Django Unchained

Django Unchained: Tarantino’s Triumphant Return 

Django (Jamie Foxx) goes from plantation slave to bounty hunter (Courtesy of Collider)

Django Unchained has all the necessary elements of a great Quentin Tarantino film. The audience watches a scene, wondering what the players are talking about and why. Then, out of nowhere, the purpose becomes clear, and the audience is left dumbfounded, yet smiling at the same time. Tarantino is the king of mind-bending and escalating seemingly unimportant scenes to a bloody and somehow simultaneously enjoyable blowout.

Django Unchained is Tarantino’s take on the spaghetti western genre. It’s set a couple of years before the Civil War. The recently purchased slave Django (Jamie Foxx) is on the way to his new plantation. On the way, Dr. King Shultz (Christoph Waltz, Oscar winner from Tarantino’s Inglorious Basterds) kills his way into purchasing Django. Shultz explains to Django that he abandoned dentistry for bounty hunting, and needs his help finding his next bounty, the Brittle brothers. Having never seen them in person, Shultz makes a deal with Django. In exchange for identifying his previous overseers, Django will receive $75 and his freedom from Shultz, who is sickened by the very notion of slavery.

Upon locating the brothers at a plantation, Django kills two himself, after a flashback reveals their previous cruelty to he and his wife, Broomhilda. Shultz, impressed by Django’s ferocity, proposes another deal. If Django partners up with Shultz in the bounty hunting business for the winter, Shultz will give Django one-third of his earnings and personally help Django rescue his wife. Django agrees, which leads to a montage of guns firing and a friendship strengthening. The on-screen chemistry between Foxx and Waltz is incredible, and I can’t say I’m surprised. Tarantino has a real talent for casting the right people.

When the winter ends, the two discover that Broomhilda is one of countless slaves owned by Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio) on his plantation, Candyland. DiCaprio gives a great performance as the cold aristocrat, shielding his cruelty with a fancy accent, a classy outfit and a big house. His head slave, Stephen, is suspicious of the two visitors, who arrive under the pretext of purchasing a hard-working slave at $12,000 in an attempt to undercut the price of Broomhilda, then leave without cutting a check for the expensive one. Stephen is portrayed by Samuel L. Jackson, who either believes he is white or sees his own race as inferior. Either way, Stephen doesn’t seem to be pro-emancipation, which makes Candyland all more provocative of a place. As usual, the conflict in Tarantino’s movie leads to an explosive spectacle of blood, bullets, blood, bodies and a lot of blood. And right when you think it’s all over, it isn’t.

I’m not so sure what it is about Tarantino that makes violence in his movies so enjoyable. He doesn’t glorify it, per se, but that being said, I was smiling during the entire climactic shoot-out scene. The only other times I could say I found such violence so enjoyable were Hit-Girl’s hallway massacre in Kick-Ass and the Crazy 88 samurai sword battle in Kill Bill Vol.1, Tarantino having directed the latter. Most filmmakers can’t make such a sensitive subject fun to watch, but somehow, Tarantino just…does it.

Two other aspects that Tarantino is unmatchable in are his script writing and casting. Like Pulp Fiction and Inglorious Basterds, Django Unchained is riddled with quotable dialogue. In his Palm d’Or acceptance speech for Pulp Fiction, Tarantino said his actors were able to turn “a pretty damn good script into an obsolete document.” It’s no different for Django, especially in the supporting performances. Foxx did well, but Waltz, DiCaprio and Jackson were all unspeakably outstanding. Kerry Washington, who played Broomhilda, gave the role of a discouraged woman over decades of oppression great justice.

This movie isn’t for everyone. It’s brutal, unwavering, and over-the-top. However, most will love the clever dialogue, eye-popping action, memorable performances and the signature direction from Tarantino. There's even a cameo from Jonah Hill in one of the funniest scenes of the year. My only complaint was the journey from Shultz and Foxx meeting Candie to when the characters arrived at Candyland. This was a classic case of Tarantino running his mouth. If he could see the audience’s reaction during this sequence, he might’ve taken the hint to shut up and get things going a little quicker. There was a twenty-five minute period that could’ve been streamlined or even eradicated, but it wasn’t. Other than that, Django Unchained is truly a solid Tarantino gem not to be missed.

Rating: 4.5/5

Lincoln

Nice Wig, Tommy Lee Jones: Lincoln Review

I mean really, could you be any more obvious? (Courtesy of YouTube)

During the first hour and fifteen minutes of Lincoln, I pondered, “What is the purpose of this movie? To inform? To inspire? To entertain? To bore?” I consciously decided that the last seemed most appropriate. All the elements of a good film were present, though. The costume design, makeup (except for Jones’ wig, see title/image), art direction, and wonderful score from John Williams set the scenes. There was an outstanding performance from Daniel Day-Lewis as the titular character, with strong support from David Strathairn, Sally Field, Tommy Lee Jones and Joseph Gordon-Levitt. There was even some quality comic relief. During those first 75 minutes, I wondered how such a seemingly incredible movie could leave me so uninterested.

It wasn’t until after that hour and a quarter that the purpose of Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln became clear – to illustrate sheer success. Once the momentum picked up, the movie became uplifting, enjoyable, enlightening, and overall, worthwhile.

This take on the story of Abraham Lincoln begins shortly after his re-election. Years into the Civil War, Lincoln tries to abolish slavery by ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment. The way by which this success is achieved is by means of strategy. Lincoln relies on those members of his Republican Party in Congress to respect his wishes and follow through with passing the notion. His real task lies in convincing at least twenty Democrats to do the same to win the two-thirds vote. It all lies in the timing. He works on persuading Democrats who are at the end of their terms in Congress to vote now that they have no incentive to keep loyalty to their party’s wishes. Ensuring Democrats vote for the Bill conveys its bi-partisan approval. This then shows to the Confederates that slavery is losing its universal approval, ending the war without much further conflict. Genius.

The movie’s unsung hero is Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who plays Robbie Lincoln. As Abraham’s son, he is conflicted by his urges to fight for his country as a soldier, which could mean his parents would lose their second son if he were to be killed. He uses his minimal screen time to reinforce what I already wrote about him for my review for Looper – he is nothing short of a Hollywood star (Looper is now on DVD, give it a watch if you didn’t catch it in theaters). His efforts earn him the title of Lincoln’s scene-stealer in my book.

The bulk of the movie, however, is reliant on Daniel Day-Lewis. I wasn’t watching Daniel acting, I was watching Abraham Lincoln. Day-Lewis is able to perform a rare feat – embodying a character completely. You would never guess the truth, that he is actually a Brit playing an American. His balance of subtle wisdom and power as the leader of a nation alongside his protective and loving instinct of his fatherly side may earn Daniel Day-Lewis his third Oscar, making him the first man to ever win three Best Actor Oscars in history.

It’s hard to give this film a perfect score due to the effort it takes on the viewer’s part to get through the first act. That doesn’t mean that I left the theater disappointed. In fact, quite the opposite. The second half made up for the first with a fine comedic presence, brought about by Tommy Lee Jones as Congressman Thaddeus Stevens, and its ability to convey to the audience the reason why they came to the theater to see this movie. Lincoln takes a while to get into, but in the end, it’s a completely rewarding film experience. Watch out for this movie on Oscar night, it may run away with a few gold trophies.

Rating: 4/5

Rise of the Guardians

Rise of the Guardians: A Hilarious, Enjoyable Animated Adventure

Sandman, the Easter Bunny, Santa and the Tooth Fairy convince Jack Frost to become a Guardian (Courtesy of Screenrant)

The last attempt at a movie about Jack Frost was in The Santa Clause 3: The Escape Clause, which was enjoyable, yet easily dismissible. Now, we’re introduced into Frost in a new light, as a fun-loving and often overlooked magical figure, bringing snow days and blizzards to the world, wanting nothing but acknowledgement in return. In the wake of the re-emergence of the Boogeyman, Jack is called to join Santa, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny and the Sandman as a Guardian to protect kids from fear and to keep belief in their hearts.

The Boogeyman (referred to in the film as Pitch Black, Pitch for short) is tired of being forgotten and unnoticed, and plans to eradicate the Guardians’ existence by making the world forget about them, specifically by bringing nightmares to overpower Sandman’s dreams and sabotaging the Tooth Fairy’s nightly collections, and reinstate fear. Because of this, kids start to lose their faith, and the Guardians become weaker as Pitch gets stronger. Early on in the film, Jack brings a snow day to a young boy named Jamie and his friends. Jamie is the embodiment of innocence. Even though every single child in the world eventually stops believing, he doesn’t.

What really makes this movie such a standout is the original take on the characters. The Easter Bunny could’ve been a disgruntled mercenary or police chief in another life. Santa is a buff, tattooed guy with a Russian accent, and his elves are very similar to the minions in Despicable Me with their behaviors. Sandman is mime-like, and his nonverbal communication comes off hilariously to the audience. Tooth Fairy doesn’t have a distinctly different character, but the idea of her having thousands of “Baby Tooth” fairies doing her job for her was a clever idea.

And finally, Jack. Jack resembles a teenage boy, sporting a hoodie and snow-white hair. He wonders why every other magical entity is seen, loved, and well-known while he is not. In the movie, he balances saving the world and discovering his past, and I must say that I loved going on Jack’s journey of self-discovery alongside him.

In a technical sense, this film also succeeds. An animated film has never won the Oscar for Best Production Design, but this might break the streak. The visuals and set pieces were so wonderfully and artistically animated. My eyes were never displeased, and the movie was a visual masterpiece. I have yet to see Wreck-It Ralph and Brave, but I don’t think a nomination for Best Animated Feature would be out of the realm of possibility either.

Overall, the screenplay was clever and sincere. What worked even better was when words were not employed. The elves, Baby Tooth fairies, Yetis who work in Santa’s workshop, and the characters of Sandman and Sophie (Jamie’s little sister) had little or no dialogue, but their presence added much of the comedy to the movie.

I’d be very interested to see a sequel to Rise of the Guardians, following a relationship between Jamie and Jack. There was a chunk in the movie that focused completely on the guardians, with no exposure to Jamie whatsoever. I get why they did this. This was Jack’s story, not Jamie’s. I loved Jamie’s character though, and given enough attention in a future installment could potentially make him as landmark a child character from an animated movie as Andy from Toy Story. A more in depth character study on him is something I would eagerly see.

This movie is a blend of Despicable Me and The Avengers. While I did enjoy Despicable Me more than this, and I didn’t get to see as much from the character Jamie as I would’ve hoped, I highly recommend this movie. It was definitely a film made for children, but I applaud it for its smart dialogue, original take on characters and refusal to dumb down for its demographic. I also appreciate the idea of introducing Jack Frost to the world, and I wouldn’t be surprised if this movie caused kids to start running out to the streets on a snow day, yelling up to the sky with a grin, “Thank you, Jack Frost!”

Rating: 3.5/5

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Disappointment

Bilbo (Martin Freeman) rushes to begin his journey (Courtesy of The Hollywood Reporter)

Peter Jackson set Academy Award and box office records with his Lord of the Rings trilogy, which went on to be considered three of the greatest films ever made. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey was released nine years after the original series ended, with Jackson, as well as several other members of the cast and crew, returning. Unfortunately, the few familiar names and faces were about the only things notable that returned to theaters in the realm of Middle Earth.

An Unexpected Journey takes place decades before The Fellowship of the Ring, and follows the first part of Bilbo Baggins’ “There and Back Again” story. The Wizard Gandalf the Grey, accompanied by twelve dwarves, invites Bilbo to accompany him and his companions on their journey to reclaim the dwarves’ homeland, which is occupied by the seemingly unconquerable dragon Smaug.

The first entry in this new trilogy begins with a background story of the taking of the dwarf kingdom, then flashes forward to Bilbo and Frodo (played by their original portrayers in Fellowship) on the day of Bilbo’s birthday party. Bilbo’s decision to write about his tale prompts a flashback to his journey. This entry of the soon-to-be trilogy spans from Gandalf’s arrival in the Shire to shortly after Bilbo meets Gollum and acquires The Ring, with close calls with trolls, a visit to Rivendell, and run ins with orcs and goblins in between.

This was undoubtedly a good movie. The standout performance was by Richard Armitage, who portrayed the leader of the dwarves, Thorin Oakinshield. The battle of wits between Gollum and Bilbo in the depths of a cave was incredibly tense and well done. The movie had good (not great) action. Ultimately, all I can call this movie is good, and I would recommend it, but there were serious detractors.

The Hobbit is a different story from The Lord of the Rings, which was a reason why Jackson was initially hesitant to return to Middle Earth. Despite this, the film relied too heavily on its references to last decade’s trilogy, such as the inclusion of Elijah Wood and Ian Holmes as Frodo and older Bilbo. We also saw the return of Christopher Lee as Saruman and Cate Blanchett as Galadriel, neither of which appear in the novel. If Jackson wanted to make it clear that these were different stories, why include these characters? As a fan of the original trilogy, I was happy to see them again, but their presence weakened making this a stand-alone movie and the start of a new franchise.

One area never gone into was the character development of the twelve dwarves. They were on the screen for the majority of the film, but we never got to know each one as an individual. In Fellowship, everyone in the fellowship was distinct and had an ample amount of development. In Unexpected Journey, even after two hours of exposure, I couldn’t tell you the names of at least eight of the twelve dwarves. In Fellowship, when Gandalf fell, my heart fell, and still does everytime I watch the “you shall not pass” scene. When Boromir passes away after a heartfelt goodbye to Aragorn, we as an audience felt. In this movie, we didn’t feel. Maybe we will over the next six or so hours that we get to see of these dwarves over the next two installments in the series.

Another regrettable mistake was the employment of comic relief. Frankly, it didn’t work. In the original trilogy, we would get comic relief from specific characters (Merry and Pippin, Legolas and Gimli). In this movie, it was just interjected at the most obscure moments, at almost any point, from almost any character. The original movies were so well made that I could both feel heartbreak and laugh at a joke. I couldn’t do both in this movie.

Finally, and the most disappointing of disappointments, was the use of special effects. Not only were the special effects in this movie worse than those of the original eleven years ago, they were used more frequently in this movie. Whereas the orcs and goblins were actors in makeup in the originals, they were products of special effects in this entry. This made the film look worse visually, and it took away some of the realism in an otherwise magical world. This, combined with poor cinematography, made the fight scenes a jumble of figures swinging swords in the dark.

With a 165-minute runtime, I would have thought that Jackson would have been able to use his time more effectively. Instead he dragged on the story, making me wonder how he’ll be able to fill in these next two movies. There better be a lot more solid, purposeful dialogue and better, more clear action scenes. Jackson has proven himself to be a great filmmaker, and I have faith he can improve on this entry with the next two. But dragging a children’s novel out to about nine hours of film content is a tough task for any filmmaker, and so far, Jackson is only doing just above par.

Although the majority of this review has been nitpicking at the movie, I must emphasize that it is a good movie – but just that – a good movie. Not great, not spectacular, not life changing, just good. Those of you eager to return to Middle Earth will be satisfied, but only just. There’s a reason this movie hasn’t garnered Oscar buzz or been named a contender for Best Picture, and that’s because unlike its predecessors, this journey to Middle Earth fails to deliver its full potential.

Rating: 3.5/5

Argo

Argo See this Movie! (That will seem funnier once you've seen the movie, I promise)

Tony Mendes (Ben Affleck) risks his life to save six Americans in Argo (Courtesy of Slate.com)

Ben Affleck showed the world he wasn’t just a pretty boy actor when he won an Oscar for co-penning Good Will Hunting. Recently, he further improved his reputation when he directed The Town. While the latter was undoubtedly good, it lacked the wow factor in my eyes. Before I saw Argo, I wondered if Affleck really had the chops to be considered a great director. Thankfully, in his recent release, he proved that he did.

Argo follows the story of the Iranian Hostage Crisis of 1979, but from a different perspective. When the U.S. Embassy was stormed by angry Iranians that were outraged at the U.S.’s sheltering of a violent Shah, six of the workers escaped and found sanctuary in the home of the Canadian ambassador. When reports reach the states that the six got out, the CIA takes action to bring the workers home, without making the Iranian people aware of the workers’ identities or location. They call in Tony Mendes (Affleck himself) to assist in concocting a plan to rescue the Americans.

With no better options, Mendes is inspired while watching Battle for the Planet of the Apes to go into Iran as a Canadian filmmaker looking for an exotic location to film, and to smuggle the fugitives out as members of his crew. With the help of a Hollywood makeup artist (John Goodman) and film producer (Alan Arkin), he acquires the script for an abandoned film project, Argo, to use as a guise to gain publicity behind his project and establish credibility for the six as members of the film crew. During the time when the plan is being formed, there are sequences when we see what is going on with the fugitives, who start to lose hope of survival and get a severe case of cabin fever.

The first hour and twenty minutes or so are mostly exposition with a few thrills and scenes of excitement. The saving grace of this extended period is Alan Arkin, who proves once again why he himself is an Oscar winner. His performance as a grumpy and sarcastic old man has been seen before, but it’s a role everyone enjoys, and adds great comic relief in a film with a rather serious subject matter.

Early speculators say this movie is the frontrunner to win Best Director for Affleck. The last forty minutes are the reason why Affleck should be recognized for his directorial efforts. This is when Tony Mendes brings the six escaped Americans to the airport to bring them home, what everything had led up to. As expected, the journey from the drop-off zone to take off isn’t exactly smooth sailing, and the thrills and tension Affleck is able to deliver to the audience is the very definition of an edge-of-your-seat experience. My words can’t praise this sequence enough. If the first eighty minutes were a 3.5/5 star movie, this part alone brought it up to the 4.5/5 stars I’m giving it.

I went into this movie with high hopes. While I did leave the theater saying “...Wow,” Argo was not without its flaws. When the hostages were all in the home of the Canadian ambassador, five of the six hostages seemed to blend together. We never got to know these people as individuals. The one character that did stick out was reluctant when Tony arrived to save them, and his redemption towards the end of the movie was surprising and fulfilling to the patient viewer. The first half left me occasionally bored. However, its rousing second act made the movie completely worthwhile.

I can’t imagine what the extended climactic scene will be like on a laptop or a TV, but I know it can’t be as effective as it was on the big screen. So, I would recommend that if you were interested in seeing this movie that you see it while it’s in theaters. If you do so, the movie as a whole will demand your attention and thus make the climax much more thrilling and rewarding.

Rating: 4.5/5

Silver Linings Playbook

Silver Linings Playbook: The Delightful Surprise of 2012 

Jennifer Lawrence and Bradley Cooper shine in Silver Linings Playbook (Courtesy of The Hollywood Reporter)

Silver Linings Playbook is the perfect movie for fans of the indie-dramedy category, comparable to such recent films as Up in the Air, The Descendants, Little Miss Sunshine, and Win Win. Bradley Cooper, of every frat boy’s favorite flick The Hangover, stars. He gives a career-defining performance as Pat, a severely bi-polar man given to mood swings and recently released from an 8-month stretch in a mental clinic into the custody of his parents. All the while, he contemplates how he can win back his wife Nikki, who issued a restraining order following his violent outburst when he saw her with another man.

Opposite Cooper is one of my favorite actresses, Jennifer Lawrence, star of the recent box-office sensation The Hunger Games. She plays Tiffany, a young widow who tries to help Pat into a better mental state, while simultaneously harboring her own inner mental disorders. Throughout the movie, Pat tries to discover the “silver lining” in his life, so he can improve and hopefully perfect his mental state. Tiffany convinces Pat that the best way to show Nikki he has improved his mentality is to dance with her in a competition – showing dedication, confidence, romantic elegance, etc.

What makes this movie work? Quite clearly the two leads. The timing and chemistry they bring to the screen is incomparable to any other film I’ve seen. Cooper portrays a more subtle character, whose fits of rage come sporadically and unexpectedly. Lawrence, on the other hand, maintains a cool and snarky-yet-lovable persona, which more than once escalates into a violent lash out against Pat. The way these two young stars bring writer-director David O. Russell’s screenplay to life is executed flawlessly. Each remark is said right when it should be, each word is accentuated and inflected just as much as it should be.

I have no doubt in my mind Cooper will be receiving his first Oscar nomination for this role. Lawrence is also expected to be nominated for her performance, though if you ask me, I’d much rather see her be nominated for The Hunger Games, which demanded much more from the 22-year-old actress both physically and emotionally, as she had to carry the whole film by herself. That being said, as long Jennifer Lawrence gets her first well-deserved Oscar this year, you won’t be hearing any complaints from me.

But back to this movie. Because it falls into the category of indie-dramedy, it definitely requires the patience of the viewers. Those who have seen some of the movies I referenced in the first paragraph know exactly what I’m talking about. However, upon leaving the theater, I was satisfied. The laughs weren’t all that frequent, but they came. Russell sacrificed quantity for quality in the laugh department, but the effect was virtually the same. The writing is intelligent, yet at times predictable. It makes up for its occasional predictability with the overall originality, and once again, great acting.

Assisted with the presence of screen-legend Robert De Niro and funny man Chris Tucker of Rush Hour (who also arguably gives a career-best, despite minimal screen-time), Silver Linings Playbook reminds audiences that movies can still deliver the laughs while maintaining the heart. If you can be patient enough through the periods of exposition, you too should walk out of the theater smiling.

Rating: 4/5

Home Alone: The Holiday Heist

Home Alone: The Holiday Heist Review, +10 Facts From the Original Films! 

Is this face the future of Home Alone? Hopefully not (Courtesy of City of Films)

Before we get into the new, let’s take a look back at the old. Here are ten things about the first four Home Alone movies you probably didn’t know!

 1. The first movie did fairly well with awards. It was nominated for two Oscars (Score and Original Song) and two Golden Globes (Motion Picture – Comedy and Actor – Comedy, for Culkin). Culkin also received several smaller awards for his signature role.
 2. Daniel Stern was approached to reprise his role as Marv in Home Alone 4. Upon reading the script, he turned it down, deeming the script “an insult, total garbage.” Can’t say it was a poor career choice in my eyes.
 3. For all those who were wondering about the dog door in the house that Kevin shoots his brother’s pellet gun out of, the McCallister’s do have a dog. The dog itself is never seen, but it is mentioned by Kevin’s mom Kate that he was put in the kennel before the trip early on in the first movie.
 4. The third Home Alone is the only movie in the series not to take place during Christmastime. As stated by one of the criminals early on, the conflict begins on January 8th.
 5. Fuller, Kevin’s cousin notoriously known for his bed-wetting, is played by Macauly Culkin’s younger brother, Keiran Culkin. Look behind those oversized glasses and you’ll see the resemblance.
 6. Culkin was paid $8 million to star in the sequel. It was the biggest paycheck ever to a 12 year-old.
 7. Adjusted for inflation, the first movie is the 38th most profitable in American history. It was also the highest grossing movie in 1990.
 8. Goof: When Harry puts his hand on the scorching doorknob, his hand is turned sideways. The “M” protruding from the doorknob burns his hand, but comes out straight, not sideways.
 9. Joe Pesci actually bit Macauly Culkin’s finger in the scene before Old Man Marley saves him, and left a scar on his finger.
 10. “Buzz, you’re girlfriend! Woof!” Director Chris Columbus didn’t want to embarrass a girl in this scene, so the person in the picture is actually a boy in a wig.

The newest addition in the series is Home Alone: The Holiday Heist, and the fifth entry in the franchise. Like the third, it features all new characters and a different storyline. It follows the story of the Baxter family, who just relocated form California to Maine. The movie’s child protagonist is Finn, a video-game obsessed 10-year-old who believes his new house is haunted. While his parents discourage the ridiculous fear, his older sister embraces it as a way to torment her younger sibling.

The legendary Malcolm McDowell (A Clockwork Orange, the 2007 remake of Halloween) plays an art thief, who discovers an $85 million painting may be located in the house the Baxter’s moved into. With his two accomplices, he plans to enter the house to steal the portrait when the Baxter’s are at a Christmas party. What the thieves don’t know is that Finn stays behind to defend his new home from the ghost, which he soon discovers is nothing more than a trio of bumbling idiots.

That aspect really assisted in making the movie unappealing to me. There was no interaction between the kid and the villains, who actually thought the traps were being set up by the same ghost Finn was afraid of (the spirit of a gangster who once occupied the home). Looking back on the first three, it’s the remarks by Kevin and Alex to the burglars that help make the movie enjoyable (“Don’t you know a kid always wins against two idiots?”). These were absent in this addition to the series. Also, the female burglar, played by Debi Mazar, added absolutely nothing to this movie but annoying over-acting, and almost made me change the channel on more than one occasion.

Another big mistake was not placing a charming yet talented actor as the lead, and Christian Martyn, the actor who played Finn, wasn’t lovable, and wasn’t that talented either. Macaulay Culkin of the first two and Alex D. Linz of the third were charismatic and able to head a film at a very young age. Mike Weinberg of Home Alone 4 had no positive attributes whatsoever. Martyn has his moments, but overall was not impressive in his portrayal.

I must admit, though, that the movie itself did have its prospects. The screenplay was unimpressive, but occasionally the dialogue was clever enough to get laughter out of me. Because of this, I didn’t feel like the two hours I spent watching this movie were completely wasted. The movie was very frustrating to watch though, as my enjoyment of it was extremely sporadic. Whenever a moment came when I started to like the film, a moment of unfunny or immature comedy was inserted, and then not too long later, I laughed again. Whenever I started to get fed up with Martyn, I wound up chuckling at the delivery of one of his lines. The movie was a toss-up, but as a whole, the positives weren’t nearly enough to make up for the negatives.

You might stumble upon this movie over the month, as it will probably be replaying during ABC Family’s 25 Days of Christmas. Believe me when I say there are plenty of better Christmas movies to watch this season, and this one didn’t even get “Christmassy” until the final 3 minutes. If you’re expecting this movie to reach the heights of the first two, you'll be sadly disappointed. This was an undeniable improvement over the fourth installment, but wasn’t even close to being as good as the third, which in turn wasn’t as good as the first two. Home Alone: The Holiday Heist lacked the charm, originality, likable lead, music, and talented cast. That’s what we get from a TV movie. If they make a sixth Home Alone, I won’t have much faith in it unless it’s a theatrical release. As for this installment, don’t go out of your way to see it, but if you do watch it, go in without any expectations, and you might get a handful of laughs out of it as well.

Rating: 2/5

Wrong Turn 5

Wrong Turn 5 Still Isn't Right

The family is back, but sadly, not better than ever (Courtesy of Blu-ray.com)

In 1996, horror lovers had their faith renewed in the genre when Scream hit theaters and redefined a genre. The film stopped the trend of horror movies being released as direct-to-video comedy-horror sequels to horror classics such as Friday the 13th, Halloween, and A Nightmare on Elm Street. However, horrors are slowly returning to their dark days – and Wrong Turn 5, recently released direct-to-video, is a testament to that.

For those unfamiliar with the Wrong Turn series, it’s basically Texas Chainsaw meets The Hills Have Eyes. Each of the movies entails a group of young friends being chased by an inbred family of hillbilly cannibals in the woods of West Virginia. The first in the series is a personal favorite, because it takes a group of B-list actors and a seemingly recycled plot and successfully tells a suspenseful and well-acted tale or horror. The second wasn’t as scary, but was far more original and adds on to the back-story created by the first. The third and fourth, both direct-to-video releases, started to diminish my hope for the franchise’s future. However, I know by now you can never underestimate the power of a cult following.

Wrong Turn 5 follows the same basic outline of its predecessors. Five college friends travel to the notorious West Virginia town for a concert, but get delayed after one of their friends is arrested for drug possession. Occupying the cell next to the friend is the father of the hillbilly clan, who continuously taunts the sheriff, telling her his boys are coming to bust him out and kill everyone else in the police station. Naturally, when someone uses the clichéd line of “they’ll kill you all,” they do.

While this movie added nothing new to the horror genre, it’s an undeniable improvement over the past two installments. It tells a better story and features more relatable and developed characters. However, these pros don’t make it good enough to make those who aren’t fans of the franchise already go out of their way to see it. Wrong Turn 5 is essentially a torture-porn. In one scene, we see two characters for the first time meet on screen. Subsequently, they sleep together, but are never seen, heard of, or mentioned again. It was at this point I asked myself if the filmmakers were trying to be formulaic.

In the first two movies, the hillbillies killed for food, and simply had a little fun in the process. Now, the filmmakers have attempted to make the killings so extravagant they come off as ridiculous. The characters now kill for a sense of enjoyment and sick thrills, and consumption is never even mentioned or implied. The primary story behind the original movie is inherently lost.

It’s a shame that the Wrong Turn franchise has disintegrated into the path of the other horror classics, but at least this movie showed some promise for the future of the series. I recommend this movie to everyone who does follow the franchise, but to everyone else, don’t bother.

Rating: 1.5/5

The Perks of Being a Wallflower

The Perks of Being a Wallflower? Soooo Many! 

Oh, the awkward moments at high school dances (Courtesy of NME)

The Perks of Being a Wallflower is one of the best movies I’ve had the pleasure of seeing all year. It’s a heartfelt and outstandingly acted tale of adolescence as seen through the eyes of high school freshman whose mind is haunted with much more than it seems.

Charlie (Logan Lerman) walks through the doors of the high school of his Pennsylvania suburb with no friends and no high hopes. It isn’t until his woodshop class that he meets an eccentric senior named Patrick, who welcomes Charlie into his friend group, which includes his step-sister Sam (Emma Watson). Charlie vies for the attention of Sam, who is head-over-heals for her college boyfriend, yet still adores her new freshman friend.

Charlie goes to parties and dances with his new pals, participates in Rocky Horror Picture Show re-enactments with them, and for the first time since his best friend shot himself in eight grade, feels included. Still clouding his mind is the thought of his aunt, who died on his seventh birthday. Throughout the year, the finding and subsequent loss of his new friend group after graduation, struggles of Sam’s prior sexual reputation, Patrick’s homosexuality, his own sporadic insecurity and depression, and his disturbing memories causes a total breakdown for Charlie at the end of the year.

The screenplay is so effective in illustrating modern high school inconveniences alongside daily triumphs on a micro level. The real gem of the movie, though, is the cast, and the way they so brilliantly bring this script to the screen. Logan Lerman, whose claim to fame was the lesser known Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief, strays away from the family friendly adventure genre and makes a successful leap to a more mature role. He portrayed the insecurity of Charlie almost effortlessly. Frankly, Ezra Miller kind of creeped me out in We Need to Talk About Kevin, where he played a teenager who goes on a killing spree in his high school with a bow and arrow. His performance in this movie took an opposite turn and showed me he can pull off both disturbing drama roles as well as a dual drama/comedy role, helping me appreciate his acting far more. By far, the best move by the casters was putting Emma Watson in the credits. Not only did it help boost the publicity of the movie, it showed Watson has the absolute ability to go beyond the Hermione Granger portrait she painted for herself over the past decade. Kudos, fellas.

I can’t stress this enough – this is one of the best movies of the year. It’s touching, hilarious, disturbing, and dramatic all when it needs to be. While some of us aren’t eager to revisit those awkward high school days, it’s a well-made film that places you back there, with all the emotion, stress, romantic tension, and more importantly, the unforgettable memories with true and dedicated friends. Go see this movie; your love for it will be infinite.

Rating: 5/5

Prometheus

Prometheus: Brilliant but Ambiguous

Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) aboard the ship Prometheus (Courtesy of Collider)

Recently, the sci-fi sensation of the summer, Prometheus, was released for home media. Ridley Scott, director of the first film in the Alien franchise, directed this movie as well, and teases the audience with possible connections to the landmark film series. Fans of the well-known franchise will see these references, while for everyone else, it’s a new experience altogether.

Prometheus tells the explosive story of the crew of the spaceship (appropriately named Prometheus) that explores the possibility of extraterrestrial life on a distant planet. The traces of these aliens lead Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) and her boyfriend/partner Charlie to believe this extraterrestrial race may have been the “engineers” of life on Earth, and eagerly get funding and a team behind them to get all the answers to their life-changing questions. Predominantly, why are we here?

As can be expected in a movie about aliens, it’s not long before the crew realizes the danger they are in and the catastrophic threat these aliens pose to humanity. As crew members disappear and die in mysterious and unexplained ways, Elizabeth is left to stop the inhabitants of the planet to return to earth, or else lose her home planet in the process.

Prometheus is incredibly well made, as a sci-fi, a horror, a thriller and a drama. It holds nothing back and is restless with its eye-popping and sometimes overly gruesome violence. It is very effective though, in part due to the acting. Charlize Theron gives a brilliantly cold performance as Meredith Vickers, the head of the exploration team representing the sponsors of the voyage. Michael Fassbender gives a noteworthy performance as the android David, whose performance will probably go down as one of the most convincing performances of a non-human character in film history. Finally, Noomi Rapace’s performance was a haunting embodiment of Liz Shaw, and in my opinion, has a very good chance of getting her an Oscar. It would have scored a perfect 5 out of 5, but there is a major issue with the movie.

While I recognize that ambiguity in sci-fi is what drives the plot along, leaving most of the questions brought up in the film unanswered results in the viewer feeling empty. This movie was not confirmed a sequel until after its release, so until that announcement, there was no guarantee a sequel would be produced. However, it’s my impression the filmmakers knew very well they would get that sequel, and purposely left so many issues unresolved to both secure that sequel and ensure the audience was filled with millions of curious viewers waiting for their questions to be answered.

Cha-ching!

As I said though, as a whole the movie is well directed and fantastically acted, features breathtaking visuals and set pieces, and is flawlessly filmed and edited. As a movie buff, I also appreciated the references to the original Alien franchise. Ultimately, though, the ambiguity makes a negative impression on the final rating of the movie. Expect to go into this and see great acting and effects, but primarily, to prepare yourself for the sequel.

Rating: 4/5

Taken 2

Taken 2 Many Times 

Bryan Mills (Neeson) warns his daughter Kim (Maggie Grace) that their nightmare is being revisited (Courtesy of Entertainment Weekly) 

I always love a sequel done right. No matter how good a movie is, there's always room for improvement, and as much as I loved the original Taken, it’s no exception. In Taken 2, it was great to see everything that made the first so re-watchable was there, but there was more added suspense and character development.

While Bryan Mills (Liam Neeson) is still working security (as opposed to his government position as a “preventer”), he has clearly made a name for himself in the business. In this follow-up to the 2008 hit, Mills is hired for a three-day job in Istanbul. His daughter Kim and ex-wife Lenore take him up on an invitation to visit him after his job is complete. Unfortunately for the Mills family, they just can’t seem to catch a break when they goes overseas. 

One of the fathers of the Albanian men who kidnapped his daughter Kim in the original inspires the fathers and brothers of the other kidnappers to enact revenge on Mills. He tracks Mills down, and discovers not only Bryan, but his entire family, is in driving distance just across the border. He sets out with his men to find the family, and are able to corner and kidnap Bryan and Lenore.

But come on, we all know Bryan wouldn’t lie down and die. After being captured, he uses a concealed phone to call Kim and is able to enlist her to help free himself and Lenore. We really get to see Kim shine in this movie, after only seeing her for a minute or two at the very end of the first following her under-the-bed kidnapping.

The worst thing the filmmakers could’ve done is a remake the first movie. Thankfully, this wasn’t the case. We got to see Mills employ some of his “particular set of skills” that he didn’t in the first movie, such as being able to follow where he goes with nothing but timing and audible reference points.

This sequel also forgoes repeating the bloodlust Mills goes on in favor of more suspense filled scenes. These were not cheap thrills in the slightest, but rather solid, armrest clenching scenes. And don’t worry, there were still plenty of bullets flying from Bryan’s gun for all those wanting to see Liam Neeson with a firearm in hand again. While it lacks the originality the first had, there’s a nice balance of suspense and action. It was great to see the new take the filmmakers had on the story, and to see several of the characters return with even more consideration to their developments.

Like most of you probably are, I was hesitant going in to the movie due to the massively negative reviews. However, I implore you to look past those reviews, and give Taken 2 a chance, especially if you enjoyed the original (which also had a classified “rotten” rating on RottenTomatoes.com). I thoroughly enjoyed this movie, and I think those who are looking for more of what they saw in the original, but not necessarily the same movie in a different location, will be more than satisfied.

Rating: 4/5

Looper

Looper: Joseph Gordon-Levitt Stays on Top

Joe prepares to eliminate his next target (Courtesy of screenrant)

Over the past few years, Joseph Gordon-Levitt has emerged to A-list status as an actor, with 500 Days of Summer, 50/50, Inception and The Dark Knight Rises among his credits. More recently, he has added another great film to that list – Looper. The movie features Gordon-Levitt as an assassin named Joe (how appropriate) in the year 2044, working for a mob that sends threats 30 years to the past to be disposed of. Joe’s job consists of him waiting in a cornfield when requested and holding a shotgun to an empty tarp. In a matter of moments, a person arrives out of thin air on the tarp, hooded and bound. In less than a second, that person is dead.

The assassins for the mob are called loopers. Time travel is deemed highly illegal once discovered, and so the mob eradicates any evidence of participating in it. After 30 years, each looper will be sent back to be assassinated by their former self, referred in the film as “closing your loop.”

During one particular assassination, Joe hesitates when he sees the man who appears is not hooded or bound. Looking into his eyes, he realizes the man is his future self. After a brief scuffle, which the older Joe (Bruce Willis, one of my favorite actors) wins, both Joes are now on the run from the mob.

It is soon revealed that Joe traveled back willingly attempt to stop The Rainmaker, the head of the mob, from rising to power. By doing so, he saves his future and ultimately, himself. He comes back with a series of numbers that lead him to three possible candidates of who The Rainmaker might be, and makes it his mission to get rid of all of them.

Elsewhere, younger Joe stumbles onto the farm of a young woman named Sara, after being injured. The revelation that it is her toddler son Cid who may grow up to be The Rainmaker creates a conflict leading to a conclusion that kept my eyes glued to the screen and left me mind-blown.

This film is extremely entertaining, and is sure to be one of the big names in sci-fi for 2012, along with The Hunger Games and Prometheus. It is completely original, featuring an incredible script and notable performances and character development. This also seemed to be as much of an effort behind the camera as it was in front, as the sound effects, visual effects and film editing were flawless, making the action scenes pieced together astoundingly. It also manages to take a seemingly complicated plot and make it graspable for the first-time viewer, as opposed to movies like Inception, which required a second view for many in order to digest everything that happened.

A time traveler from the future has come to the past to assassinate three people – one of which could alter the future drastically. This premise probably sounds familiar to those who have seen the Terminator series. While this part of Looper is eerily similar to the classic franchise, it uses only the framework of the idea, and brings it to life in a completely new, different, and original fashion. In short, Looper is incredible, and Joseph Gordon-Levitt proves once again to moviegoers everywhere that he is nothing short of a Hollywood star.

Rating: 4.5/5