Reviews

There is so much to like here and so much that disappoints. On substances it's fleeting; on form, it's brilliant.

Its ambition is nowhere more apparent than in its remarkable imagery and environment. This stylish twist to the Brothers Grimm's classic tale of betrayal, survival and friendship is a visually stunning embrace of colors and imagination, transporting the audience from one wildly rich world to another, e.g., the opening battlefield of the glass soldiers, the death of nature, the Dark Forest, the women's village and fairy sanctuary. These settings are complimented by competent performances. First, by Hemsworth and his depiction of the tale's newest character – the Huntsman: a widowed, drunkard mercenary who is initially hired to capture and return Snow White but quickly becomes her champion. Unfortunately, as the film progresses, this character, played so effectively by Hemsworth, slowly becomes marginalized. The main course of this film unsurprising is Charlize Theron's portrayal of the infamous Queen. Her performance cannot be minimized. At times, she is terrifying, at others genuinely sorrowful but always arousing. Her performance along with the imagery almost saves this film. And despite its diversion from the original tale, the writers cleverly maintain the traditional landmarks of the original, e.g., the dwarfs, the poisonous apple and the magic mirror. Preserving these landmarks was essential because nostalgia, I'm sure for too many viewers, was the driving force in experiencing this film.

What undoes this film is the chaotic way its story progresses. The narrative more and more veers away from Theron and Hemsworth and begins to overbearingly focus on Stewart. A talented cast was present here. It was just foolish to place them on the sideline and hand the baton to Stewart and ask her to carry this baby cross the finishing line. In the end, this film devolves in a cheap medieval-type fiasco, where we have Stewart hilariously leading soldiers to battle. Obviously, the conclusion provided in the original was more rewarding.

One of the greatest and most intellectual endings in film history. A typical moviegoers' initial reaction may be dissatisfaction as the film will not deliver the shock and frights expected from the horror genre or the dynamic explosions expected in modern adventure flicks. This film is special, however, because it fits neither of those molds, providing instead a compelling narrative and moral lesson that sustains the film long after its credits roll. Don't get me wrong, there are aliens in this film and some real moments of suspense. But if you come out of this film only concerned about the special effects, then you've missed the point. In the end, this film is less about the grotesque monsters than the internal demons stalking the protagonist and his family.

Kudos to the writers for creating an unique product. This film, however, fails because it lacks execution and organization. Birding never seems appealing. I'm not a golf fan, but Tin Cup made it look fun. Lord of Dogstown, for all its flaws, was a wet kiss to skateboarding. This, however, makes the experience an agonizing futile endeavor: first, for the characters who hopelessly trek the world looking for different birds, and seconds, the viewers (us) who lose an hour and some change of their lives.

The side stories almost save the film, i.e., the relationship between Wilson and his wife, Black and his love interest, and Martin and his business partners. The main thrust of the film, unfortunately, was not compelling.

Clumsily, tripping and falling, this legal drama manages to cross the finishing line with something of a redeeming product. Its flaws are immense and nearly fatal: over-the-top storyline, comical portrayal of the legal trial, etc.

However, the film saves itself with some lights-out moments of suspense coupled with an enduring civics lesson on the jury system and a talented cast. Gene Hackman takes the lead and shines as the sinister jury consultant. Dustin Hoffman, despite a relatively minor role, is superb - check out his cross exam on the big gun CEO. For all its flaws, the writers and director had a vision that does not get expunged despite too many witless scenes.

I never viewed the original, so for better or worse I could not use it as a measure. I came in watching the film without any knowledge of its plot except that it was a suspenseful horror flick. What I found was both intriguing and disappointing.

The movie brings a level of suspense and fear that so encompasses the 60's/ 70's horror-torture genre. The intensity of the rape scene, while difficult to watch, brings a sharp level of artisanship rarely visibly in modern day horror films. The dynamic relationship between David Summer and his Amy and the interloper Charles is chilling and awkwardly amusing. Those are the pluses.

Beyond that, it over and over again fails in execution. The portrayal of the townies and yuppies (red staters v. blue staters) was completely juvenile and even laughable which I suspect was not the intent of the director. Then the film ends with ... well ... a thud. The final home invasion, the main event, seems utterly botched. Too many minuses.

Seeing the crew back together was fun. The core characters are still likable, and the actors for the most part deliver. Stifler, like he's done throughout this franchise, nails some genuinely funny moments. The lack of an engaging story was the undoing here. The writers had so much to work with but, unlike the first film, create only a thud. The story lines concerning Oz-Heather and Kevin-Vicky are so much on the back-burner that they become nonexistent. More attention should have been devoted to them. Less on the tiresome plot of Jim and Michelle and their martial problems.

Still can't understand why these characters were constantly commingling with high school students. Its was unnecessary and awkward. They're adults now, just like their fanbase, and no one will cry if they party with... ummm... adults.

Jeff, Who Lives at Home so wants to be profound. That's unfortunate, because it possesses all the right ingredients for a solid plain-Jane comedy – a talented cast, a unique concept and some witty moments. The problem is this film ventures outside of its element. It's not satisfied with the strictures of its genre; instead it so desperately wants to play like The Descendants and leave the impact of Signs. Not in the alien or carnage sense but in the "putting it all together with life's little lessons" sense. It endeavors but fails badly, lacking the equivalent talent, writing, all so important attention to details and of course the metaphorical prophetic girl holding glasses of water. Instead, what we get here is a different kind of family story: first, Ed Helms and his terrible, horrible, no good, very bad day (e.g. Porsche destroyed - check. A potentially Charlatan wife - check. Apologizing to wife for HER infidelities –check), second, Susan Surandan and her hunt for the office SECRET admirer and third, the protagonist Jason Segel aka Jeff – the film's Yoda. In the end, they attempt that magic moment – where everything falls in place, ala, Signs. It comes off so forced and, yes, predictable.

A negative review here because the film is repulsive, ghastly or strange is inappropriate. Most persons who saw this film knew its substance beforehand and what they were getting themselves into. I feel for the rare person who did not. Yikes... The film was specifically designed to shock and pervert, just like other films in the gore-horror genre. Tom Six should, in fact, be credited for creating a product as original and intriguing as it was over-the-top and cheesy. The novelty alone is exploration worthy.

The film's undoing, however, is the lazy and paltry writing. The inability to tell a coherent story around this experiment, especially the what and why, is beyond frustrating. For example, we never learn why the madman is actually engaging in this experiment. Why mouth-to-anus? We are simply forced to conclude that he is either insane or has a god complex - both lazy cop-outs.

I recall this film terrifying me as a child. As an adult, it is even more frightening. It's neither the vampires that necessarily scare you nor the scenes of gushing blood nor the darkness, but the sprawling narrative itself - a journey through an alternative history where monsters, magic and immorality intersect. A journey which begins in the small port city of New Orleans and traverses to Europe and ends back in the New World. Despite the epic nature of it all, Rice writes an intimate and personal story where the emotions of love, betrayal and uncertainty are at the forefront, especially evident in the tragic depictions of Louis and Claudia and the ruthless cunning of Lestat. You root for the protagonist, Louis, wanting him desperately to protect his daughter/friend/partner Claudia and at the same time find his own salvation. The emotions towards Lestat are more mixed; he certainly is the heel but moments exist where a deeply sympathetic and tortured person is sown. Then Rice keenly without compromising the integrity of the story introduces the underbelly of the vampire society – a pleasant shift midway through the film.

This is a special story. When you add the highly competent acting, this becomes possibly the best horror flick ever made.

The "Rises" is a serious film that satisfactorily concludes the epic journey of Bruce Wayne which was started two films ago. This film, unfortunately, will always be measured to its predecessor, The Dark Knight - a tour de force that no superhero film comes close to competing along. To make such a comparison is patently unfair. But if we must: "Rises" is weaker in execution and writing. The idea of a major city being destroyed by a nuclear agent has been done so often that it almost becomes formulaic at this point. Truly great films need not rely on cheap tricks or "surprise endings" to succeed. Unfortunately here Nolan, like in the first installment, employs an unexpected plot turn (towards the end of the film) that causes the unintended affect of cheapening the story and weakening the film's strongest character. The Dark Knight had no surprises - it only relied on the brute force of its actors and its straightforward, but wildly complex, saga of good versus evil. The Dark Knight also powerfully utilized it peripheral characters, especially Harvey Dent. Here there was no serious parallel to Dent. Hathaway had potential but her role was so marginalized that one could have erased her completely and affected the plot in no tangible way.

To better grasp "Rises", one should compare it to the other films in the genre, e.g., The Avengers, Green Lantern, and Superman, and in that analysis, it's a marvel. The entire trilogy approaches the business of superheroes honestly and abandons the toyetic style endemic of the genre. Bane, for example, is a profoundly terrifying character. The scene where complete anarchy falls upon Gotham and Bane's new order takes hold with their newly created tribunals and redistributive authorities was a visual spectacle. The greatest contribution of this film, however, was the manner it concluded Bruce Wayne's story; the inner struggle, a pleasant mainstay of this trilogy, was fittingly sunsetted.

Good job burying Aniston in the script, because she won't amount to much, and OD'ing us on whatever else is left. Not one genuinely funny moment. Too malicious for romance. Too lost for drama. I'll leave it as 90's puffery.

The chemistry between Mickey and Hope, the couple we're suppose to cheer for, was non-existent. The brotherly relationship between Mickey and Francis was undercut, well... by the acting. Besides Aniston, the very little of her, this film provides nothing that works. What was this film trying to portray, what was the message, what was the point? Answer: its Sex In The City meets Friends minus the talent, the writing and the humor.

Spider-man at this point is crawling in circles. The Amazing Spider-man makes no contribution to the Peter Parker continuum. There is nothing new or noteworthy about the 2012 Spidey. Instead of utilizing a fresh, innovative approach, Marc Webb and his writers replicate the formula drafted in the original film and redundantly make us witness the transformation of Peter Parker from outcast to superhero again. We saw this spiel only ten years ago. In comparison, see what Christopher Nolan envisioned for the Batman reboot: a realist, dark approach in stark contradiction to the Schumacher pluff. Here there is no appreciable difference between The Amazing Spider-man and the Sam Raimi trilogy. It's not a reboot; it's a recycle.

And if you're going to recycle, then at least improve upon the original. It doesn't; its fatal sin is actual regression. The Maguire-Dunst combo was more dynamic and likably than Garfield-Stone – poor Emma was miserably miscast. In an era, where the audience is accustomed to dynamic heels, what we get is an over-sized CGI-ish lizard lacking all nuance and substance; a completely forgettable, default villain.

It's not all bad though. The 3D aspect is one redeeming quality of the film especially in the latter scene where spidey is soaring through the rainy sky coming to the rescue. It's a fun moment.

This production was a throw-back to Hollywood's "golden era" and for that reason I understand the industry-based acclaim. The dancing, the irresistible smiles, the romanticization of Hollywood filmmaking and the highs and lows of the roaring 20's, all, create an unique ambiance that an audience cannot collect from other modern films. Furthermore, the story is significantly advanced by brilliant performances from Dujardin and Bejo. But when one takes away the film's novelty, i.e., the black and white silent format and full screen captions, the only thing remaining is a dry and simplistic love story. The production should be applauded for endeavoring into a risky product. However, the risk alone does not justify a positive review.