Decided to throw my hat into the ring of 2010 mash ups.

Films:
Scott Pilgrim
The Expendables
Prince of persia
Salt
repo men
robin hood
Daybreakers
Legion
Edge of Darkness
From paris With Love
Percy jackson
Cop Out
Crazies
Kick Ass
How to train your dragon
clash of the titans
the losers
iron man 2
macgruber
the karate kid
toy story 3
Knight and Day
Twilight Eclipse
The Sorcerer’s Apprentice
The Other Guys
Resident Evil 4
Red
harry potter
faster
true grit
tron
Inception
the losers
tekken
the book of eli
Jonah Hex
Skyline
Predators
Shutter Island
The Town
Killers

Music:
Hero by Skillet

Made in 12/2010

Cameras used:

Sony FX7
Kodak Zi8
Sony Handycam

Made in 12/2010

Cameras used:

Sony FX7
Kodak Zi8
Sony Handycam

Made in 11/2010

Made in 10/2010

Having been a fan of the book series, and spending the weekend prior to my viewing of this film watching Harry Potter three through six, I was pretty excited to watch the beginning of the end. Unfortunately, unlike every other film in the franchise, this one doesn’t stand on it’s own. And that leads to its ultimate disappointment.

While I understand that this is Pt. 1, that doesn’t excuse the film makers to only deliver Act 1 of the story. A film works in three parts, even the Lord of The Rings films which were all part of one bigger story, worked individually, and that is also the case with every Harry Potter film prior to this. But The Deathly Hallows spends half of the film lazily delivering exposition and decent but not great action, and the other half in the woods.

Don’t get me wrong, things like the visual style and the acting were just as good as they’ve always been and that’s why the film isn’t a total loss, but when you’re promising Part 1 of the greatest finale of all time, then you better be delivering that.

It felt like the film makers made this film to get to the major cliffhanger at the end. Rather than giving this film it’s own conflicts, everything is set up for Pt. 2. I think a quote a friend of mine made serves the film best “this film is like all the boring parts of a five hour movie.” Sadly, it’s true.

On a technical front this film is just as good as all the others. The production team has always done a good job at world building and David Yates definitely brought his A-game. It’s just a shame his A-game wasn’t enough to redeem an O.K. script.

And I do think that’s the biggest reason for my disappointment, the script just wasn’t there. And it is because it’s hard to make the story interesting in a visual form.

When reading it in the book, you’re able to get inside Harry’s mind and understand what he’s going through. But in the film, unless you find a reason for him to speak, you don’t get that. This is something that plagues every book to film adaptation, but I think the strain of this being the seventh film in the series is finally taking it’s toll on everyone involved.

And just as a small gripe, the one character who serves the biggest role in the book outside of Harry, his friends and Voldemort, Snape has exactly ONE scene in the entire film. It’s things like that, that really irk me.

Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows Part 1 isn’t a bad film, it’s just misguided. Misguided by the false sense that you can put anything out in this film as long as Pt. 2 is epic. And since the majority of what was in the trailer isn’t in Pt. 1, I have a feeling Pt. 2 will deliver on everything this film was lacking.

6.5/10

“This is Will Colson your conductor, we’re gonna run this bitch down.”

Out of context this sounds like the most cliche line ever to grace the silver screen, but by the time you reach this point in Unstoppable, the film will have taken you an a ride of ruthless suspense, insane action and unbearable tension… And that’s only the first half of the film.

Now there will be those who contest that the movie just tries to throw every cliche in the book at you. Things like the fact that there just happens to be a train full of school children on the same track as the unstoppable train, or how at one point a horse trailer gets stuck on the track. But by the time these elements are introduced, you are so sucked in to the path of destruction this train is leaving in its wake that you completely forget how cliche it all really is.

The reason Unstoppable works so well can be contributed to two major factors, the first of which is Chris Pine and Denzel Washington.

Will Colson and Frank Barnes are an extremely likable, though dysfunctional pair. And despite again being so cliche in their set up (both having broken families), by the time the movie gets to their respective “hero moments,” you can’t help but sit in your chair and cheer them on as they try to tame the ultimate man made beast. And the reason the cliches go unnoticed? It all has to do with Tony Scott.

Scott really tried to deliver on the thriller part of action/thriller. Unlike the enjoyable but insane Taking of Pelham 123, Unstoppable is a slow build. It takes a good fifteen to twenty minutes for the unmanned train to actually begin rolling, but once it does the movie never lets you go.

He also remains mostly restrained in his camera work. Most of the “crazy” cinematography doesn’t begin until the action does. Unlike Pelham which maintained the intense feel from the first frame until the credits.

Another contributing factor to the success of Unstoppable is its side characters. Connie Hooper played by Rosario Dawson, Galvin played by Kevin Dunn, Dewey played by Ethan Suplee and Ned Oldham played by Lew Temple. All of these people bring to the table performances that make me care about the 100 minutes this out of control train is on the track.

The best of those performances is provided by Lew Temple. Despite being portrayed as a cliche rough neck, you just want to cheer Ned on as he tries to get ahead of the train. And when he shows up in the final act to give Chris Pine his moment of gory, all you want to do is jump through the screen and give him a giant high-five.

But of course the star of the film is the one that doesn’t speak a single word. The unstoppable, faceless train that’s about to destroy a nice portion of Pennsylvania. What makes it work is that the train looks like something coming straight out of hell itself. It’s massive, it’s red and it’s loud. All of these elements give off a real sense of unrest when you look at it. It takes a very skilled film maker to make the audience fear a faceless, nameless enemy. And Tony Scott pulls it off with grace and veracity.

What makes Unstoppable great is that you let it be what it’s trying to be. A fun, intense ride of emotion and suspense. And despite not having the most intelligent script, everyone and everything in it makes the film work on a level that no one could have foreseen.

9/10

Following the success of The Hangover, Todd  Philips has returned to the genre that gave him his career, Road Comedy. And that film is Due Date starring Robert Downey Jr. and Zach Galifianakis. And while the film has its moment, it’s for the most part a mixed bag of forced cheesy one liners and some genuinely funny scenes.

Taking the film piece by piece, the best part of it is Robert Downey Jr. Downey has always had a wonderful comedic sense about him that’s really come through recently in films such as Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, Tropic Thunder and Sherlock Holmes. The difference in Due Date is that he’s applying that comedic wit to a down to earth, real world character. Peter Highman is just a normal guy with a bit of a temper. And some would argue that those kinds of characters, the characters that are just normal people are the hardest to pull off.

Throughout the film, Downey has genuinely funny moments, but those moments only come when he ‘s acting on his own. For example, one of his best scenes comes from a dialogue he has between himself and a coffee can off a highway. Only Downey could take a scene like that and make it believable.

On that flip side of that coin however is Zach Galifianakis. Unlike The Hangover where Galifianakis’s character was an idiot savant, his character in Due Date, Ethan Tremblay is just and idiot. There’s no real redeeming quality to him. And that isn’t to say the film didn’t’ try to give him heart felt moments. The issue is that those moments felt forced and unnatural at their best, and just annoying at their worst.

Some of these scenes include Tremblay buying “medication,” him acting very uncomfortably lucid in front of Peter in the car and a scene between him and his “father” at the Grand Canyon. I just couldn’t get behind him as a character.

There are also characters in this film that serve no purpose at all. The most notable of which is played by Jamie Foxx. Foxx’s character ends up posing a big question for Downey which is ultimately forgotten about and only revisited for about four seconds at the end of the film.

In fact, the majority of these side-characters felt like they were written in order to facilitate a joke that occurs later in the film, rather than jokes being written for a character that has been created.

One a technical front, the film is standard. Unlike The Hangover which seemed to have a visual flair that really lends itself to the story, this films just seems… Flat.

Overall, Due Date will serve its purpose for the one hundred minutes you spend in the theater, but you will forget it very quickly after that. Don’t go in expecting another Hangover, hell don’t go in expecting a traditional road movie. Just go in expecting nothing, and your expectations will be met.

5.5/10

To examine a frame usually entails the dissection of a singular frame from a film. But what if within that one frame, there are four to choose from? This is the case in the frame I chose out of the 2003 film Phonebooth. The reason I chose this frame is for the amount of story you get within it, as well as the attention to detail in an image that is clearly in motion at the moment.

Taking a look at the entire image as a whole, it’s clear that Schumacher is using the split screen to show the various characters working at the same time. While Stu is talking to the gun man on the phone, the reporters are setting up shop to capture the whole thing live, while the police fly over head in the screaming chopper to make sure nothing goes wrong… For now.

Moving on to a more detailed dissection, let’s start with the upper left corner of the frame. Notice that the shot is an over head (possibly from the perspective of the helicopter on the right), the shot it meant to give placement to everything else in the frame. Stu on the phone on the lower right and the reporter on the lower left, thanks to this shot we have a sense of placement. From a framing standpoint, the shot is most likely utilizing a wide angle lens to get across the large amount of space within the frame. It’s a rather basic shot in terms of depth of field though. The color in this frame, like all the others is using a blue filter to play on the mood being set in the scene.

Moving on to the shot of the Helicopter, again this is a rather basic shot from a technical stand point. It’s there to portray the police response to the scene. But do notice the fact that the chopper is framed off center in one of the thirds of the screen. So while it is the only subject in the frame, it isn’t boring to look at.

Moving to the lower left, the report is one of the more “amateur” shots in the film, most likely because the journalist herself would most likely be framed this way by her camera man. She’s dead center, and the main subject on screen. Everything behind her is out of focus as she gets ready to deliver the story of her career.

Moving on to our star on the lower right, Stu is framed in a way that almost makes him no different than the reporter. This could go towards a desire by Schumacher to get across the fact that Stu is no different than the no good reporter who just wants the story. Stu is dead center with everything behind him out of focus.

So much can be said in a single frame, but even more can be said in four. Do to Phonebooth’s real time style, using the split screen is the only effective way to get across so many character actions in one frame, but the thing most films forget when utilizing the split screen is that just because you are splitting the screen, that doesn’t mean you can forget to give detail to the individual frames within it.

“We don’t know what it can be, we don’t know what it will be” proclaims a young Mark Zuckerberg played by Jesse Eisenberg in the latest David Fincher masterpiece, The Social Network.

I wanna start out by saying this, anyone thinking about not seeing this movie because they think it’s about Facebook, needs to rethink that decision. While Facebook may be the films mcguffin, The Social Network is all about the digital age, and the new age of business relations.

By now you know the plot of the film so I won’t waste your time, what you don’t know is how this film will serve as the ultimate portrayal of the digital generation. Many said that, that was the role of Scott Pilgrim vs. The World. But I sit here now, and I tell you that The Social Network couldn’t have done a better job at revealing the real life nature of digital society.

Take for example the first scenes in Mark’s dorm room at Harvard. They are quick, and unrelenting. It’s up to the viewer to keep up with the massive amount of data passing by them. Everything is instantaneous, much like the internet itself. The opening scene alone sets up what snowballs into a near perfect piece of drama.

It’s all about dialogue in this film. One could almost say that this film is the result of all the witty back and forth style conversations that people had in the 90s. But now, they’re much more random, and yet soothing to the parties involved.

This is a film that will make every audience walk out with a massive ego, but at the same time finally ending the argument of “anyone can do it.” Zuckerberg is the Bill Gates of his age (who has a cameo in the film). The man is a genius. So no, not anyone can just register a .com and make a billion dollars in the span of two years.

But the film does bring to light the new way of business relationships and business creation. One no longer has to go through the banks, attorneys, courts, and litigation. Now it’s just a matter of being able to pay a monthly registration fee to godaddy.com, and poof you own a business. Not necessarily a billion dollar business though.

That’s the ultimate message of the film; creating power like this is all too simple in today’s instant world. But the trick is having the idea that sticks. The film spends some time on the now defunct Freindster and Myspace, and showing where they went wrong. The Social Network shows why Facebook has managed to maintain its longevity for so long. Even with new, more instant social networks like Twitter creeping in (no Twitter is not mentioned in the film).

There’s a great line in the film stated by the president of Harvard about the school’s students “they don’t want to find jobs anymore, they want to create them.” That philosophy can be extended to any film blogger, any online sales rep, any online market place, frankly anyone with the cash and idea can create their own opportunity. It’s no longer about setting your mind to the idea, it’s about how long you can make the idea last.

On the acting front, Eisenberg’s portrayal of the man who created the beast, it’s beautiful. Essentially, Eisenberg is playing the real world version of what Michael Cera wanted to be in Scott Pilgrim, a man that just wants respect. And that can also be said for the great performance by Andrew Garfield and the double team twin performance by Armie Hammer. Even Justin Timberlake’s portrayal of Napster founder Sean Parker was excellent.

Sorkin’s writing is also impeccable in this film. This a film that had a lot of great things flying off the page clearly before anything was ever running through the camera. Not to in anyway compare the story telling ability, but as far as the dialogue goes Sorkin’s writing in this film is the Kevin Smith dialogue of today’s generation.

On a technical level, the film is damn near perfect. Fincher’s camera work is beyond prevalent in The Social Network. Quick pans followed by slow raises, and some of the best digital work I’ve seen yet from a main stream film. Fincher is a man that knows his way around a camera and isn’t afraid to show it. The score of the film alone is excellent, every track serves to magnify the emotion on screen. I couldn’t have asked for more.

The fact is, The Social Network is the movie that gets the digital generation on a scale that Scott Pilgrim could only dream of. This is a film that will go down as a defining masterpiece. In the words of one of the characters “this is the idea of a generation.”

9.5/10

Before we begin:
1) I have read all the Scott Pilgrim books
2) I am a former gamer
3) I am a member of the geek community
Now on to the review.

Scott Pilgrim vs. The World is one of the most entertaining films of the year. Scott Pilgrim vs. The World is the best video game movie ever made. Scott Pilgrim vs The World is the best theater experience of the year. Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, is an excellent film… But flawless, it is not.

Scott Pilgrim is a 23 year old slacker living in Canada. His life is average, his band is average, his friends are average, his relationships are average…  You get the idea. That is, until one day he meets the girl of his dreams, literally. Ramona Flowers has been skating through Scott’s dreams, and now he wants to be with her. But it’s not as easy as he thinks, because in order to date Ramona, Scott must defeat her seven evil exes… You heard me.

Now, that’s the premise of a life time. But director Edgar Wright handles it with grace and tenacity. From the very first frame, Scott Pilgrim makes it very clear what type of film you’re going to be watching. Make no mistake about it, this is a geek movie. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t some stuff for the passive watcher to enjoy.

At its core Scott Pilgrim vs. The World is a love story. A very campy, violence filled love story and unless you’ve never touched a video game in your life (and if you’ve played Pac-Man you’re not in that group) you’ll get at least some of the main gags. But Scott Pilgrim isn’t naive about its audience.

No matter how much the film wants to bring the main stream crowd in, it’s a geek movie. And does this film work for the geek crowd? I think the better question is, do I even need to ask? The film is based on one of the geekiest properties ever created.

Which brings me to my first, and probably most pressing issue with the film. How it works as an adaptation to Brian Lee O’malley‘s popular book series. I’ll sum it up like this… Scott Pilgrim vs. The World is like Watchmen, this is the best film version we were ever going to get. The fact is, Edgar Wright had the very difficult job of compressing six very well crafted books into a 112 minute movie. So of course certain things from the books are going to be compressed, or even changed. For the most part, the movie parts ways with the books between volumes 3 and 4.

One of the best examples of this is Scott’s ex-girlfriend Envy Adams. In the books, Envy is the biggest hurtle that Scott faces. He can’t get over her, and every time he comes into contact with her, he breaks down. Like this:

However in the film, her role only serves a purpose in the first half. Then she just disappears completely. At that point, why bother including her at all? Especially considering the amount of build up that is given to her reveal.

The movie also doesn’t do the best job at explaining the portals that allow Ramona to travel through Scott’s dreams (which doesn’t happen nearly as often as it does in the books). While I’m not expecting a full act given to it, I would like a little explanation for people who haven’t read the books. This seems to be this films biggest problem. It forgets that people who haven’t read Scott Pilgrim are watching Scott Pilgrim.

Then there’s the portrayal of the characters in the movie. There are times when the characters are dead on, like Knives Chau. In the books Knives is a clingy seventeen year old that can’t take a hint, well that’s exactly what you get in the film. But for other characters, the portrayal falls flat, like in the case of Kim Pine. In the books Kim is a sassy, but sweet friend of Scott’s, who enjoys swapping embarrassing stories about him with Ramona.

But in the movie, she is a bruiting self-absorbed person, a very unlikable bitch of a character to be honest. Alison Pill really didn’t understand the essence of Kim Pine and apparently neither did Edgar Wright.

Some of the best character portrayals in the film came from the evil exes. Scott Pilgrim is full of some of this generation’s greatest character actors, such as Chris Evans and Brandon Routh. Jason Schwartzman who plays the main bad guy, Gideon Gordon Graves is also dead on. Some of the other excellent portrayals came from Scott’s love interest, Ramona being played by Mary Elizabeth Winstead and Stacey Pilgrim (who did not get enough screen time, another downfall of the rather short run time) being played by Anna Kendrick.

As for Michael Cera’s portrayal of the title character, it works… To a point. There are stretches where classic Michael Cera seeps through the cracks. Whenever a seen required him to over emphasize his emotions, he fails. But over all this can be considered a stretch for him. I really think that has more to do with Edgar Wright than it does Cera himself.

Another problem are all the scattered random jokes that are straight out of the book, that ultimately fall flat. One of the best examples can be seen in the trailer of the film. Scott learns that Ramona had a bi-sexual phase and one of the evil exes is a girl. To which he replies “you had a sexy phase?” Look at the way the joke is delivered in the book:

But the films portrayal of this gag is dull. And moments like this happen many times throughout the film. It really depended on how well the specific actor had grasped the essence of the character at that point in time. In this case, Cera’s usual whisper tone way of delivering dialogue ruined the joke.

The final gripe in regards to the adaptation aspect is that, certain elements taken directly out of the comic feel rushed in the film. Things like why Ramona wants to leave Scott all of a sudden in the final act, or why on earth is Ramona able to pull a god damn hammer out of her bag. Unless you read the book, these explanations will be lost on you. Like I said, Wright had to compress six books into one film, but he should of made it a little longer than 112 minutes. Twenty more minutes might have made a huge difference.

But let’s move on from the problems of the film as an adaptation. How about the style? It’s classic Wright. Remember all those quick cut sequences from Hot Fuzz and Shaun of The Dead? Well imagine if that editing style was used in an entire film.

One of the things Wright really nailed from the books was the pace of the story. The way scenes transition from one to the other is nearly identical to the book, and it plays very well. The only gripe on the editing/pacing is the first act of the film. You really don’t start getting comfortable with the jumpiness of it until the first evil ex battle happens twenty minutes in. But barring that, the editing and pacing are top notch. So props to Mr. Wright and his editing team on that one.

The movie is also beautiful. On a color, and cinematography level that is. It’s even seizure inducing at points (like the opening credits). The way Wright moves the camera in this film really reflects classic video game camera movement. Giving off the illusion of spontaneity, but in fact is very stable.

Cinematographer Bill Pope (who worked on all the Matrix and Spider-Man films) really had a grasp of how to block the scenes. He, Wright, and the set design team did a great job at the world building of this film. Like the book, the movie takes place in a hyper reality that looks like our own, until a super natural fight breaks out. And in that respect, everything was smooth and very well constructed; again I thank the production team.

Now, one of the big selling points of this film are the fights between Scott and the evil exes. So let me say these few things about them, they are the best parts of the film. And, they come at just the right moments. Any time the film starts to get a little boring with all the pop culture references, a fight starts.

The fights are both funny and brutal at the same time. There were scattered moments during some of the fights (the first one in particular) where the film deviated far from what was on the page and got too zany for its own good. But the fact is, Wright had a clear vision of what he wanted to bring the fights of the book to life, and for the most part, he succeeded.

Another big part of the film is the indy music scene. I’m not very familiar with this culture, but I felt the movie did a really great job of portraying it. It really captures that amateurness of an indy show. The bad audio, the untalented acts, the glimmer of hope act (Sex Bob-omb in this case) that exists in the sea of talentless crap, it’s all there. And the sound track of the film plays really well. This is one you’re going to wanna pick up right after the movie is over, I guarantee it.

As for the comedic value of the film, it’s high, very high. Some moments in this film made the audience laugh harder than anything I heard when I saw Zombieland, and that’s hard to do. While this film is no slouch on the dramatic, it’s clear that comedy was always Edgar Wrights go to, especially during scenes such as the fight involving ex #3. This movie is definitely the funniest film of 2010 (so far) without question.

To be honest, I’m just going to keep gushing over this film and its various parts. So let me leave you with this… Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World is the best theater experience you are going to have this year (so far). It’s a film that totally gets its audience and tries its best to deliver on everything people want. This one you don’t want to miss. As long as you remember that things can change in the transition from paper to screen, than you’ll believe that Scott Pilgrim can defeat the world.

8.5/10

Dinner for Schmucks should be retitled “Steve Carell’s pay day.” I remember a time when this was the guy on campus. From his humble beginnings on The Daily Show, to his first big movie role in Bruce Almighty, the guy was going places. And while most absolutely adore him on The Office, I’m not one of those people. But, I walked into Dinner for Schmucks with hope, and in one ninety minute sitting, Carell took that hope and smashed it over the head with a hammer. But that’s not the films only problem.

Dinner for Schmucks centers around Tim Wagner, a low level analyst at a financial firm. When a fellow analyst is fired, he suddenly sees an opening on the seventh floor (gee, like I haven’t seen that a thousand times), and goes for it. Upon impressing the boss, he’s given one last task before getting the promotion, invite an idiot to a dinner so his colleagues can make fun of him. And so begins the rest of Dinner for Schmucks.

Let’s address actors for a second. This movie is chock full of funny people on their own merit. Paul Rudd for example. This guy, as far as I’m concerned, is the new Jim Carrey. The perfect blend of slap stick and sarcastic humor. But he’s so under used in this film, and to think, he’s the main protagonist. Throughout the movie it just feels like he’s trying to recapture the magic he pulls off in movies like 40 Year Old Virgin and Role Models. But because he’s limited to the unfortunate PG-13, all he can do is the slap stick, and except for one moment involving him crawling on the floor because of a bad back, all his jokes fall flat.

Now, if my ranting wasn’t enough in the opening paragraph, I hated Carell in this movie. I hated the insipid idiocy of his character. I hated the way we walked. I hated the way he talked. I hated that he took nothing seriously. I hated his god damn mice. I hated everything. It felt like he was trying to do a live action Homer Simpson with waaaay less funny jokes and no redeemable charm. If it wasn’t for the fact that I refuse to review a film without seeing it all the way through, I would’ve walked out.

As for the rest of the supporting cast, they suck too. The only glimmer of hope in the in this sea of despair was Larry Wilmore (ironically, another Daily Show vet). I actually laughed at some of his jokes, but they were far from anything that would make up for the rest of the film. The fact is, I hate this kind of humor. The sarcastic, dry, pointless humor… Actually, humor is the wrong word. The word is idiocy. I hate idiocy. Every single character is a moron, and I don’t care if that was the point or not, it’s still annoying, and painful to watch.

Now even though this is a comedy, and I know I shouldn’t be putting too much thought into the camera work, would it have killed the cinematographer to frame a shot correctly. Every frame, someone’s head is cut off at the wrong place. It became a real visual distraction and just served to further pull me out of the film.

As for Jay Roach’s direction, I was surprised how poor it was. This is a guy who made one of my favorite TV flicks ever (Recount). And directed one of the funniest films of the last decade (Meet The Parents). This film is such a step down for the man. I was so disappointed. I saw no passion in the film and no sense of anyone giving a damn.

I really have nothing else to say about this mess of a film. The fact is, a comedys number one job is to make me laugh. And this film did not do that. I sat their quietly in the theater and watched every joke fall flat. I say, avoid Dinner for Schmucks at all costs, because it’s not worth your hard earned cash.

3/10

Merrill,
Hey there.

I apologize that this letter is late in coming. I’ve been wanting to write you about this episode and have not had the opportunity.

I think that the conversation missed a huge portion of the way critics serve their readers, and how their job has changed over the years.

Kevin Carr touched upon this but didn’t fully hit upon it. The massive difference between critics today and critics in my time (I’m 45) is, as Mr. Carr said, the internet. Not the fact that each and every person can be a critic by setting up a blog, but in information access.

When I was growing up the only way to know who Alfred Hitchock was and his importance to film, was via critics. There was no imdb, allmovie or access to writers who knew about the history of film. There was no theater chain playing film retrospectives that might introduce me to a director whose name I’ve heard, but whose films I’ve never seen.

There also were no VHS/DVD/Blu-Ray that I could purchase or Netflix I could stream the films. My local Sears and Woolworth’s (The Target of its day.) didn’t have a movie section. There was no Best Buy 2 miles from my house, nor was there a deepdiscount.com or Amazon.com where I could read reviews/opinions or stream/purchase that film for leisurely viewing. If I wasn’t alive in 1940, I had no way of seeing Citizen Kane. If I didn’t live in Japan in 1956, I couldn’t see the original Godzilla (Gojira, which wasn’t released in American until about 5 years ago in its original, no Raymond Burr form.)

The only time you might hear about an Alfred Hitchcock, Woody Allen, Stanley Krubrick or Orson Welles was when they released a new film and a critic would not only tell you about the virtues, or lack thereof, of a new film, but tell you why you should care about their old films.

Today when any director is attached to a film I can find out their entire career at the flip of a switch and the speed of my connection. I can tell you their history, success, trivia and whether or not they create a decent commentary and extras for their films.

In the 70′s and earlier, the only way I could find out the importance of Alfred Hitchcock was either take a film course or, more likely, read about his history and importance when their new film came out. (If you were really lucky and had a nice set of rabbit ears, you might find a PBS station showing Nosferatu or Metropolis like I did.)

Even if that film wasn’t up to that directors standards, their great films will be mentioned in that review and suddenly I have a list of films to look for when I pick up the next issue of TV Guide. (Getting the new issue off the shelf of the grocery store and going through the movie listing and star rankings was a weekly ritual. I really did plan my movie watching week that way.)

Today the film critic tells me if a film is good or bad. The next article by that critic tells me why I should care. The film critic still serves a purpose, but film reviews have changed. When Woody Allen releases Midnight In Paris all I need is to know if the film is worth my $10.00 and 90 minutes. Once the director sells me on the product, then I’ll go to Film School Rejects and read Dr. Abaius’s article on why I should care about the other 30 great films he has released, what films I should NetFlix and what order I should watch them in. 35 years ago the only way to get that information was via my local film reviewer.

As for Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert, they were merely the first to figure out a way of making film review accessible via new technology of TV. Did they destroy film journalism? Of course not. They didn’t stop writers from producing the articles that told you why a Fellini was important, but they probably got far more people to try a Fellini film in the first place.

Thanks for the great show.

What are your thoughts?

Between the late nineties and early two thousands, the action/thriller genre hit a major stride with films such as The Rock, The Negotiator, The Recruit, Cellular, Phone Booth and Enemy of The State. While SALT isn’t nearly as good as those films, it definitely captures the essence of what made those films great.

When CIA agent Evelyn Salt is accused of being a double agent, she goes on the run to clear her name, all while trying to stop the assassination of the Russian President.

I want to start with the writing of this film. It comes to us from Kurt Wimmer (who gave us The Recruit from the list above). Now, while Wimmer isn’t a well known name, I am willing to bet you like at least one of his films. Between Law Abiding Citizen, The Thomas Crown Affair, Equilibrium and Street Kings (you heard me), the man knows his way around a well made thriller, and this is no different. SALT’s twists are blatant; this is not unusual for him, there is no denying or hiding that fact. You know the twist fifteen minutes into the first act, but who cares? I sure didn’t.

Then there’s the director. Phillip Noyce is probably best known for his directorial work on the two Jack Ryan films starring Harrison Ford, Clear and Present Danger and Patriot Games. Both were solid 80’s action/thrillers in their own right. So the man knows the genre. And while SALT has elements of Jack Ryan, Mission Impossible, Bourne and James Bond, it’s still fun to watch Evelyn kick ass and take names.

Speaking of Salt, Angelina Jolie is a bad ass. I’m a little sad that she spreads her actioners out so far apart, because between this, Wanted and Mr. and Mrs. Smith, I want to see her in an action film every year. Forget Tom Cruise (who this film was originally created for), forget Matt Damon, forget Daniel Craig, it’s all about Jolie. She is the quintessential female bad-a… Yah know what, screw the female part, she is right up there with Cruise, Damon, Craig, and the rest of the boys. Just a straight up bad-ass, and I couldn’t enjoy it more.

Now, this film does best in the action part of that action/thriller. Every action scene is better than the one that comes before it, all leading up to Salt’s final showdown. Excellent pace by Noyce, excellent agility and grace displayed by Jolie and (assuming they stuck to the script) excellent location choices from Wimmer. The thriller part is sort of there, but sort of isn’t. That’s just something you need to accept going in, but it still falls within the genre… Barely.

This movie is like a well oiled machine. It’s definitely not for that niche crowd. It’s for the main stream crowd, the crowd that isn’t that into Nolan’s latest mind bender or Wright’s latest comedic craft. No this crowd likes it straight and to the point. And that’s what you get with SALT, and you get it well. If you can get over the obvious plot twist, and the not completely closed story (hopefully for a sequel), then you’ll enjoy the latest entry into the action/thriller genre.

8/10

Let me start off by saying, screw you Christopher Nolan! Screw you, for making me gain an appreciation for the world around me! Screw you, for making me realize how awesome the world is when there’s nothing distracting you from it! Screw you, for making a wonderfully crafted film! Moving on though, let me answer some of the questions I know you have…  Is Inception a work of creative genius? Yes. Is Inception a nonstop thrill ride? Yes. Is Inception proof that big budget Hollywood can make good movies? Yes. Is Inception a completely original idea in a sea of sequels and remakes? No.

I’m not even going to bother going over the plot of Inception because that’s something I think you should experience for yourself.

So moving from there, lets start with the performances. Almost everyone brings their A game to this movie. Leonardo DiCaprio channels some scary guy from deep within him to create his Cobb character. It was rather stunning actually. I liked his role in Shutter Island, but I loved his role here. It was heart pounding. Ellen Page also really delivered where I thought she would fall flat on her face. She is the key to everything Cobb does, she is what separates Cobb from success and failure, and she pulled it off with amazing grace. Joseph Gordon-Levitt brings an amazing charisma to the film that only he could pull off. Tom Hardy is as close as you could come to any form of comic relief in this movie, but at the same time he delivers on the “ultimate bad-ass” role quite well. My only real acting issue is with Marion Cotillard. It felt like she couldn’t do anything on her own. That the only reason I can stand to watch her on screen is because she can play of the amazing presence of DiCaprio. But to avoid spoilers I will stop there.

On to the story of the film. This is kind of hard to talk about, as to avoid those pesky spoilers, so let me say these few basic things. The story of Inception IS NOT original. We have seen this done before. We see it in films like Dreamscape and The Matrix. Some of it’s ideals are in films such as Dogma and A.I. The way the first act unfolds screams Mission Impossible. But I didn’t care. It was still able to craft an interesting plot out of everything it takes from others. That said though, I can’t ignore that those elements make the film not original. A small fact, but a fact none the less.

Inception also takes a lot of pacing elements from other films. Every single action sequence feels like it’s out of a Bond film, specifically, Casino Royale. The film just screams Campbell in those sequences. They were cut like the South Africa chase sequence in Casino. Not the slow cuts that Nolan used in The Dark Knight, the cuts that really portray his style, an interesting creative move to say the least. Also, it’s amazing how similar this film is to DiCaprio’s other mind bender of the year, Shutter Island. Now, I felt much more moved by this film than I did after Shutter Island, but both films hit very similar beats. Beats I can’t talk about because of those darn spoilers.

Technically, the film is absolutely tremendous. There are some very odd sound mixing issues though. To put them into perspective, what Scorsese did with color in Shutter Island, Nolan does with sound in Inception. The score is also brilliant. This is one your going to want to have on your iPod all the time. Also, Nolan’s tenacity to do so much in camera really pays off. Especially in the money shots you see in the trailer of the floating bodies and the rotating room, classic Hollywood effects that really went a long way to the world building of the film.

Final thoughts? Inception is a beautiful film, with some familiar elements behind it. It may not be a 100% original idea, but it’s still a display of genius from a true creative master. A master of the art. A master of the mind. A master… of anything. Inception sucks you in and never lets go. It’s a must see.

9/10

Aliens vs Predator, Aliens vs Predator: Requiem, Terminator 3, Terminator Salvation… All these films have one thing in common. They were all attempts to restart a dated franchise while at the same time not doing a flat out reboot. The difference between all of those films and Predators is that Predators, is the only one to succeed at it.

Producer Robert Rodriguez made sure this film is the true sequel to the 1987 classic, going so far as to reference the events of the original film to establish true continuity. The films plot is very simple (as it should be). A group of killers (and one doctor) are dropped into a remote jungle only to realize they are not on a remote jungle, but rather a remote planet. Then, the hunting begins.

In case you’re wondering, yes, this film takes the franchise back to its gritty roots. It’s full of the wonderfully dark imagery that made the original so memorable. The film is also chock full of some great characters, most notably Adrien Brody of course. The dude just sweats the essence of Schwarzenegger. Despite not having the bruiting size of Schwarzenegger, he sure as hell has the attitude. The same goes for all of the other characters (yes, even Topher Grace), they are all gritty and pissed, just as they should be.

The environments and set design is also beautifully dark. The forest is bloody green, the sun never really brightens up the place, the night is freaky, it’s just what a Predator film should be. The same goes for the cinematography. Quick, clean, yet dirty and jagged at the same time, perfectly reflecting the tone of the world.

I also loved the mythology the film invented for the Predator species. The idea of a blood feud between two rival clans is such a brilliant idea for the franchise. The possibilities are endless to what you could do. Maybe one clan decides to help the humans to spite the other clan. It is such a great idea to think about. O, and where else are going to see a Predator battle with a Samurai Sword?

But of course, a film like this isn’t without a few glitches, most notably in line delivery. Now, I know that I shouldn’t be expecting much, and yes I did appreciate the fact that movie felt like the 80’s film but, that doesn’t mean the actors have to speak like they’re in the 80’s. The films is set in 2010, talk like you’re in 2010. Also, I would have liked a much more conclusive ending. The ending of this film is clearly setting up a sequel. Just once I want a film in a franchise to conclusively end, then see where it can go from there.

Overall, Predators is a quite enjoyable film. A slow burn in the first act but then it just takes off. I really hope we get to see more from the Rodriguez/Antal duo. They really make a great team in their creativity. This film should act as a benchmark from here on out of how to restart an old franchise (without doing a flat out reboot of course, Batman and Bond already have the market on that one).

7.5/10

If you’re five years old then you’ll love The Last Airbender… But I’m not five years old. Perhaps Airbender’s biggest problem is that it doesn’t understand the idea of an adaptation. It’s one thing to take out items from the source material because it doesn’t fit in the realm of a film, but it’s another thing entirely to do it so you can fit a 100 minute run time.

Based on the wildly popular animated TV series Avatar: The Last Airbender, the film follows the journey of a young boy named Aang. The last of the Air Nomads or airbenders, and he’s the current avatar. The avatar has the power to control all four natural elements. Earth, fire, water, and air. But, the avatar has been absent for over 100 years, and in that time, the Fire Nation has declared war on the rest of the world. Now the fate of the world is in Aang’s hands, as he is the only one who can stop the Fire Nation and bring balance to the other nations.

Now, I don’t expect Airbender to put everything from the first season of the show into this film, but I do expect the basics, the basic back story of Aang, Katara, Sokka, and Zuko. But there is none of that, it’s not even that there is no room for it; there is plenty of time to cover these basics facts. Facts that were covered in the first season. Facts like Katara’s healing ability and the plot line surrounding Sozin’s Comet which gets nothing more than a quick mention at the end of the film.

But, I could spend an eternity picking away at the horribly paced story, lets talk acting for a second. Now, I was not one of the protesters at the whole race bending thing, but regardless of who you cast, they should be able to do this thing called ACT! M. Night said that he wanted to do away with a lot of the kiddy stuff from the show. But by doing that, you turn the lovable and a little bit zany story of Aang into a depressing mess. By not allowing the characters to be zany, you limit their range greatly because in all honesty, there is no charm to behold when there are no jokes.

This brings me to an even greater point, the writing. Night should NOT have written this film. His writing does not lend itself to witty humor and story. His style is to dark, depressing, and twisty for a project like this. It would have been one thing for him to go the Kevin Smith, Cop Out route and just direct the film, but he didn’t. The story and dialogue are awful.

Then there is the editing and pacing. I can’t even say the story is all over the place, because there never is a sense of place to begin with. In what I can only assume is a time frame of a week, the gang is able to travel across the world on a flying Bison (which is never discussed either, I only know about it because I watched the show). Then magically Sokka and the Northern Water Tribe Princess develop a relationship in the time it takes to fade to the next scene. Which would be fine except that Katara in voice over narration (which was also pointless) says they were at the kingdom for weeks. What kind of half assed editing trick is that? The entire movie becomes a muddled mess, and it really is a shame.

Going into the visuals, arguably the only semi-decent thing about the film, there’s just one problem, they’re boring. Anytime there is a decent fight involving the benders, it becomes bogged down by lazy editing and poor pacing. Also, I don’t understand why Night felt a need to go the McG, Terminator Salvation route and overuse the long take technique. The fact of the matter is, long takes do not lend themselves to action. That’s just the way it is, the way the action is cut in this movie just doesn’t work.

As for the cinematography, it’s OK. The landscapes are pretty and do lend themselves to the world that the film has built. But to be honest, by today’s standards, they could be a lot better. And a decent landscape is far from an excuse for every other horrible aspect of the film.

I would love to go on and on about how much this film fails, but there’s no point. Why should I exert more effort than the film itself. I will leave you with this, Airbender is a film that your five year old will enjoy. But fans of the original TV series, and average movie goers are going to feel very cheated.

2/10

Take the essence of Mr. and Mrs. Smith, combine it with your standard boy meets girl story, add a dash of Mission Impossible and you have Knight & Day. It may not be nearly as clever as Mr. and Mrs. Smith but, it does have that same charm… Sort of. But for the record, no movie is this quirky by accident so, as long as they were going for that, this the film isn’t a failure.

When June is heading home on a flight to Boston, she bumps into a strange man that immediately takes a liking to her. It doesn’t take long for her to realize that the man is not who she thinks he is. The real question is, was it his really odd sense of humor, orrrr the fact that he took out an entire plane full of armed agents…

I’d like to take a moment to talk about Cruise’s performance. He is \charming in this film, but he is essentially just playing Ethan Hunt with a much more laid back attitude about life. Roy Miller is your standard spy/ladies man. But regardless of how cookie cutter he is, it’s still nice to watch Cruise do his  thing. And like Les Gorssman, it is clear he is enjoying himself and not taking the role too seriously.

As for Cameron Diaz, well, she’s just playing Cameron Diaz. I did like the set up they give to her character which helps explain away the reasons why she is able to do what she does in the third act but, that doesn’t come without a bit of wtf…

Now, as I said in the beginning, if the quirkiness of the film was done on purpose and was in fact written into the script, then the film works, if not, then they failed on every level to make a Mr. and Mrs. Smith knock-off. But, I have trouble believing that a film is this quirky and clunky by accident. That said, the action is OK. I say OK and not good because like the film, it too has some pacing issues. The story it self is standard, but charming none the less.

Overall, Knight & Day works for the most part. It is a charming film that needs some work. A real date crowd pleaser. If you go into this expecting nothing more than some fairly written quips and OK action, they you will be pleased.

6.5/10

In 1995 I was six years old and, Pixar put out its first feature film. Toy Story was a roller coaster ride of emotion that gave my six year old self a run for its money. Toy Story 2 in 1999 did the same thing. But, it always felt like there was just a bit more of the story that had yet to be told. Well, the end of the story is here. Toy Story 3 is the same roller coaster ride of emotion that not only works on the five year old level but, is also the most emotionally stimulating film I have seen in years.

We rejoin the toys ten years after the second film. Andy has grown up and is heading off to college. Most of the toys have survived the trip, only one of the main toys is not in this film but, it is not the worst thing in the world. The toys have been dealing with neglect for years since Andy is too old to play with them. This feeling of neglect  is what starts the film’s adventure.

The first thing I need to address is how well the film handles all the emotions that occur throughout the runtime. They all flow very naturally and by the end, the tears were flowing from my face. We see everything from neglect, to happiness, to sadness, to abandonment, to unprecedented joy, to anger, to relief, to terror, to sadness and so on. My inner child and my adult self were effected both equally and greatly by the amazing story telling in the film.

Which brings me to the story itself. All the characters, even the new ones, are all developed beautifully. The opening scene does an excellent job of reintroducing the characters without acting as if we have never heard of them before. The new characters do not feel forced at all and really help to push the story.

Now, as for the ending, without giving anything away I can say that it really closes the book on the toys. Everything comes full circle and we are finally left with a real sense of closure unlike what we had at the end of Toy Story 2. This is also some of the best character acting in any film (live action or animated) this year. The relationship between Woody and Buzz is stronger than ever and we also see some very natural love interests. All the toys are back in full force in the best possible way.

Visually the film is beautiful. Now, I saw my showing in 2D but, don’t worry, that doesn’t change a thing. While you can see certain scenes where the 3D effect can be utilized, like AVATAR, it doesn’t take away from the film as a whole. The world that’s set up is still as colorful and lively as ever and, when the toys are in true peril the world’s look helps to really get it across.

I don’t think there was a question in anyone’s mind as to whether or not Toy Story 3 would be good. No, the question was how good? The answer isn’t good… It’s great. This is a perfect film. There is NOTHING negative I can say about it. It’s film making that will stand the test of time. It was nice to have one final ride with the toys and, here’s hoping the rest of their existence is just a joyful as it was at the start of Toy Story.

10/10

The first fifteen minutes of the newest festival to theatrical release film, Cyrus is some of the clunkiest, boring, cheesy, un-original film making I have ever seen. But once the title character played by Jonah Hill is introduced, the film does a complete 180 and becomes quite enjoyable.

Cyrus follows the ups and downs of the new found love between John and Molly. The only problem is that Molly has a very inappropriate relationship with her son Cyrus. Cyrus is also very uncomfortable with John dating his mom and will do anything to sabotage their relationship.

The best parts of the film are the actors them selves. I say that because the film is far from visually stimulating. Actually, the cinematography is quite dull. Thankfully, Cyrus relies on witty dialogue and good story telling to keep the audience interested.

If I could some up the character of John, played by John C. Reilly, it’s the father role that Richard Jenkins played in Reilly’s Step Brothers. He is the straight man of the film. Occasionally bringing his wacky attitude that we saw in Step Brothers. Overall, his character is OK, but far from the real story of the film.

The real story of the film lies in the relationship between Cyrus and Molly. Jonah Hill plays a much more socially awkward version of the character he always plays. He definitely shows potential to stretch beyond his type cast, but he does let it creep in from time to time with lines like “dude, don’t f**k my mom.” As for Molly played by Marisa Tomei, she continues hew rise back into the spotlight with this film. Her character walks a fine line between free-thought hippie and regular functioning member of society.

Is Cyrus a funny film? Yes. Is it well written? Depends on who you ask. Is it well shot/directed? Not really. Are the actors fun to watch? For the most part. Overall, Cyrus is worth a matinee showing at the theater. It might even make a good date movie but, don’t expect the non stop laughter you might expect from these actors in any other films.

7/10

I’ll be the first to tell you that Smokin’ Aces is one of the worst films ever made. When I was going into The A-Team I was expecting more of the same from Joe Carnahan, really poorly paced action without a single moment of redemption. I sit here now, after seeing the film and, I can say without a doubt, The A-Team is the best time I have had at the movies all year.

After being accused of a crime they didn’t commit, John “Hannibal” Smith, Templeton “Faceman” Peck, B.A. “Bad Attitude” Baracus, and H.M. “Howling Mad” Murdock are sentenced to ten years in prison. After promptly making their escape, with the help of the CIA, they go on a mission to find the man that ruined them, and clear their names.

The first thing anyone will notice about this film is the characters. Now, I haven’t seen any episodes of the original series but, I really want to now. If the characters in the TV show are anything like what I saw here, then the show was really ahead of its time. In the first fifteen minutes, the team is formed for the first time, and we get the biggest action sequence of the year, well at least until the next action sequence begins after that. The best moments of the film come when the team is together. Whether they are falling out of a plane in a tank, or chilling at the army base, the dialogue between these men is absolutely amazing.

Now, as for the matter of the direction and cinematography, this film won’t win any CG awards but, the suspension of disbelief works, especially during the big action sequences. Carnahan’s directing is top notch here. It really feels like he understands these characters and known how to use his actors to the film’s advantage. Considering he also had a hand in the script, it’s clear he knows how to write a story that will keep the audience extremely entertained, much to my surprise after the horribly written Smokin’ Aces.

As for the movie’s entertainment value as a whole, it gets a ten. I was laughing all the way through at the absolute absurdity of the film, and yes, that is a compliment. The film is fully self aware and ends up coming completely out of left field as one of the best films of the year.

Now, all this praise doesn’t come without some minor criticism, most of which falls on the villains of the film. The problem is their intentions are never fully known and get very convoluted at times. Thankfully, because the characters of The A-Team itself are so good, I barely noticed.

If I could compare this film to anything, I would cite The Losers which came out earlier this year. The plots are nearly identical. Both teams are falsely accused of a crime and on the run. Both teams have great chemistry, both films have a really whacked out villain, both have great action but, the one thing The A-Team has, that The Losers did not, was story. Now, I love The Losers. I thought it was one of the better films this year but, there is a slow burn plot in The A-Team that allows the film to completely earn its final fight, which ironically, occurs in the same type of location that The Losers final fight did. O, and did I mention that The A-Team has much bigger booms?

Overall, The A-Team is a must see. I will be hard pressed to find a film that can match the level of flat out fun I experienced while watching this. This is summer movie making, hell it’s movie making at its finest. Here’s hoping this film does well enough (which it will) to get a sequel.

9/10

TV review by Merrill Barr, co-host of The Idiot Boxers

Show: Justified
Airs: FX, Tuesdays, 10pm
Episode: Season 1 Finale

Great, compelling, creepy, a modern day Deadwood, are all good ways to describe the first season of the new FX series Justified. But, none of them really just get to the heart of what Justified is, damn good TV writing.

Read the rest at FatGuysAtTheMovies.com

TV review by Merrill Barr, co-host of The Idiot Boxers

Show: Glee
Airs: FOX, Tuesdays, 9pm
Episode: Season 1 Finale

Every TV season brings new ideas and fresh characters to the table. Sometimes, those ideas work out in a way that no one expects. This season, that idea came in the form of a one hour musical/comedy show called Glee.

Read the rest at FatGuysAtTheMovies.com

TV review by Merrill Barr, co-host of The Idiot Boxers

Show: Persons Unknown
Airs: NBC, Mondays, 10pm
Episode: Premiere

One of the great things about mini-series’ is that you can get into the story and not worry about the show being canceled or worry about not knowing answers. With that said, I say now, Persons Unknown might end up being the surprise hit of the summer.

Read the rest at FatGuysAtTheMovies.com

TV review by Merrill Barr, co-host of The Idiot Boxers

Show: Flashpoint
Airs: CBS, Fridays, 10pm
Episode: Season Three Premiere

Throughout the years, many studios have been looking for ways to cut costs. One way they discovered was to share production costs between two studios. That’s exactly what American CBS and Canadian CTV did when they came up with one of the best cop dramas ever conceived (surprisingly, for the summer). The show is Flashpoint, which has begun its third year in the United States (season three has already aired in Canada).

Read the rest at FatGuysAtTheMovies.com

TV review by Merrill Barr, co-host of The Idiot Boxers

Show: Burn Notice
Airs: USA, Thursdays, 9pm
Episodes: Season Four Premiere

When we last left our favorite burned spy Michael Weston, he was locked in a room with no knowledge of where he is and, what he’s doing there. We rejoin him in the exact same place at the start of the fourth season of Burn Notice. He begins to go on his usual narration about the room, the people he is dealing with, etc… Then enters a man that will simply be known as Vaughn, Vaughn works for management which leads us right into the “twist.” I won’t say what it is, but it does shed light on the whole “Management” thing.

Read the rest at FatGuysAtTheMovies.com

TV review by Merrill Barr, co-host of The Idiot Boxers

Show: Royal Pains
Airs: USA, Thursdays, 10pm
Episodes: Season Two Premiere

Last year, USA gave us a show that I like to call, House lite. The show is actually called Royal Pains. It revolves around the character of Hank Lawson who, after being fired from his position as an ER doctor in New York City, is dragged out to the Long Island haven, The Hamptons. There he is thrust into a new position, concierge doctor for The Hamptons.

Read the rest at FatGuysAtTheMovies.com

Ever since the nineties, Hollywood has tried many times to make a good video game adaptation. The main problem was that no one really understood the source material for any of these adaptations, at least, until now. Prince of Persia: The Sand of Time, based on the highly popular video game of the same name, is the first one to really work. While it may have its flaws, Prince of Persia: The Sand of Time has set a standard for how these films are made properly.

The first big difference in this VGF (video game film) is the fact that the people making the film treated it like a book adaptation. Certain things need to be changed for film. This is where others in the genre have fallen short. Bloodrayne, Mortal Kombat, Hitman, they didn’t understand that not everything is meant for the big screen. Imagine how different Tomb Raider would have been if they didn’t try to hold so true to the game.

It also helps that the game maker actually had some say in the film. Game creator Jordan Mechner crafted the story for the film, saying “rather than do a straight beat-for-beat adaptation of the new video game, we’re taking some cool elements from the game and using them to craft a new story.” That is what these adaptations needed.

Not to mention the fact that there is actual talent not only in front of the camera (Tomb Raider) but finally there is also talent behind it. Jerry Bruckheimer brings his grand scale, decision maker attitude to this project. Whenever his name is attached to anything, you know it’s going to be epic. Then there is director Mike Newell. Newell is an extremely talented film maker whose credits include Donnie Brasco and Harry Potter and The Goblet of Fire. These two forces finally bring a type of movie making the video game adaptation just hasn’t seen.

Now that we got all the paper work out of the way, let’s take a look at the story. Prince of Persia: The Sand of Time follows the journey of Prince Dastan who, after invading an “enemy” city, finds a dagger. He soon discovers, thanks to Princess Tamina, that the dagger has the ability to turn back time with the sand that is locked inside it. Now, while there are certain scenes pulled directly from the game, these sections are few and far between. 95% of the film is original. It remains grounded in the rule of film making. It never tries to go over-the-top and because of that, it remains believable in the realm of fantasy.

Perhaps its biggest flaw is the actors themselves. Not in the characters they play, but rather the way they play them. Unfortunately, they all sound under rehearsed. None of the lines they say sound interesting, they all just sound like robots. It’s a bit of a shame because the lines themselves are very well written.

But that is probably the only problem with the film. The action scenes are wonderfully choreographed and, this film rivals District B-13 for the best use of parkour on film. The same goes for the films art direction. The sets are absolutely beautiful, and the vastness of the desert is extraordinary. This film is the definition of summer epic.

Overall, Prince of Persia: The Sand of Time works, and works well. Despite the spotty dialogue, the film manages to keep the audience interested the entire time. You want to follow Dasdan on his journey, from start to finish. Here’s hoping that Disney decides to follow through with the other two games in the trilogy because, they have found their next Pirates.

7.5/10

TV review by Merrill Barr, co-host of The Idiot Boxers

Show: FlashForward
Airs: ABC, Thursdays, 8pm
Episodes: Season/Series Finale

When the 2009-2010 TV season began, the big question over at ABC was, what show will be the new LOST? It came down to two, V and FlashForward. It’s a shame that V ended up with the LOST lead in, because, FlashForward is without a doubt, the better show. It proved that no better than in the season/series finale of season one.

Read the rest at FatGuysAtTheMovies.com

TV review by Merrill Barr, co-host of The Idiot Boxers

Show: Criminal Minds
Airs: CBS, Wednesdays, 9pm
Episodes: Season Five Finale

While it may be your run-of-the-mill police procedural, Criminal Minds does add a dark twist to the formula. One of the best things about the show has always been its season finales. The most recent one, was no different.

Read the rest at FatGuysAtTheMovies.com