The Crazies Review: Pretty Sane, Actually.

I had no idea there was an older film called “The Crazies” off of which this new “The Crazies” is based, so I’m not going to make any comparisons or allusions. With that said, “The Crazies” angered men quite a bit, making me want to walk all the way to Hollywood and smash the heads of anyone who write screenplays for horror films. Why?

Everything in The Crazies has, and I CANNOT emphasize this enough, BEEN DONE BEFORE. Okay, we get it, there’s an evil government conspiracy running amuck in a remote farming town in WhoTheF***CaresVille and a very close-knit community slowly has to cope with the concept that not everything in the world is honky-dory all the time. Except that the pace suddenly shifts from slow-building tension to absolute anarchy anti-Christ decimation in a matter of minutes. Why? I don’t know, ask the producers OH WAIT don’t because they don’t have brains and have probably produced the same movie 20 times. In fact, I’m pretty sure the producers, writers, director and everyone else involved with The Crazies secretly hide in movie theaters when this kind of film comes out to laugh and blow their noses with cash every time some half-retarded half-horny sorority whore clinches her macho boyfriend when so much as a mouse with a smirk squeaks off-screen.

I’m sorry, was I ranting? Because if you don’t think I was, I’m about to be.

Non-diegetic noises as a means of scaring audiences NEED TO STOP. I’m all for some classic horror, but if someone is slowly peering around a corner and all of a sudden a fly buzzes in front of you to the tune of a 2-second violin screech, I’m not going to be scared but apparently everyone will think a ghost had just licked their shoulder. Honestly, WHAT’S THE DEAL WITH AIRLINE FOOD CHEAP SCARES?! This is primarily why I love films like Blair Witch, The Strangers or Paranormal Activity: because they don’t resort to the cheap and mundane forms of scaring you. God forbid someone is in the medicine cabinet mirror only after you close it and a loud musical piece is played just as the character discovers it. It’s not effective any more, people are just suspending their disbelief so much these days that anything will scare them and THAT is why horror movies are getting any credit… that and also because they’re all terrible remakes featuring little girls with long black hair.

But I digress, The Crazies isn’t a complete failure; there are a few scenes that may stick in your mind, and one such scene takes place in a car wash. This brings me to my next point: practically every scene in The Crazies is either professionally handled and greatly directed ORRRR looks like a 4-year-old on a sugar rush just had an epileptic seizure while holding a camera. Also, although I said that most of the film has all been done before, there are a few moments of pure surprise when a plot takes an interesting turn in a completely different direction, although I’d hardly call any of these moment real game changers. Of course the last 4 attractive people in this god forsaken county just so happen to be the only survivors of what I can only call a pseudo-zombie outbreak (considering George A. Romero produced it, that’s probably what he was going for) but as it stands, these people who turn from normal to bat sh** crazy aren’t your typical zombies because they still have brains and can somehow manage to drive and utilize guns. Therefore, I guess they’re just…really mad lepers?

Whatever you want to call them, there’s very little to redeem “The Crazies” from its overly familiar setting, characters and story. Sure, take your loved one to see this film to give you an excuse to hold them tightly, but if you want to save $10, turn all the lights off and yell “Ooga booga booga.”

5.0/10

-Kyle Shelton

Alice in Wonderland Review: Lands without Wonder.

The original “Alice in Wonderland” film, although panned by Walt Disney himself, was and is a staple in cinematic animation and in the memory banks of people fortunate enough to have experienced the high. The new “Alice in Wonderland” is a staple in… a piece of black paper that Tim Burton vomited all over.

What do you need to know? The new Alice is still wacky and weird in lovable ways, but it’s actually a sequel to the original film and the books “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland” and “Through the Looking Glass.” If you’re expecting the original tale told all over again…well, watch the original all over again. Otherwise, we now have an extension of what happened, but what may perplex the audience is that Tim Burton considers his version neither a sequel nor a reimagining. In essence, that’s probably what ultimately brings the film down: Alice in Wonderland has no idea what it wants to be.

While the original stories were completely absurd and nonsensical [ON PURPOSE], Tim Burton decided it would be a fantastical idea to make this version linear and very finely plotted [ON PURPOSE]. Well, in essence, he f***ed up [ON ACCIDENT]. To be completely honest, had this film come out almost identical to what it is now and another version of Alice had never come out before, this might just be a pretty great film. The truth of the matter is that there was already a version of Alice out: the original books. These original books had a point and are respectable works of literature. This Alice just seems to be a cash-in on the success of the famous cartoon that came out in 1951 and it worked. This isn’t exactly surprising, as most people who watched the cartoon loved it and to know that none other than Tim “Johnny Depp’s Secret Male Lover” Burton is helming it only adds a bar of Xanax to the cocaine-infused acid trip it already was. It works, for the most part. The characters are all still quirky and the best part of the story, the landscapes and CGI work are all beautifully rendered and top-notch and the story is fun enough [although cliché too often]. Unfortunately, much of Alice’s “wonder” is gone, and interchanged for bravery and boldness as she stands up to the Mad Hatter and takes on the role of a dragon-slayer. She’s also a bit more cunning and clever, which might make sense because this is a… well, certainly not a sequel since Burton doesn’t think so, but a continuation.

The plot is unbalanced at first: Alice tumbles down the rabbit hole and treats everything like she did before with the same bewilderment and curiosity. However, it is made clear that these events are taking place much later in her life, after they already happened, so the question arises whether the first time it happened was just a weird dream or just as real as this time? That’s a bit confusing, but then she acts like she’s the hottest thing to ever walk Underland [aka Wonderland]. So what, exactly is she?

Luckily, every character you meet is immediately memorable and lovable, especially (as you’d assume) The Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp) and the Red Queen {Helena Bonham-Carter). Both of these characters are incredibly quirky and you await every scene containing them. The Mad Hatter is just as crazy as before, but with the Jack Sparrow-esque feel to him that makes him completely huggable yet devastatingly badass at the same time. Then of course there’s the Red Queen, who’s just deliciously evil, mixing some light-hearted self-loving troublemaking with some truly villainous traits [specifically her love of decapitation]. The minor characters are all great too, though, from the bloodhound who wants his family back to the cracked out Hare to Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum. That’s what works, and Tim Burton isn’t exactly a stranger to quirky characters.

All in all, the film suffers because of its overdone yet classic “hero’s journey” style of story-telling. There’s nothing inherently wrong with it, but it becomes predictable, which completely undermines the otherwise otherworldly feel the film retains. Burton missed the mark on what could have been a much better and memorable take on the whole series, but at least he created great atmosphere and truly original art direction that alludes to his usual family-friendly morbid oddball direction. Cheers to what you see and hear, negative cheers to what you experience overall.

6.0/10

-Kyle Shelton

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

The Baader Meinhof Complex Review: Baadass, Yet Complex Indeed

The Baader Meinhof Complex...this is a film you may not have heard of, but you will hear more of in the coming future. Because it's so good? Possibly, but I was referencing the "Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon: as a joke. You probably didn't get it.

Unpopular allusions aside, The Baader Meinhof Complex is spectacular, if only too spectacular. A skin-deep judgment of the film (i.e. from a trailer) may give you the impression that it's an action conspiracy flick with almost no historical base. The truth is, it's actually about one of the biggest yet mostly unheard of historical events in international history, specifically in Germany. As it states in its trailer(s), Baader Meinhof Complex is about the original "terrorists" and how they can be skewed in stories as being both heroes and villains.

Cinematically, the film is beautifully shot and graced with some spot-on editing. Action sequences are handled exceptionally well, given that most action is actually not too action-oriented. If you're looking for Matrix-caliber highway chases, you won't find them here. Instead, you will find high-tension shootouts between members of the criminal "Red Army Faction" and the police, shootouts that really linger for a while and let suspense take hold.

In addition, dialogue is lengthy at times and may roll to a dull droll, but ultimately, the overall story is handled very well. It can be a bit complex for some (especially since the events were very complicated politically) and many may even see the information influx as an overhaul. At times, this is true; the story gets a bit muddled and the fact that it's a foreign-language film, meaning having to look at the bottom of the screen every 3 seconds or so, doesn't help. Sitting atop the grandeur of complexity sits the 80 zillion or so characters. Mainly, you'll have Andreas Baader (Moritz Bleibtreu), Gudrun Ensslin (Johanna Wokalek, Ulrike Meinhof (Martina Gedeck), Rudi Dutschke (Sebastian Blomberg) and Holger Meins (Stipe Erceg), but in addition, there are a ton of sub-characters that fall below the RAF hierarchy. Then you have the plethora of political figures who play their major parts as well as their relations to several other figures (like even more political leaders and family members) only in addition to the Arabian subset of RAF-helpers. But, the main 5 are really the instrumental pieces to the puzzle, and that's where the film mainly focuses.

It's also a bit difficult to tell whether you may like or dislike the altering views on the RAF; half the time, the RAF heads are made to look like gods, fighting against tyranny and oppression. Then, when looked at from the point of view of the government and average civilian, they are made to look like the most evil of the evil. Essentially, once you get attached and love any given character on the RAF side, their mortality and likability are stripped away by how the news portrays them. Personally, I found this method of character development immensely intriguing. Baader Meinhof Complex examines a lot of themes, and one of the main ones is the role of media in politics, a role that so sharply defines society.

Whether or not you actually pay attention to the subtext, you find the movie to just be a cool and slick type of film...at least for the first half. The RAF builds itself up steadily, slowly gaining new members and carrying out various acts of anti-establishment, then, in a really shocking mid-story climax, the tables are turned and their fall becomes the center of focus. Ironically, for a group that essentially poses anarchy as a way to fight the government, it is soon seen that the heads of such an anarchist group are what led it to greatness in the first place.

There seems to be virtually no real soundtrack to the film, as most moments are covered by dialogue between characters. Transitions are filled with various television and radio broadcasts, feeding the audience tidbits of information on the aftermath and reaction of/to the events that preceded them. This is a rather effect method of story-telling. The film clocks in at an overwhelming 150 minutes, which feels both too long and too short for its subject matter, so it only feels natural that they would include transitional periods coupled with forced information.

Overall, what you get in The Baader Meinhof Complex is a mixed bag that may confuse some, alienate others, but be loved by many. Nominated for the Best Foreign Language Film at the Academy Awards, it stands tall among American films as a striking revisiting of what could be called the base of modern terrorism. Characters are great yet far too many, the subject is intriguing, the action scenes are tense and the story is fantastic, if only a bit cluttered in some areas. Certainly worth the watch, but don't expect it to be a straight action ride; it's a good mix of intelligent political thriller with crime drama and action interspersed.

8.0/10
-Kyle Shelton

Falling Down Review: Fallen Down over the Years, but not so Far

How could anyone hate the 90’s? Tacky, mismatched clothing, the emergence of boy bands and the age of radical toys; the 90’s also gave us quite the decade of fantastic films, if not memorable ones. “Falling Down” may not fall into the first category, but most definitely the latter.

Hence, Falling Down is a vividly memorable and electrifying experience through and through. Why? Because it’s incredibly simple and completely aware of itself, devolving itself into just plain entertaining. Sure, it doesn’t have the intricate machinations of a deliciously compelling script, nor does it have the visual flare and incredibly strong lead performances, but it certainly has tension and just enough plot to get you going.

At its core, Falling Down is about a man simply known by his trademark license plate as “D-Fens” (Michael Douglas) who gets fed up with society as a whole and starts a vengeful rampage through the city towards people who, quite simply, piss him off. His ultimate goal is to get to his estranged ex-wife’s house to see his baby daughter for her birthday. All the while, a retiring cop named Martin Pendergast (Robert Duvall) is hot on his trail at the police station, being the only person in his precinct who pieces together the chain of events.

There’s really not much to write about when it comes to this film, because as I stated before, it’s incredibly simple. What it does and wants to do, it’s almost perfect at: pleasing the crowd. You’re going to see your share of annoying, pretentious antagonists who get in D-Fens’s way, but they all get their just desserts soon enough. The heightened and almost surreal way each of these characters hateful characteristics are built up are the ultimate (and classic) formula for a great set-up and payoff connection.
Michael Douglas gives one hell of a performance and perfectly encompasses the average Joe’s personal hatred for the everyday mundane annoyances. In fact, D-Fens ends up going on his spree simply because he’s sitting in his extremely hot car in halted traffic, something that would get on anyone’s nerves (albeit not setting anyone off in the same way).

My only gripe with the film is this: 1st off, the film switches intermittently between D-Fens’s crime spree, which is infinitely exciting, and Pendergast’s precinct scenes which halt the fun action and turn the film into an unnecessary bore. In addition, there’s an emotional and sympathetic drive behind D-Fens’s actions which ultimately don’t work, mainly because the emotional climax of his workings doesn’t hit until the very end, when it’s too late to really care. Had Falling Down been more of an experiment in B-Movie formula and stuck to its over-the-top middle-class reaction story of revenge against normalcy, it would’ve succeeded. However, I feel as though Joel Schumacher tried to make this more of a rounded, complete film…which it is, but it becomes a mixed bag of feelings toward the end. You get a mild rush of sympathy, but it should’ve been built up way more (or not at all, in my opinion). As for Pendergrast’s plotline, he really only seems like a character thrown in just to complete the plot, which is really a waste because a 2-character framework would have been really interesting if it was done…well, interestingly.

And so, Falling Down is a great film to watch when you just feel like watching a film for the hell of it. It’s especially great to watch in groups or to show to fellow movie-lovers who haven’t seen it yet. I’m sure if I had seen it when I was younger, I would have loved it; unfortunately, Schumacher’s early revenge story just doesn’t hold up to the times.

6.0/10
-Kyle Shelton