World's Greatest Dad Review: Morbid but Masterful.

World's Greatest Dad is the not the film you're thinking it is. Considering the dreadful "Old Dogs" was just released, you may see a poster for this and think "Hmm, a [most likely] romantic comedy featuring Robin Williams. Pass."

Well luckily for you, fellow moviegoer, this is not a romantic comedy by any stretch of the genre busting phrase. Sure...there's some romance and it's dubbed a "comedy," but certainly nowhere near your preloaded thoughts of mildly famous attractive younguns being mean to eachother for 90 minutes then having make-up sex in a hotel room. Nope, this is the darkest that dark humor can possibly get, and I loved every minute of it.

Robin Williams stars as Lance Clayton, a man whose life hasn't exactly gone as planned. He lives with his only son, Kyle (Daryl Sabara) who treats him like a piece of excrement mixed with vomit. So far, Clayton serves as a second-rate poetry teacher at a local high school, his dreams of becoming a wildly successful writer not come into fruition quite yet. Dating the art teacher, Claire (Alexie Gilmore), his life is barely above par for what anyone would consider just plain dreadful. Then, one night, a terrible tragedy strikes his life, leaving him with less than he had before...OR IS IT? Yes, of course, I had to throw in that inevitable twist line, but I digress. Clayton makes a choice he thinks is completely moral and plausible, only to lead to a chain reaction of events that turn his life into the gold mine he wished it was.

Now, I can't tell you what event sparks all of this because it's extremely key that you say "Wtf?" when it happens. However, I can tell you that it's a fun little twist that'll leave you dazed and bewildered, squandering awkwardly with your eyes around the room wondering if it's okay to laugh or not. In all seriousness, the film just has an incredibly bleak overtone, and it's sole purpose is to give you that "is it okay to laugh?" feeling all the way through. Think of the film as a funeral where the eulogist trips horrendously into the chocolate icing-covered cake next to the coffin. Yes, you want to laugh, and so does every single person there, but no one will because they're taking the event as serious.

But now on to the meat and bones of the film. The skin is all well and good, but overall the direction is quite taut and the writing is supreme. In fact, this is an incredibly well-written film, from the themes to the punch lines. It's also incredibly relatable, giving you, the awkward teenager, mid-life crisis parent or single and fun woman a chance to examine what could be. Also, you get to see Robin Williams full on naked. I'm not kidding.

Aside from seeing the main star completely nude, the film is practically sweating "artsy" droplets of indie filmmaking. You can immediately tell the movie didn't exactly retain a high budget: 1. because there aren't God-awful product-licensed transforming robots puking all over it and 2. because you probably never even heard of the film. I have yet to see so much as an article in a widely-distributed news source or a 4 am commercial hinting at the project, but then again, those are the best films around, aren't they? Seeing as I'm not on the board for the Academy, I'm not exactly sure what the rules are for nominating something (nor do I really care to Google it right this moment), but I would definitely suggest this film for a Best Original Screenplay and Best Comedy [or Musical or whatever] categories. Williams is also in top shape here, making you completely forget you're watching Robin Williams but rather an unfortunate and lonely soul whom you wish to reach through your television screen and hug. Sabara gives an equally striking performance as the douchebag twattish kid you just want to reach through your television screen to slug [repeatedly]. And then there's the fine but uninspired Gilmore who does an adequate job of lending her "talent" as the inevitable lead female character.

I'm not going to sit here and bombard you with how perfect I think the film is, because it's not. In fact, one of the main complaints I had with the film were the actual "awkward" moments where you weren't sure if you were supposed to laugh or not. That just messes up the pacing, in my view, and you may feel the exact same way once you view the main event which strings together the "before and after" plotline. It's not so much that I was confused as to what breathing pattern I was supposed to utilize when it happened, but moreso that it was all funny, then all [presumably] serious all of a sudden. Then again, I realize the whole point was for certain parts to be exceptionally shocking, which they were, but they were abrupt to the point where it felt like I just stopped way too late at a stop sign, got hit by a semi truck driver who was a clown, and lost my insurance card. Just. Plain. Awkward.

But do what you will, you may actually love that sort of thing. I do, that's for sure, but the pacing was thrown off (as I stated) and that's the only thing I really disliked (other than the rather boring character of Claire). Also, the events the success the main event seem a bit rushed and overdone, but I guess that was the whole point. I can't really explore the thematic elements of the film (which I really want to right now) without giving anything away. Watch it, it's worth it. We'll talk after. Did I mention you see Robin Williams' baby maker?

8.5/10

-Kyle Shelton

Daybreakers Review: Isn't Breaking any New Ground...or Old Ground.

Alright, yes, Daybreakers is a new take on the ridiculous Vampire sub-genre craze of the past 2 years; however it is, in no way, "fresh."

Daybreakers arrives to us by way for the Spierig Brothers. It's a simple reversal tale of the United States being primarily inhabited by vampires instead of humans. The poor human race is hunted out and forced into disgusting farm camps where their blood is harvested for consumers. But then there's a twist (that somehow isn't foreseen by the majority of the country): humans are becoming harder and harder to find and, even when they are found, there's only so much blood that can be taken before the Vampires have nothing else to feast on. Edward Dalton (Ethan Hawke) sees this problem coming a mile away, but is also traumatized by the hellish and demonized nature of "farming" humans. His pharmaceutical research company, Bromley Marks, is the number one processor of human blood yet is trying to divulge a blood substitute that could be manufactured (think True Blood meets big business). The duality of Dalton's predicament leads him to frustration with his lifestyle, especially after encountering a Subsider, a genetically inferior devolution of a Vampire after they've been neglected blood for too long, in his own apartment. One night, he encounters a group of humans driving down a road who crash into his car and threaten him; however, he decides to help them by discovering a cure instead of a blood substitute. Once his military brother Frankie (Michael Dorman) finds out this plot, he becomes infuriated and stops at nothing to find these humans and bring them in for harvest.

The story seems like a good one, and it is nice to see someone trying to slap the Vampire genre in the face, but that is its only purpose. It's as if the film came out solely because it wanted to be a Vampire movie but better, capitalizing on the love/hate relationship we have with the genre. Ultimately, Daybreakers doesn't do anything new enough or creative enough to stand the test of time, and you're going to forget about it soon enough. Sure, it's pretty bloody and gory and the Subsider idea was actually pretty interesting, but that wasn't even explored enough. They were awkwardly played as villainous monstrosities only to try and ascertain your sympathy later on.

The characters themselves are just too boring to care about, specifically the Dalton brothers and also the human girl Audrey (Claudia Karvan) who has some awkward moments with Edward. Don't get me started on "Elvis" (Willem Dafoe); a cheesy rip-off of someone like Tallahassee from Zombieland with horribly blatant sarcasm, unfunny one-liners and that "badass" attitude that you really could care less about. And by the way, who the f*** named these characters? "Edward" and "Elvis?" Really?

Then there's the cinematography and general look of the film, which retained this very mellow, blue, tungsten filter feel to it...which I despise in most films. I just don't understand why the film looks so cold, other than the depressing demise of the human and/or vampire race, but it looks boring and mundane. In other parts, though, the cinematography and special effects mesh very well together, particularly in the much lower lighted areas. Overall, though, it's just plain lame.

Also, what was up with the cheap and extremely shallow "scares" this thing tried to pull? Honestly, just because a bat flies the screen and inexplicably screams doesn't mean it's scary, it just looks like someone thought they would try to make the audience jump for absolutely no reason. Honestly, it makes me upset when legitimate horror films try to use cheap scares like that, but Daybreakers is more of a thriller/suspense/drama/sci-fi kind of film, not a horror one. In no way is it scary in any other area of the film other than things randomly screaming and appearing (only 2 or 3 times).

So, all in all, Daybreakers is kind of original in its premise but not at all original in its approach. It falls prey, as most movies do, to typical dramatic narrative that becomes all too predictable. The characters are flat, the story overall is extremely shallow, the cinematography feels bland, the acting is sub-par, but most unfortunately, Willem Dafoe is extremely disappointing in his role. It's not really worth going out of your way to watch, but if you must catch a new vampire flick...or whatever...just wait till this is on DVD.

5.5/10
-Kyle Shelton

Ink Review: A Dream Come True.

Personally, I love watching films that hardly anyone has ever heard of; Ink is no exception. It's be hailed as the new (albeit much less budgeted) "Matrix" film with its immersive back story and quirky and creative new plot. Then again, being creative and immersive doesn't necessarily mean good, and Ink misses a few spots where it really could've been a major success. Sure, the idea may turn off the wide majority of audiences, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be a critical or even a minor commercial success.

Ink tells the story of an important businessman named John (Christopher Kelly) whose wife passed away recently. With her, he had a daughter named Emma (Quinn Hunchar) who is primarily taken care of by her grandparents. In the reality of each of these characters, the world seems normal and inhabited by everyone they see, but this isn't the case as, when people fall asleep, otherworldly people called Storytellers traverse the world to imbue dreams upon the slumbering populace. However, in opposition to these people, there are the Incubi, a race of digitally projected faces with uniform bodies seemingly wearing butcher outfits who imbue nightmares. Between these two sides are Drifters, people who haven't chosen a side in the ongoing struggle just yet. All three of these races are composed of people who have recently died, and this is seen as the afterlife.

One night, during their routine dream-blessings, the Storytellers encounter a Drifter named Ink, dressed in raggy bandages with a hideous nose and balding hair. Ink is enticed and bewildered by Emma and decides to kidnap her. Despite several Storytellers' best efforts to stop him, he steals her and runs through an interdimensional portal, a portal not accessible to the Storytellers. Knowing they've failed, the Storytellers try to find a way to get Emma back and restore everything when they come across a blind and sarcastic man whom they discover to be a legendary Pathfinder, who has the power to travel across dimensions and set balance or chaos in the universe. The Pathfinder joins the Storytellers in their quest and so begins the rigorous adventure.

While this story may seem a bit daunting (which it is), it's actually very original and enjoyable creative in its approach. Where most audiences may split, though, lies within the actual direction and editing style of the film. The majority of the film seems to have been shot with a sort of bloom filter, giving everything (most notably bright colors and lights) a very fuzzy and loose look. Bloom effects look great when done right and in strides, but it may have been overdone in Ink. You can tell the filmmakers (the Winans Brothers) were trying something different, and it may not deter you away completely, but it hurts. The editing is extremely fast paced and plays off almost like a Guy Ritchie film if he ever went into the Sci-Fi fantasy drama (with less British accents). Personally, I liked the quick cuts during the action sequences for the most part, but motion sickness may settle in rather quickly for a lot of people, especially those who aren't expecting Ink to be an action film of any sort.

The story is also very...well, story-driven. To expand, the characters themselves are likable, but not relatable nor really lovable. In essence, you wouldn't really care if any significant character had died; however, the story itself is what keeps your interest. You're constantly asking questions and waiting for something epic to happen at every turn and, towards the end, it does. The pacing is a bit strange though; you'll likely be left extremely satisfied at some parts and horribly underwhelmed at others. Then again, you never feel that the film isn't going anywhere. The makers of Ink knew exactly where they wanted the story to head, and it's clearly evident. Alas, many of the elements of the story aren't made very clear, which is a big problem considering it is introducing a brand new universe to explore. This makes interest in a sequel substantially low, considering you don't even know where the film could go if you don't know half of the background information; then again, the Winans Brothers could have done this on purpose to spur intrigue in a sequel.

As I've stated, this is a film that will divide audiences of all sorts. It's hard to judge this without being impartial, but I loved the film and I feel that it almost impeccably hit its mark. The special effects and character designs are stunning, especially for an independent film with a limited market, and some of the cinematography and lighting is absolutely brilliant. This could have been more consistent had it not been for the weird bloom tone that was ever present, but that's forgivable. The story is immensely interesting (if not immensely informative) and it has a great twist toward the end. All in all, Ink delivers what it wanted, and it's quite the hidden gem of an independent film. If you like Sci-Fi films, Fantasy films or Sci-Fi Fantasy films, definitely check this one out. Ink is extremely underappreciated.

8.0/10
-Kyle Shelton

Up in the Air Review: Flies High, but Maintains the same Altitude.

Director Jason Reitman is back at the helm of another Oscar-reaching feature starring George Clooney called Up in the Air. Personally, I thought he'd be a one-hit wonder with Thank You for Smoking, but Juno proved otherwise, and now Up in the Air is taking the throne. Although it may have Oscar buzz surrounding it, is it really worth the watch? Or are the old Academy members still mesmerized by Clooney and his dramatic roles?

Glad to say, Up in the Air soars sky-high.
In short, it tells the story of a man named Ryan Bingham (Clooney) whose main job in life is traveling the world to different businesses and delivering the worst message an employee can hear: "You're being let go." (aka, "You're fired.") Being single, without children, and without many friends, flying different venues is his escape and also, his life. Along his journeys, he meets a woman in the same field as he named Alex (Vera Farmiga) whom he can empathize with. They both deal with the same business and similar lifestyle. After realizing all the elements they have in common, they begin a somewhat romantic relationship, meeting up during overlaying flights to go out and, well, you can imagine the rest.

After a while, though, a young woman named Natalie (Anna Kendrick) develops a plan to cut spending at Bingham's company by introducing a new, web-based form of consulting employees via webcam. Bingham believes this to be preposterous and nowhere near the same pressure nor effectiveness of performing the consultations face-to-face, so he takes her under his wing and shows her how to fire people the right way.

That's the entire main plot, which spirals different ways throughout the film. It's mastered excellently; the script is tight and witty, the direction is handled skillfully, and even the cinematography looks beautiful in certain scenes. Reitman isn't exactly new to handling a similar genre style (comedrama or dramedy, whatever you want to call it ), and it certainly shows with his latest outing.

Clooney gives a great performance; he gives exactly what you're supposed to feel from his character as a man devoted to his work, reaching a goal he never wants to lose sight of with that held-back hint of regret. The real star, however, is newcomer Anna Kendrick, who gives a powerhouse performance as Natalie, giving the audience a wide array of comedic touches, emotional sways and serious, dramatic pieces. She explores almost the entire emotional spectrum in this one film, and it never feels strange or out of place in any way.

The film is nearly flawless in its narrative form, but it's certainly not without its faults. It's hard to really give any criticism without giving away the ending and all, but I will say that Up in the Air seems to want to convey a sort of moral and/or message, which doesn't feel 100% clear towards the end. Also, some of the plot turns seem a tad bit forced and predictable. I also feel like the relationship between Alex and Ryan isn't explored enough, thus undermining the main concept of the film.

These minor problems aside, though, believe the hype. It's certainly deserving of a Best Picture nomination at the very least, and certainly a Best Adapted Screenplay and Best Director nod. The film is very enjoyable and, most importantly, believable and relatable in today's economic climate. Up in the Air isn't perfect, but it's fantastic and shows Reitman isn't leaving the industry any time soon.

8.5/10
-Kyle Shelton

Sherlock Holmes Review: Solving Mysteries and Slow-Mo Fist Fighting.

Sequels, adaptations, remakes...they just keep churning out of the Hollywood machine every day (or so it feels). The latest star-powered adaptation/remake is the Ritchie-driven Sherlock Holmes starring Robert Downey Jr., Jude Law, Rachel McAdams and Mark Strong. Does the case-cracking super sleuth reinvigorate the franchise with much fervor? Or does he just degrade himself to an 1800's mall cop? Whatever you decided, audiences will probably be split all over.

The main draw of the film is, obviously, Downey. Ever since Iron Man, he's become the new beloved face of film, with much right to be so. Downey is a great actor and especially excellent in Sherlock Holmes as the titular protagonist. Along with his loyal companion Watson (Jude Law), they must solve the mystery surrounding a powerful black magic-wielding criminal named Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong), who is sentenced to death, only to resurrect himself a day later. Thrown in the mix is Holmes' ex-lover Irene Adler who is part evil, part good, and all intrusive on Holmes' business.
The story is good and fun, as most of Sherlock's stories are, and with Guy Ritchie helming the direction, it rarely gets boring. This really is a Ritchie film through and through: thick British accents, crazy action sequences, and fast paced touched off with a hint of mystery and crime. Then again, notice that I named the mystery and crime last in that list...this was for a reason. Ritchie is a great director by all means, but more so in his own right. The films he usually produces (Snatch, Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, Rock 'n Rolla) have a very distinct style and flare that retain his trademark method of filmmaking. Sherlock Holmes is 90% action and fast, witty dialogue with little mystery-solving really going on. Most of the time there exists any actual mystery, Holmes just gives some wild explanation and solves it before the audience gets a chance to jump in on it. With that, it's really hard to delve deep into the problems with the story without giving anything away, but once you see it, you'll probably feel cheated.
And that's the core problem with the Sherlock update: it's not enough Scooby-Doo and too much Speed Racer. Sherlock Holmes could have been a fantastic intertwining of the two, meshing action and logical detective work into one whole film, but it just doesn't feel that way. Irene Adler as Holmes' ex becomes a bit of a drag with the overall storyline, too. She just becomes a nuisance, mixing things up for the worse...which is predominantly her purpose, but when you really think about it, the story would be nearly identical without her involvement, except for the increasing sexual tension between them and Sherlock's incessant need to chase after her. In addition, Watson, albeit usually just Sherlock's lackey, becomes such a boring character as well, and in the end it's just all about Downey as Holmes. Watson could be such an intricate and fun character, and while he is still pretty lovable as Holmes' right-hand man, he feels so underdeveloped and included only because it wouldn't really be a Sherlock Holmes story without him.

The writing is sharp and witty for the most part, mainly during the back-and-forth conversations between Holmes and any other character. At times, though, it may feel "too cool," trying to overhype Holmes' character as being the most suave and perfected human being of all time, being able to fight and talk his way through any situation (and single-handedly solving any kind of mystery thrown his way). Basically, Holmes doesn't need anyone, and neither does the movie; the title is perfectly accurate, it's called Sherlock Holmes because it is solely about Sherlock Holmes.

So all-in-all, Sherlock Holmes is a great action film with really tight direction. The acting is spot-on for all four major characters, if only that they weren't written particularly well. Downey really is the driving force behind it all, and Ritchie's style is well suited for the revamp, but he just didn't hit the right spot. Another exercise in missed chances and possibly just a quick cash-in for the holiday crowd, Sherlock Holmes is entertaining but forgettable.

6.5/10
-Kyle Shelton

Avatar Review: Big. Blue. Badass.

Rarely, these days, do films strike chords with so many differing emotions, simultaneously, in one sitting. This is a feat achieved only by the top tier of cinema; a feat that is incredibly difficult to attain in any shape or form.

Avatar attains this. In fact, Avatar blows the feat out of the water and raises bars on different levels. Why?

I'm not going to berate you with what you already know. Whether you've seen it or not, James Cameron's latest cinematic powerhouse is a majestic beauty to behold. My only gripe on this front is that the fictional planet of Pandora is, indeed, fictional. It is a cornucopia of original and creative concepts of plants and animals alike. Everything from the lush, green jungles to the mountainous horizons are simply breathtaking; I dare say they look even more stunning than many real-life venues.
You would think that this might just be a drain of $154,283,219,990,234.56 in the sink of computer animation (which it is), but it's oh so much more than that. The CGI may be the best part of the film overall, but the story telling is marvelous and connects with you so deeply, you will feel part of the Na'vi tribe almost instantaneously.

As far as the plot goes, it's a very intricately woven story with plenty of back-story to feed the inevitable sequels and adaptations to come, but it's nothing too creative in terms of variety. However, hail the film gods, Avatar is not an adaptation of anything else, but solely the story of Mr. Cameron himself. For a completely original work, Avatar is certainly an impressive narrative, with several running themes throughout the story, an original language developed just for the (soon-to-be) franchise, and a brand new universe to dissect for years to come. This is on the level of Star Wars, to be quite honest, in technical achievement, fan base, international appeal and story. As stated, the story may not be the most creative thing ever, but it certainly has its own history to build off, and that's really all it needs.
Sigourney Weaver is great here, no doubt going back to her "Alien" roots; so is Stephen Lang, playing the primary baddie, who really evokes a certain disgust and hatred out of the audience. Sam Worthington as the primary protagonist was a pretty good choice for the lead, but doesn't really add any depth to his character. Whether or not that's his fault is up for debate, considering the character of Jake Sully wasn't exactly the most intriguing one.

Therein lies one of the few problems with Avatar. Although stunning in almost every way imaginable, it has its setbacks. The main character (Jake) is a bittersweet kind of character, a kind of archetype that is hit-or-miss depending on the viewer and the situation. Essentially, he's the "blank slate," the very easily manipulated and "relatable" character; it's all too obvious that he is this way solely to give the audience a kind of avatar of their own, being able to see everything through his eyes. This works especially when he first lands on Pandora and explores the terrain; his curiosity is matched by the majority of the human race in terms of how he reacts to the planet and all the sights he experiences for the first time. After that, though, he has no real character. Not to say that he's boring, but the only reason you'll care for him is solely for his moral ground in the impending squabble and also for the other characters (i.e. his herald, Neytiri, played by Zoe Saldana, along with the rest of the Na'vi, and his relationship with Dr. Grace Augustine, played by Weaver). Your liking of him also builds off of the basic hatred of the antagonists.

In addition, the story may be lacking in variety, but that's not the real problem with it. It seems as though the duality between the Humans and the Na'vi is played off thoroughly well in the beginning, then the story spirals into complete contempt of the Human race, portraying the Na'vi as a pure, humble and completely free-of-sin race. However true that might be, it equalizes them at first, giving rational motive to both sides for their respective future actions, then strips away any innocence the Humans had altogether. Then again, you probably would've seen that coming because the story does fall a tad bit predictable. In fact, it's almost entirely predictable, which is sad considering the script is so well done except that it falls to subtle formula. Sure, this is easy to overlook as anyone can simply classify Avatar as a classic story turned modern sci-fi epic, but for the advanced viewer, you'll know who dies, who lives, and who chooses what side from the get-go.

...But it really is quite easy to overlook. Avatar pulls you in and never, ever, ever lets you go. You will be so enthralled with what you're seeing, both physically and mentally, that you won't be constantly pondering the creativity or predictability of the story. Just desserts are served all around, and the audience will surely get a good portion of crowd-pleasing moments. Avatar toys with your emotions like a cat with a keychain over and over again. Any viewer will undoubtedly raise their spirits high and reduce their happiness low. Tears of both sadness and joy may overcome you at several key moments in the film, and it's okay to let them flow like the Pandora river. Most of the film is a glaringly obvious allegory of the Native Americans and their tragedy, but many other themes are used: living vicariously, the morality and future of technology's advances, and my favorite, the seamless and beautiful intertwining of both spirituality and science. The Na'vi live as we wish to live, and the Humans live as feel we are forced to live. To use an Avatar and see another world is to dream and escape reality; the film is its own story. Avatar is simply an escapist film from all viewpoints. The story proclaims it and the 3D imagery beautifies it.

Avatar will blow your mind, if only in its technical prowess. There are a few minor plot holes, the story could have been a little more creative, and the characters just a bit more developed, but if you have a soul, Avatar will reach it and pull it out, and you will become one with it. Brilliant on almost every level, Avatar is a must-see for any age, any race and any background.

9.0/10
-Kyle Shelton