, but trying to make us believe that he's a Lieutenant in the Navy?  Come on now.

I go into every action flick knowing to expect some bit of corniness.  It just comes with the genre.  This one just had a bit more than most.  It seemed like every few minutes they were trying to implement some.  Just once I'd like to see an action flick where they leave that out altogether and let the action speak for itself.  But when you have a movie where Rihanna is playing a Naval Petty Officer then you can pretty much guarantee the corniness will be at an all-time high.

The special effects were very much on point.  They definitely make sure they got their money's worth from the $209 million budget spent on making "Battleship".  The alien warships featured throughout the movie were all very impressive.  Especially once they started engaging in action.  Now the actual aliens themselves?  That's another story altogether.  Apparently there wasn't a lot of thought that went into their appearance.  Or time put into their CGI.  I guess $209 million doesn't go as far as used to.

Don't go into "Battleship" expecting to see Oscar award-winning performances.  In spite of the fact that Liam Neeson is on board who evidently just wanted an extra paycheck.  It's your standard popcorn fluff designed to optimize a theater's HD screens and surround sound for more summer filler.  Although the 2 hours, 11 minutes was not an entire waste of time it would have been better spent just watching "Avengers" for a second time.


My rating:  C -

 

 

The Avengers

Aren't we going on now the third weekend that this has been out?  So someone that wouldn't know any better would think that I just saw this today.  Au contraire.  I actually peeped a matinee of this opening day.  Not the midnight showing that I wanted because I wanted to see it with my son who I wasn't going to have out that late despite how much he wanted to.  So most of you probably have already seen this reviewed to death.  That's all good..but you haven't seen MY review yet.  Until now...

The plot is the same story as every other superhero movie that has come out.  There's a madman trying to take over the world and the heroes have to save it.  This flick's baddie is Thor's half-brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston).  The heroes are an initiative that we've seen being hinted at as a super-group for the past several Marvel movies now.  Something that I must say was rather impressive of Marvel to be able to assemble the original cast from all those films in order to make this happen.  Except, of course, for the Hulk (Mark Ruffalo here) who is now on the third different actor to play him.

I had been apprehensive for a while about them trying to bring the Avengers to the big screen. Primarily because I was a huge X-Men fan growing up.  The Avengers were just okay to me.  The only two I really liked were Hawkeye and Vision and I already knew Vision wasn't going to even be in the film.  But the one thing that gave me hope was the animated Avengers movies that came out in 2006 called "Ultimate Avengers".  I figured if they could find a way to pull off a live version of that then there was a chance "Avengers" could be worth it's mettle.  The technology was not there so the effects shouldn't be an issue.  Then the trailers started providing me even more encouragement.  All it had to do from that point was just live up to the hype.

Where the Avengers benefits is the fact that they didn't have to spend a lot of time on any backstories.  That's what held up the first X-Men movie a little.  Marvel thought ahead and already told all those stories in the "Thor", "Captain America" and "Iron Man" flicks.  So all there was here was to actually bring them together.  The manner in which that was done was handled brilliantly.  Common sense would tell you that folks with those kind of super powers would have super egos that would not instantly mesh.  Thank goodness because their initial in-fighting was some of the best parts of the film.

It looked for a minute there that Iron Man was going to steal the show.  Downey Jr. probably had some of the best one-liners in this one so he had the comedy element down.  However, it was the Hulk that really took over once the action started.  The good thing was it wasn't as though he fully dominated those sequences.  It was extremely well balanced in having all the heroes action just as spectacular as the others.  Okay...except maybe fore Black Widow (Scarlett Johannson).  But to be fair, her powers pale in comparison to her teammates.  Plus, when you have Johannson in that role, she really doesn't need to do much.  Just put thee camera on her and you're good.

I will admit that I also had some reservations about having Loki as the main villain.  Is that even how it is in the comics?  I just remember him being Thor's adversary but not the entire Avengers team.  It didn't matter though.  Hiddleston made that Loki character very entertaining to watch.  Not an easy task given the fact that the writers gave us yet another tired storyline of bad guys trying to channel alien beings to our planet for an invasion.  Seriously...can Hollywood please scrap that tired plot already?  Anyway, Hiddleston's Loki was the perfect combination of insanely maniacal while still witty enough to be somewhat likable.

The bottomline is would the average person who doesn't like superhero movies like "The Avengers"?  Well it's certainly no "Dark Knight" that has that type of appeal.  However, I would venture to say that this was the best movie that Marvel has made to date.  And given how much I liked "X2" as well as "Spider-Man 2", that is saying a lot.


Rating:  A

Cabin in the Woods

I'm still trying to figure out why Hollywood has been on this kick lately where they feel the urge to release horror movies so far away from Halloween.  It wouldn't be so bad if they worked it out so that there were some coming out during Halloween season too, but that hasn't been the case lately.  So here I am faced with the decision to see a horror movie on Easter weekend?  Didn't seem quite right, but with the normally uptight site Rotten Tomatoes giving it a good rating there I was at a matinee of "Cabin in the Woods".

The story is that five friends go off to a cabin in the middle of nowhere.  Because you know any good horror movie has to involve at least five friends going off to the middle of nowhere.  Although it doesn't always necessarily be in the woods, it certainly does help.  An entire "Friday the 13th" franchise was based on it.  All 13 movies.  An entire franchise can't be wrong, can it?

Anyway, I don't want to give too much away on this one for the folks who haven't seen it and genuinely want to.  However, I have to touch on some of the secrets in order to accurately analyze it.  If you've seen any of the trailers at all, you already know the cabin isn't what it seems to be.  That the kids were sent there as a set up.  Probably for them all to die.  My question is, who really still goes out to a cabin in the middle of the woods anyway?  Don't people watch movies?  And if you do that, why in the world would you mess around with stuff in there which is OBVIOUSLY weird??

It was too bad that the one sound voice of reason in that instance was the kid who smoked weed.  Almost sending a message to the kids watching that movie that weed will help you escape a murdering spree.  Okay, that is reaching, but it was predictable that he was the only one who was thinking clearly.  It's rather ironic because of all the actors in the movie he was probably the one that did the worst job.

I will give "Cabin in the Woods" props for keeping you guessing.  I thought I had it figured out exactly what the place was and it's purpose early on.  It turns out I was wrong and wasn't able to figure it out until deep into the flick.  However, they lose much points for biting from a "Blade" movie concept that any "Blade" fan will pick up on immediately when they see this one.

As of the writing of this post, "Rotten Tomatoes" has this rated at 92%.  One of the highest ratings they've had which isn't an easy feat for a site that's notoriously stingy with their ratings.  I think they were off the mark on this one though.  "Cabin in the Woods" had its moments.  Particularly the free-for-all that showcased the finale.  It also had some pretty bad-arse monsters.  Ultimately, I personally wasn't a fan of the blatant "Blade" ripoff that was pretty much the premise of the film though.  Or the prevalent subpar acting.  It was probably best they put this out now instead of getting hopes up at Halloween time.


My rating:  B -

More Movies

Well looks like I did it again.  I've been so busy shooting and editing and working that I didn't have time to get you an update on some flicks that I've checked out.  Major releases too.  Probably ones that may have even deserved their own separate entries.  Alas, they will have to share a post due to time constraints.  Since none of them teetered on classic status, it only seems appropriate anyway.

Wrath of the Titans
I should have known they were going to do a sequel to "Clash of the Titans".  It was only common   sense.  The problem was it meant they had to come up with their own original story.  The problem with that the story just wasn't that good.  I personally have never been a fan of the whole concept that Zeus and Hades had a father who was the most powerful of all the gods.  Is that really the way that Greek mythology went?  I could have sworn that I always learned that Zeus was the most powerful of all the gods and that was that.  At any rate, "Wrath" gave them an opportunity to bring back Kronos as the nemesis here.  And not a very good one.  The effects used on him were over the top ridiculous.

Outside of Kronos, the other effects in "Wrath" weren't all that bad.  Even though they spilled most of the good ones in the previews.  I was expecting to see more then realized that the movie wasn't long enough to put in a whole lot more.  At 99 minutes, it felt like it was over before it even started.  That was probably for the best though.  It was just long enough to put it some good special effects yet just short enough to not be subjected to too much of weak storyline.  And I'm even more mad that theater I saw it in only had it available in 3D when the 3D effects were pretty much non-existent.  You'll be good to wait for Redbox for this one.

Rating:  C

 

American Reunion
I have  many self-imposed rules that I follow when it comes to movies.  One of them being that when a series that I loved does a reunion type film then I have to see it.  Even if the trailer doesn't look like it will be that good.  But especially in the case of the "American Pie" films where they brought back the entire cast.  How can any "American Pie" fan pass that up?  I went in fully expecting not too much at all.  That's exactly what I got.  Not that it means I was disappointed by any stretch.  It was still great seeing the entire cast complete with even the minor characters all together again.

It dawned on me that I was watching "American Reunion" that I'm getting too old to appreciate those raunchy teenage films anymore anyway.  Probably why I have no desire to see "Project X" (even though I feel compelled to watch it at some point).  It's just difficult watching those type of flicks knowing I have children that age and knowing I wouldn't want the behaving that way.  I admire the fact that "Reunion" briefly touched on the whole "we're too old for this" concept.  Made me feel a little better about having the urge to watch a movie which reunited a cast that rejuvenated the R-rated raunchiness in Hollywood.  There were a few genuine laugh out loud moments but too much was forced.  Another one that would be a decent Redbox rental.

Ratings:  C+

 

21 Jump Street
I have to admit that I had NO desire to see this in theaters.  The trailers didn't really look all that great.  Even though  I've been a big Jonah Hill fan ever since he's been a big Jonah Hill, they just weren't impressing me.  Maybe it was because I still remember the original show and was not a fan of them tampering with yet another cool thing from my childhood.  And then I started seeing that it was actually getting good reviews?  Even Rotten Tomatoes had it rated in the 80% range.  Well that moved it up on the radar more.  Before you know it, I was throwing down primetime money to see if it was worth the hype.

I'm not 100% sold that Channing Tatum was the best choice for the role opposite Hill.  He may have been brought in for the eye candy appeal, but his comedic ability leaves a lot to be desired.  Perhaps that's why Hill wasn't as funny as he could have been because his co-star didn't give him a lot to work with?  That's probably a better argument then the silly perception that he's not as funny when he's thinner.  Although I definitely didn't feel this was some of Hill's best work, "Jump Street" did have its moments.  Surprisingly, Tatum was even involved in many of them.

What I personally wanted to get from this flick was the cameos from the original cast.  Seeing Holly Robinson, Peter Deluise and even Johnny Depp made the movie for me.  It would have been nice if they could have found some way to bring back the original captain (Steven Williams) too though.  Especially since I was NOT feeling Ice Cube's portrayal in that part at all.  But when you add the cameos they did have along with the efforts that both Hill and Tatum gave then you have a fairly solid film.  One at least worthy of matinee funds.

Rating:  B -

Real Steel

Well the Oscars have come and gone to be another year that I didn't achieve my goal of watching all the Best Movie contenders.  Not even close having seen only one of them.  That's going to happen though when I'm trying to keep busy doing pictures.  However, I did manage to finally watch this flick that could have very easily been an Oscar nominee as well.  In an alternate universe.

"Real Steel" takes place in the near-future where the sport of boxing has "evolved".  Human fighters have been replaced by robots and washed up fighters like Charlie Kenton (Hugh Jackman) are a thing of the past.  Since money is the only thing that motivates Charlie it's also all he sees when he finally meets his estranged son Max (Dakota Goyo).  Of course he can't pass up the opportunity to sign away his rights if he can make a good payday in exchange.  It's more money for him to finance his fighting bot career to pay off his betting debts.  But it's not long before he realizes what a great kid he is when Max's determination to make a championship contender out of a sparring bot inadvertently brings the two of them closer.

When you think of it, the premise of "Real Steel" isn't really that far-fetched.  Not the fact of these huge robots fighting so much because let's face it, the technology they depict is still pretty far off.  Boxing is pretty much already a dead sport.  Partially due to the emergence of MMA, but also due to the fact that it has been full of corrupt folks that don't have the fans' best interest at heart.  Maybe the next step would be to have fighting robots involved.  Even though they're controlled by humans so you would still run the risk of corruption getting involved.

I had intentionally stayed away from this one for a while for a couple of reasons.  The most obvious being that it was clearly obvious that they made this as "Transformers" filler.  When this was released were were still waiting for a new "Transformers" movie so Hollywood wanted something out there close to it.  You can't tell me they didn't fashion these robots after those and/or have them in mind when they made this.  Not that I'm mad at them.  When you got a good thing your ride it out.

The other reason was the blatant comparison that immediately came to mind when first seeing the trailer for this.  I'm sure the first thing that everyone (at least from my generation) thought of when they saw this was Rock n Sock 'Em robots.  I remember seeing this trailer in theaters and just knew they were trying to make the toys into a movie.  Why not?  They've got a "Battleship" flick coming out soon.  "G.I. Joe" is already on it's second film.  Toys usually make good movie fodder.

So one afternoon I was at Redbox with G and saw that in there.  I asked him if he wanted to see it.  He did so we checked it out.  I figured it couldn't have been all that bad since it did have Wolverine in it.  Plus, ironically, the same two reasons I was steering clear of it were also good reasons to see it.  I love me some Transformers.  I was always a Rock em Sock em robot fan.  And I have to admit that "Real Steel" was actually a rather decent flick.

I expected that Jackman would be on point, but I didn't know what to anticipate from the kid.  He was probably the best non-robot thing about the movie.  He was your typical defiant teenager but didn't go overboard with it.  You almost admire him for his brashness.  It was certainly warranted.  And it sure came in handy given the fact they were trying to get into the boxing business.  When I see kids like him do such great jobs in action films it just makes me get even more upset at the horrible casting that was done to get the kid Annakin in "The Phantom Menace."

Don't get me wrong, "Real Steel" was indeed as trite as I thought it woud be.  However, it had more things going for it than I anticipated.  The robots were fun to watch in spite of the fact they were Transformer/Rock em Sock em ripoffs.  Not to mention that the kid did his thing with his role.  I won't go as far as to say I'm looking forward to a sequel, but this turned out to be not too shabby.


My rating:  C +

 

 

50/50

There should be nothing funny about cancer.  But what about when you make a movie about it co-starring Seth Rogen?  Well it's a little hard to avoid the comedy factor at that point.  Then the challenge becomes achieving the right balance so that it doesn't come off like they're making cancer look like it's a laughing matter.  That's one of the main reasons I wanted to see "50/50" was to see if and how they could accomplish that.

Adam (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is a 27-year-old who gets the unexpected news that he has cancer.  He is determined to beat the disease with the help of his best friend Kyle (Rogen).  The movie tells the story of how Adam struggles with that battle both physically and emotionally and how his friendship with Kyle transforms in the process.

Apparently this was inspired by a true story.  Will Reiser wrote the script and loosely based it on his own experience with cancer.  I would like to think that there are some people out there with that horrible disease that have friends as great as Rogen's character.  Not everyone can take news like that and make sure that their friend stays in good spirits in spite of the pain and discomfort that chemotherapy would cause.

It was great how they jumped right into the bad news from the very beginning.  I was wondering if they would want to take time to develop the character first before he was given the news that he had cancer.  That way it would allow us to empathize more as we see what a nice guy he is making that moment of discovery a little harder to take.  However, they do an excellent job of still showing that as we see how he deals with the disease.

Levitt is spot on as usual with his performance.  The more I see this kid the more it's hard to remember that he got his claim to fame playing a goofy role on a sitcom.  He takes roles like these and is able to bring dramatic depth to it.  I personally think that it has a lot to do with his appearance.  He still has a boyish look to him and knows how to manipulate that to where you get that puppy dog syndrome.  Who wants to see a puppy get sick? 

Rogen's part is extremely well-played as well.  His brand of humor is actually perfect for the things that Adam is going through.  How much would it suck while you're that sick to learn that your girlfriend isn't as good a girlfriend as you thought?  That's the last thing someone battling cancer should have to contend with.  Well fortunately Kyle handles the situation brilliantly for him in perhaps the funniest moment in the "50/50".

I still think they should have went another way with the ending.  It left me a bit unfulfilled.  (Spoiler alert) I honestly didn't expect him to die, but it would have made for a better ending if he did.  Or at least if didn't bounce back so well.  Then they could have avoided that trite Hollywood scenario of everyone living happily ever after.  I thought movies were trying to get away from that anyway but it appears they didn't get the memo here.

"50/50" excels more than just because of the way the friendship is depicted between Adam and Kyle.  It's also the other friendships Adam develops after discovering the cancer news.  It provides the opportunity of other great performances out of some key supporting actors like Anna Kendrick as the psychiatrist and Phillip Baker Hall as a fellow cancer patient.  The movie reveals that friendship is all forms can help in overcoming even a major obstacle like cancer.  Afterall, isn't that what friends are for?


My rating:  A -

 

 

Chronicle

I love it when a good movie just sneaks up on me and falls in my lap.  In this day and age where studios always want to over-hype their major releases that always leaves room for some of the lesser-knowns to get through.  I managed to catch a trailer or two of "Chronicle" on television but the first exposure was online.  Even though I've reached the saturation point where the "Cloverfield" recovered video footage technique has gotten old (thanks much "Apollo 18" for cementing that), a premise of teens with supernatural powers that get out of their control was too hard to pass up.

High school students Stephen (Michael B. Jordan), Matt (Alex Russell) and Andrew (Dane DeHaan) make an incredible discovery while snooping on someone's property during a party one night.  It leads to the three of them developing extraordinary telekinetic powers none of them understand.  They slowly learn to control the abilities to use them to their advantage, but the more that Andrew's home life gets out of control, the more he begins to use his powers maliciously.

I know I criticized some movies out there as being filler flicks and "Chronicle" could have easily fallen into that category.  A "filler flick" is a movie that was obviously done and released just so that we would have something to tide us over until a major franchise releases their latest movie.  Just like I said this new "Battleship" is with the "Transformers" franchise.  Or how "I am Four" was for just about any Marvel film.  However, there was something more appealing about this one.

Namely it was the fact that I see in "Chronicle" what could have been a class of X-Men that had not yet found Professor X.  These are three kids that have super abilities and have no idea what to do with them or how to use them.  It's not really a lot different from when young folks stumble into tons of money.  They are not yet mature enough to know how to handle it responsibly.  The same thing goes for the super powers.  So what we end up witnessing is what happens when these kids get out of control with no one able to reign them in.

The archival video footage technique works well in this particular movie for the most part except for a couple of instances.  Like when one of the boys takes the camera to his friend's funeral.  Who would really do that?  I can't even count the number of funerals I've been to and I have yet to see a video camera at any of them.  I was even leery to take my regular camera to the ones that I did go to. 

"Chronicle" hits it high point at its finale when things finally come to a head with Andrew.  That's when they really showcase the full extent of the boy's abilities.  Amazingly, it all looks pretty realistic.  Especially the part when a news copter is in the scene shining a light on the entire thing.  But more than that is how well the kid actors depict their emotions getting out of control while their powers do the same.  It made for a very tense moment that had been built up to perfectly throughout the film.  I wish they would have left it at that instead of a final few minutes that felt a bit tacked on for posterity sake.

If it won't be a while before I see another one of these mockumentary movies then I think I'll be just fine.  Although something tells me I may still watch "Project X".  Still, it was good to see that "Chronicle" did not disappoint by proving that it was more than just a filler flick.  It was the perfect joint to see in theaters due to the special effects and a corresponding story to round it out.


My rating:  B +

 

Safe House

If it wasn't for Denzel's presence in this, "Safe House" would normally be one of those flicks that I would have waited for it to get to Redbox.  Maybe even cable.  There was nothing remarkable about that trailer that stood out to me to show that it was worth seeing.  Except for the fact it had Deznel in it.  So there I was opening day dropping my $7.50 (matinee price) to see if both he and Ryan Reynolds could turn a so-so trailer into a worthwhile movie.

Washington plays Tobin Frost, the most dangerous renegade spy the CIA has ever known.  He mysteriously pops back on the grid after a decade on the run.  He is immediately detained and one of his first stops is a South African safe house manned by rookie operative Matt Weston (Reynolds).  When the safe house is compromised and eventually breached, Weston has to go on the run with Frost to keep them alive long enough to find out who wants them dead.

I was hoping that I was wrong about the plot when I saw the trailer.  Was it really something as elementary as crooked authorities are looking to kill a prisoner and one honest official tries to keep him alive?  How many times have we seen this now?  Unfortunately, that's exactly what "Safe House" was.  They really could not have come up with a more simplistic storyline.  I'm rather surprised that Washington would sign up for something like this.  The material was so beneath him that it wasn't even funny.

I have often said that if a movie is so transparent that even I can figure out the twist and/or who the undercover bad guy is then they're doing something wrong.  You could pick out the mole in this one immediately.  They really should have gotten some better acting out of him/her to avoid that.  Or it would have helped even more if they would have avoided trying to be so stereotypical altogether.

But when it comes to performances that may have been the one thing that did save this movie.  Namely Denzel's.  They can make him sport the nappy hair all they want and match it with unkempt appearance and he can STILL turn a dramatic role out the box.  He makes the Frost character a mixture of someone you would be terrified of while at the same time admiring.  The perfect anti-hero. 

As for Reynolds, he's already proven that he can hang with the best of them when he puts enough effort into it.  I still haven't seen "Green Lantern" to know if it's as bad as the critics said, but if it was then he's back to redeeming himself here.  There are plenty of moments where his character Weston is torn between doing what he was trained to do and doing what his gut is telling him to do.  Reynolds convincingly brings that across in his performance without having to verbalize it.  He plays extremely well off Denzel so the two on screen together give us something fun to watch.

What wasn't too fun to watch here was the fighting sequences.  Too many of them were edited very choppily and quite honestly rather sloppily.  They were entirely too close so you couldn't see what was going on.  It's something that I noticed seems to be common whenever aging stars try to do action films.  They did it a lot in "The Book of Eli" and (as much as I hate to draw this comparison) "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull".  Either do it right or don't do it at all.

"Safe House" definitely is not without its issues.  Chief among those being the fact that the story itself is very non-existent.  However, you can thank both Denzel and Ryan for making it a movie worth seeing.  Although I do now think that I would have been okay waiting for this to get to Redbox.


My rating:  B -

 

 

 

 

Red Tails

It's being called the most controversial movie of our time!  Okay..it really is not THAT serious.  However, I was a bit surprised over the fuss that was being made over this before it even hit theaters.  Especially for a George Lucas project.  He, of all people, was having trouble getting funding for a film?  Oh..because it didn't have a major white star in it.  Now I see why.  Then add to that the fact that it was getting negative reviews and I was already on edge going in.

If you don't already know what the story is about "Red Tails" it's the story of African-American pilots known as the Tuskegee Airmen.  I'm still surprised that there are some folks who don't know about their contribution to WWII.  This film depicts the young pilots slowly transitioning from doing non-essential missions to getting real aerial combat that would eventually prove how dominant their dogfighting skills were.

Let me first say that I went into this film with a bit of a bias.  I'm a huge George Lucas fan.  There's little wrong he could do in my book.  But even with the good faith he has eternally built up with the original "Star Wars" trilogy AND the "Indiana Jones" flicks (we won't even count the last one), I will be the first to admit when he screws up.  Like he did with much of second "Star Wars" trilogy and even with the last "Indiana Jones" film.  So as much as I wanted to LOVE this flick because of the subject matter and Lucas, I still pull no punches.

It was obvious from the very beginning that money was an issue with getting "Red Tails" made.  I never knew until this movie how much I could appreciate little things like the opening credits.  I've been spoiled with movies going over the top with top-notch graphics on them that it really bothered me to see some that looked like they were made with Windows Live Movie Maker.  I'm going to chalk that up to the fact that Lucas wasn't accustomed to doing those.  Any true "Star Wars" geek will recall that those films never had opening credits.  Of course they did have the epic scrolls that really would have been much better here than the shoddy graphics they went with.

What I did like in particular was how much more action-oriented this one was as opposed to the HBO-movie that was released in 1995.  That one focused more on the drama aspect.  "Red Tails" really delved into the Airmen's aerial battles.  That is by far one of Lucas's fortes.  Every single dogfight scene keeps you on the edge of your seat.  Those sequences drive the film so much that it helped to overlook some of the other minor flaws like cliche dialog at times.  But let's face it...any action junkie knows that cliche dialog is a must. 

By keeping it more action-oriented Lucas was able to have a more family-friendly film to appeal to all ages.  It's the perfect opportunity to expose our children to the significant impact the Tuskegee Airmen had on American history.  I could personally get more out of the more superior film like "The Tuskegee Airmen"; however, my 11-year-old son would easily appreciate this version more because it was more visually stimulating.  

The acting was a little bit suspect in some parts.  It had nothing to do with the fact that it was a predominantly Black cast.  It had more to do with the fact that several of the actors (non-Black included) just didn't have much major motion picture experience.  I didn't think it was possible that Ne-Yo could do a better job in "Stomp the Yard" then he would in this film but that was clearly the case.  I'm chalking that up to the fault of director Anthony Hemingway (who I've never heard of until this one).  He should have done a better job in getting more out of the cast.

The person who really impressed me was Denzel Jr. as Easy.  His real name is Nate Parker, but I defy you to look at him and tell me he doesn't look and even act like a yong Denzel.  You may remember him from "The Great Debaters".  I know I did.  I knew then that he was destined for greatness.  It's a shame it took this long for him to get another shot in a big role.  However, he ran with it and his performance helped greatly in covering up the shortcomings of his less-experienced co-stars.

All in all, "Red Tails" was an excellent experience.  I would be lying if I didn't admit that it could have been better.  It's obvious from watching it that if Lucas had the big-budget funding he was looking for then this could have been a classic.  He did the most with what had to work with and came out with a very admirable product. 


My rating:  B

Movies Galore

I just realized that I've seen a handful of movies and haven't given you all any insight on my thoughts on them.  Actually too many to run off full length reviews on all of them.  Who actually reads the entire review anyway?  My dude E keeps telling me he doesn't even do it until after he's seen the movie.  If even then because he's always asking me if I've seen a movie which has my review out here.  Anyways...I thought I would just do a quick cliff notes version of the ones I've seen recently.  Just enough to tease you and you still get the grade of the flick.  So here goes...

Kevin Hart : Laugh at My Pain
The first stand-up concert movie I've seen in a while.  Very much worth it too.  Admittedly, it's not his best stand-up by far though. If you're looking for that then you definitely need to check out his special "I'm a Grown Little Man".  I'm STILL laughing about jokes from that one.  But "Laugh at My Pain" did have some real good moments.  If you are a Kevin Hart fan at all then you will be busting a gut quite a few times throughout.  If you're not, check out "Grown Little Man" first then kick yourself in the head for sleeping on him for so long.
My rating :  B

30 Minutes or Less
Almost forgot about this movie until I was at Redbox the other day looking for something else.  The main reason I wanted to see this was to see how easy it would be for Jesse Eisenberg to fall back into his typecast that helped make him famous after nailing "The Social Network".  Apparently pretty easy.  He did have a lot of help in this one.  Dude from "Community" in his first co-starring role in a feature film was decent.  Danny McBride was money as usual.  Nick Swardson about stole the show though.  This one got off to a slow start but ended up picking up. Although not quite as funny as I expected it to be with that type of cast it was still pretty good for your typical mindless comedy.
My rating: B -

The Change-Up
Yeah, I thought the same thing when I initially saw the preview for this one:  It's just yet another "Freaky Friday" type movie with different actors, right?  Well one of these actors is Jason Bateman.  The other is Ryan Reynolds.  Those two put it a cut above the rest.  Plus, it turns out they went the extreme route of making this one a raunchy comedy with a solid "R" rating.  Now add to that that it actually has a meaningful ending without trying to get overly sappy like some comedies have been doing lately.  Quite the pleasant surprise although I still wish there were more laughs.
My rating : B

Madea's Big Happy Family
I'm still trying to figure out exactly when Tyler Perry turned the corner with me.  Exactly when was it that I had reached TP overload and it was bordering on backlash?  I'm thinking it may have been the television shows.  That's probably why I was turned off on even seeing this movie for the longest.  Needless to say I was not expecting much from this at all.  A brotha was in for another pleasant surprise.  Okay..yes..he did have some of the same played storylines.  However, I was really diggin' the acting.  Especially from Old Spice dude in his first starring role.  And even the Madea moments weren't that bad.  I won't go as far as to say I'm looking forward to the next Madea movie but I'm at least willing to keep giving his movies a shot.  Now his tv shows are another thing altogether.
My rating : C+

Straw Dogs
Hollywood is really getting out of hand with the way they promote movies lately.  They were making this out to be one of the most graphically violent revenge films ever.  Not even close.  In fact, had they not pumped it up like that I probably could have appreciated it a little more.  Still, I was diggin' the slow dramatic build up they played through the entire end through to the inevitable conclusion.  I'm still not understanding how an old house was that impenetrable but okay.  I absolutely LOVED the ultimate payback that James Marsden's character hit us off with.  But even more than that was the very last scene which spoke volumes without saying a single word.
My rating : B

Hostel Part III
There are some horror movies that I will always watch their sequels no matter how inferior they may be. "Saw" and "Final Destination" fall into that category only because I'm always interested to see what type of new deaths they come up with.  "Hostel" can now be added as well because I now want to see how people keep getting duped and taken hostage for some sickos to torture them.  Who is still accepting drinks from strangers in strange places?  I suppose these people.  I wasn't totally feeling the fact that they brought it home and put the setting in Vegas.  I know crazy stuff happens there but how could a torture palace be going on and the authorities hadn't stumbled on it before now?  The story was more believable when it was happening in foreign countries.  And when they make that change for the fourth one (because you know there will be a Part IV) they need to bring the excessive gore back.  I want to see Hostel, not Bad Holiday Inn.
My rating : C -