The Expendables 2

The follow up to the first Expendables adds even more huge action stars to the lineup!  The Expendables 2 sees the original team back in action with Arnold Schwarzenegger and Bruce Willis taking on bigger roles, Chuck Norris in classic cameos, and Jean Claude Van Damme posing as the villain.

Unfortunately this did not stack up as well as the first one. The first Expendables was a great guys action movie.  Not a great movie or one that was snubbed at an Oscar.  Just a classic- kill em all- type movie.  This one, while packed with even more action, was less impressive.  While the first one, Sylvester Stallone looked old, he didn't move that way- he actually was still pretty impressive as an action star.  And there were several very exciting scenes with Jet Li and Jason Statham. This movie had less of that and seeing Arnold still trying was almost sad.  This movie also tried really hard to add comedy with cheeky one liners.  For example, in one scene Arnold steals Terry Crews massive gun.  Arnold says, "Don't worry, you will get it back."  To which Terry says, "I better. Or you're going to be terminated."  Another example, Chuck Norris does a corny line when he tries to deliver a "Chuck Norris" joke.

These guys are not funny.  Well everyone but Statham and Li- they have their moments.  So when they try to deliver one liner jokes it just comes off as awkward and not humorous.

Overall I have to say this was a pretty disappointing follow up.  The action was over the top, unrealistic, and pretty unimpressive in comparison to the original.  And the comedy was a failure and rather annoying any of them thought they had comedic timing down.  I give it 1 star.  Don't even waste your time.  Rather spend two hours watching the original again during guys night.

Movie poster from: http://www.flicksandbits.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/the-expendables-2-movie-poster.jpg

The Hobbit

After several years, Peter Jackson has returned audiences to Middle Earth and told the original tale that began the adventure of Lord of the Rings.  As a child, the Hobbit was by far the most interesting book. It had action, adventure, comedy, and really was the starting point of an adventure that only imagination could provide the back drop for.  While the Lord of the Rings Trilogy was incredible, the Hobbit was still intriguing because it launches the story by following Bilbo Baggins from the beginning.

Unfortunately New Line Cinema, MGM, and Peter Jackson wanted to make some money and was thus, in my opinion the downfall of this movie.  The Hobbit was not a long book and could legitimately break down into 2 movies.  However greed took over at the studios and this one story is being stretched out over 3 movies.  The shear greed of stretching this just to make more money starts my experience off soured.  Next classic Peter Jackson gives us not just part 1 of 3, but a 2 hour and 49 minute part 1 of 3.  There are some movies that are long and don't feel that way (Lincoln, Avengers, The Dark Knight), but this one did.  

Visually this movie was stunning.  But let's call it what it truly is- a near 3 hour documentary on how beautiful New Zealand is.  It's like Peter Jackson has never heard of a cutting room.  Important scenes get cut all the time from movies, but not Jackson's.  We experience scene after scene of watching a hobbit and 12 dwarfs walking through a valley, walking on top of a mountain, walking in snow, walking in grass, etc.  Only to come to end of the movie, and almost comically see their goal- still far off in the distance.  While the scenery is beautiful, its just too much fluff.  I will say that the often heard complaint that the way the movie is shot seems like it is more a Bennie Hill show with the characters running around like on fast forward, was not something I experienced.  I thought it looked great.  I saw it on a DLP screen and in 3D and both versions looked really good.

Along with the daunting swoopings of scenery, the opening scene at Bilbo's house was way too long.  It was clear quickly that he was annoyed by the dwarfs, but it just continued on and on and on.  

One thing I loved and thought Jackson did brilliantly, was add in appendices from the other books that explained where Gandalf disappears to.  In The Hobbit, Gandalf would always just disappear, and you couldn't help but think this was the most unreliable wizard ever.  But Jackson spends some quality time following Gandalf's quest which was left out of the Hobbit books.

The main complaint here is that the movie is just way too long, especially when you have 2 more to look forward to.  If each one is almost 3 hours, I am already sure I will be annoyed.  However, there is something to be said about the magic of Middle Earth.  Because even though I was not impressed with this first installment at all, I am determined to see the next too, and in fact, still a little excited.

I give this movie 3.5 stars.  While the large set pieces and breathtaking scenery are incredible, I wouldn't say its a must for theaters.  A good big screen experience at home with a decent surround sound system and a mug of ale.

Movie poster from: http://www.thehobbitblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/HAUJ_Bus_Dwarves_DOM.jpg

Seal Team Six: The Raid on Osama bin Laden

Seal Team Six showcases the story of how the Intelligence Community found bin Laden, received the green light, and the Seal team accomplished its most important mission ever.  This movie seems to be a prelude into the more Hollywood version coming out this December in theaters.  This film is a straight to DVD film and is clearly low budget.  But the film is not bad.

The film showcases a B-level cast including Cam Gigandent (Priest, Easy A, The O.C.), William Fichtner (Dark Knight, Prison Break, Armageddon), Robert Knepper (Prison Break, Transporter 3), and Xzibit (Derailed, XXX2).  The acting was solid with enough strong mid level performances without any clear star or poor performances.  The director used an interview style to narrate the film and give some of the back story and inner emotions of the team. While this has been used a lot lately, it was not very effective in this film.  It seemed to constantly stop momentum in the story telling.  Using it as a bookend tool would maybe have worked better than constantly dispersing the film with random interviews with the Seal Team and lead analyst.

Overall not a bad film.  I would call it one of the better direct to dvd action films.  The subject matter helped since it was the first time the subject hit the screen.  However I am sure Zero Dark Thirty directed by Kathryn Bigelow and starring Chris Pratt, Jessica Chastain, Mark Strong, James Gandolfini, and Kyle Chandler will exceed this film in every way.  I give this film 2.5 stars.  Not bad for an afternoon rental and as a great way to learn the basic subject matter before the blockbuster this December.

Movie poster from: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2095605/

Bernie

The last few days I decided to catch up on a few movies I had missed in theaters.  The first one I watched was Bernie starring Jack Black and Shirley MacLaine.  I had heard very good things about this movie during its run at the SXSW film festival which is premiered at.

Bernie is the story of a overly kind man who found his calling as a mortician who takes great pride in his work of preparing the recently deceased for a peaceful and beautiful passing into the afterlife while being presentable and easier for families of those they leave behind.  He took his job so far that he would actually stay in contact with the families of those he had prepared burials for to make sure their grieving was slightly alleviated.

His kind turn found himself befriending the local towns hag and who most people in the town called a "complete bitch".  She was horribly mean to everyone, but Bernie became her friend and they built a nice relationship after her husband died.  Her rudeness began to show again though and he finally snapped and killed her.

This is based on an actual true story of a real mortician in Carthage, Texas who killed a rich woman that he had befriended and eventually was caught and stood trial.  This is one of those dark comedies which you have to be able to really appreciate that type of comedy to enjoy the film.  It definitely had its funny parts but most of the film was filled with just awkward moments.  Jack Black was perfect for the role and portrayed the man the film was based on very well.  Shirley MacLaine was so perfect, she was almost adorable at times before you realized, no you are supposed to hate her.

As far as independent films go, this was pretty good.  While not a favorite by any means, it had its moments of humor and was worth a free watch on Netflix.  Great for a random afternoon when you can't find anything else to watch. I give it 3 stars.  Check it out- the main characters are the best part of the film and keep you engaged for the hour and a half running time.


Movie poster from: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1704573/

Lincoln

The road to the Oscars's starts here!  Lincoln was one of those movies that you walk away from thinking there is no way another film could beat it this awards season.

Lincoln follows Abraham Lincoln at the beginning of his second term and his struggle to end the civil war, pass the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery, and healing a broken nation.  In the months before his death he struggled with House Democrats who refused to sign anything saying slavery was an abonomation and an affront against God.  The House Democrats were also skeptical of the President negotiating with the south and how those negotiations with the south would be tainted by the passing of a bill outlawing something that seemed inherent in the traditions of the south.  The Republicans opposed the President negotiating with the south seeing as how they were rebels and not a separate nation to negotiate with.

The movie is more like an epic West Wing episode than the story of the Civil War or the assassination of the President.  The story follows Lincoln and his allies as they try to persuade opponents in the House to sign the 13th Amendment while also secretly planning a sit down with the leaders of the south to negotiate a truce.

Daniel Day Lewis, President Lincoln, delivers an outstanding performance.  While no one knows what Lincoln sounded like or how he walked or moved, Lewis portrays him exactly as you would think Lincoln would be.  Sally Field delivers a powerful performance of Mary Todd.  Most people do not think too much of her when they think of Lincoln, but she was an important partner and obstacle in his legacy and Field portrays her flaws and odd sense of love in an incredible way.  Tommy Lee Jones plays grumpy old Thaddeus Stevens who battles Lincoln at every turn and has earned the scorn of Mary Todd.  However when it comes to slavery, the two men see eye to eye and he works his "charm" to convince members of his party to defect with him and side with the President to abolish slavery.  Jones' performance ranks amongst his greatest ever.

Steven Spielbergs direction was impeccable as ever.  The movie came in at about 2 and a half hours but Spielberg keeps the story moving so well, you almost could sit there for another 2 hours.  The sets were outstanding, the cinematography breathtaking and playing an important role in building the enormity of the situation and time.

The only adverse feeling to this film I had was the ending.  While this will not spoil anything, of course Lincoln's story ends in his assassination.  There were several moments at the end of this film I think would have been incredible finales to an outstanding film.  I had hoped that the assassination would not be the ending since the film was not about his assassination or the hunt for the killer.  We had already seen that in The Conspirator.  While the assassination was handled nicely and did not ruin the movie, I felt like it detracted from what he had just accomplished and think the film would have been just as good if not even better leaving it with his political success rather than his assassination.

This movie should be an oscar sweep based on other possible nominations I have seen so far.  From Best Movie to Best Director, Best Actor, Best Supporting Actress, Best Supporting Actor, and many other artistic awards, we should see a big night for this film.  I highly recommend seeing this film and give it 5 stars.

Movie poster from: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0443272/?ref_=fn_al_tt_2

Twilight Breaking Dawn Part 2

The Twilight series finally concludes with Breaking Dawn Part 2.  This is one series I cannot understand how the 2nd movie ever got made, much less 4 more sequels.  My wife read the books and so I got suckered into seeing the first movie.  The first movie- Twilight- was quite possibly one of the worst mainstream films I have ever seen.  The story had a lot of potential but that potential was absolutely destroyed by a ridiculous director and horrendous acting.  Each movie since, I got excited when I saw the previews.  Each preview showed so much action and suspense but then every movie was a let down.  All the action was slammed into the 2 minute trailer and the rest of the movie still dealt with annoying teen angst and a weak vampire story really.  While each movie was progressively better than its predecessor, this series would need to really get to about 10 before you started really getting an audience past the readers of the Twilight series.

With all that negativity being said, I have to admit, Breaking Dawn Part 2 was pretty good.  The acting has become considerably better.  Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson have really improved and become much more natural and believable in their roles.  Kristen also finally seems to have learned to keep her mouth shut which was always so annoying in previous films.  The direction of the film was also much better and epic than previous films.

Most of the action was tightened into just the last 30 minutes of the film, but that was ok because the action was pretty incredible.  The action in the movie had finally lived up to the anticipation built by the trailers.  The final scene even departed slightly from the books ending so that fans of the novels were given a twist and spin, which I think is important.  As long as the twist does not change the story or the basics of the story, it is smart to keep the audience surprised and on their toes even if they have already read the ending.

While still leaving some to be desired from a vampire/werewolf movie, this was by far the best in the series and a pretty good film overall.  I give it 3.5 stars.  If you haven't suffered through the other films, I wouldn't recommend seeing this one- it won't make much sense.  Definitely check it out though as a nice ending to wasting those hours watching the first 4.  The epic battle should be seen on the big screen- it was impressive.

Movie poster from: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1673434/

Skyfall

Skyfall is the 23rd official James Bond film in the series and it proves there are still opportunities to make amazing films, shock and thrill audiences, and make more money than any previous Bond film- even after 22 other films.

Skyfall has been the most critically acclaimed Bond film in recent memory- maybe since the Connery days.  While Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace were good, they had been such a sharp departure from the traditional Bond (or the one we had dealt with for the last 3 decades) some fans were still skeptical.  Skyfall puts fears to rest.  Daniel Craig has eased into this role with a charm that only a true James Bond could do.  While the first two Craig films were gritty and dark, this one begins to bring some of the Bond charm we had come to expect from previous Bonds.

The premise of Skyfall is that someone very powerful has obtained a list of all the undercover agents that NATO allies currently has in the field.  The leak of this information is embarrassing to Britain because they were not even supposed to have such a list of their allies activities.  The villain knows how MI-6 operates and is able to anticipate every move Bond and M make leading the obvious that this is an inside job.  Bond's investigation takes him all over the world (as usual) to Turkey, Shanghai, and Japan, but most of the film takes place in London and Scotland.  While most Bond movies pride themselves on how many locations they film at, Skyfall proves that bad guys are sometimes closer to home and that London and Scotland have just as many exotic locations as any other place in the world.

This film introduces Q for the first time since Craig took over as well as many other characters that have been seen in previous films.  Skyfall notes many famous previous Bond moments. I won't spoil anything in this review, but suffice to say- keep an eye out for all kind of hidden easter eggs and tongue in cheek jokes that relate to previous Bond movies.

I would agree with some out there that Skyfall can now be considered one of the best Bond films ever.  The modern take on James Bond makes it difficult to compare it to the charming, comedic Bond films like Goldfinger, Goldeneye, and other fan favorites.  I give this film 4.5 stars and highly recommend seeing it in theaters.  It will be hard to wait to see what happens in the next Bond film as Craig has two more in his contract before the Walter PPK is handed to another.

Movie poster from: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1074638/

Argo

Argo is another movie based on a true story.  However unlike Flight, most of this movie is true.  Argo is the name of a fake movie the CIA created in Hollywood to shoot in Tehran, Iran.  The director, CIA Extraction Expert, Tony Mendez (Ben Affleck), travels to Tehran to scout for filming his sci-fi film.  At least that is his cover.  His real mission is to get six American embassy workers out of the country after the embassy was overrun by revolutionists.  These six escaped the embassy during the protests that ended with Iranians taking over the embassy and taking the remaining Americans hostage.  These six were taken in by the Canadian Ambassador and hid in his residence until they could be safely taken out.  The movie revolves around the CIA and American Intelligence community trying to determine the best way to get the Americans out safely.  Mendez's plan of creating a fake film is shot down until they determine that its the "best worst idea they have".  Ben Affleck's character teams up with John Goodman and Alan Arkin to start developing the movie and get it to a stage where he could legitimately head to Tehran as a Canadian filmaker and "meet" his other 6 pre-production crew members there.

While there is very little actual action in this film, it is filled with intensity.  Ben Affleck does a stellar job of directing while also delivering an excellent acting performance.  The supporting cast was quite large and talented as well.  As usual Alan Arkin and John Goodman do an incredible job and are quite believable as 70's Hollywood big shots.  Bryan Cranston also does a phenomenal job further cementing his ability to play both crazy meth drug dealer (Breaking Bad) and a convincing CIA operative.  He continues to showcase his acting talents and grown.  Everything was very timely- something I find very important in movies from certain time periods.  Everything from clothes, cars, planes, newspapers, everything was set firmly in that period around 1979.  The casting was spot on.  While Ben Affleck's character was slightly off- all the other people were spot on from their pictures.  At the end of the movie they do a photo match from the real people and the actors that portrayed them in the movie.

This was an incredible movie and one definitely to go see.  A terrific story that is not well known, amazing acting, and beautiful directing make this in my top 10 for the year.  I give it 4.5 stars.  While I am not sure this movie could win best film or actor, it very well has a shot at winning best director and best supporting actor- Goodman, Arkin, or Cranston.

Movie Poster from: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1024648/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

Flight

I love movies that seem impossible but have "Based on true events" at the beginning of the film.  Like the Texas Chainsaw Massacre- how on earth is that based on true events.  Flight has the same effect.  It raises the question, is it even possible to turn a commercial airliner upside down and fly it so for several minutes?

Well for starters this story is loosely based on terrifying stories of drunk pilots who project sob stories while they put thousands of lives at risk.  The "true" part only refers to pilots who have flown drunk and a loose connection with one particular alcoholic pilot who fought his addiction after he was imprisoned for flying intoxicated.  The incredible flight at the beginning of the movie in which Denzel Washington turns the commercial airliner upside down to keep it from crashing out of the sky never happened.

The first 45 minutes of the film was incredible.  Denzel's character while flawed, does something so incredible you forget how bad of a person he is.  After saving almost everyone on board, Denzel goes into hiding and struggles to fight his alcoholism   Denzel Washington's performance was absolutely incredible.  Not surprising- its what we have come to expect from the talented actor.  His performances always leave you feeling strongly one way or another about his character.  John Goodman's character was also quite entertaining.  However about half way through the movie, Denzel's character takes a bad turn and the character reverts back to his drinking habits.  The movie at this point seems to drag a little.  The momentum really slows down and you are really just waiting for the ending.

There were some subtle faith aspects to this film which I also thought was interesting.  The overarching question seemed to be was the issue that brought down the plane an act of God, was it God that gave Denzel the power to do something no other pilot alive could have done- drunk or sober, or was it simply the fact that Denzel was a remarkable pilot?  It always seems to me that faith really is a strong factor in flight whether you pray before take off, pray as you crash to the ground, or ask why God would do such a thing after a horrific crash.

Overall the film was good.  Denzel definitely deserves a nod for an Oscar however there are other actors that beat him this time around (more on that soon!).  While the flight catastrophe was impressive on the big screen, I don't see any reason not to wait for dvd.  Its worth a watch if only for Washington's excellent performance.  I give the film overall 2.5 stars though.

Movie poster from: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1907668/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

Halloween Movies!

Check out my Halloween movie page to the right side!  I review some of the Halloween movies I am watching this month and let you know what will have you sleeping with the lights on and what are just downright ridiculous and an affront to film making.  The reviews will be short by highlight some classics like Poltergeist, Halloween, Friday the 13th and more!



Movie poster from: https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7leGWc6cXVYPpz2agZSiPNBHcy-BOChj-03OVE_Bzb6jaQ2YmnU9SNndyedN4B8YCgvHALB6h82zJCO7QehbC6CDYrU5xi6iwumjMOuWxJAEN1XF0b0EkQj12OMWZNAijRBgXQUZ09r5m/s1600/trick_r_treat_poster-425x578.jpg

Looper

Looper is currently being hailed by some as the time travel movie that redefines time travel movies.  Since opening last week it has taken over the #1 spot in the box office and has over a 90% ranking on  Rotten Tomatoes  But is it that good?

Looper does have an interesting and new take on time travel.  Jeff Daniels says it best, "This time travel crap, it fries your brain like an egg".  Very true.  Trying to understand a time travel movie and the mechanics and reality behind it is almost as exhausting as creating the world, rules, and consequences.  Really Rian Johnson probably deserves the most credit out of the whole cast and crew for being able to not only direct this movie, but also write a movie that, in my opinion, has very few holes and does a great job explaining the physics of a world where time travel is possible.  Rian Johnson really hasn't done anything else other than write and direct a little known movie, The Brothers Bloom, and direct a few episodes of Breaking Bad.  But this movie underscores his potential as both a writer and director.

Looper is about a future in which time travel has been invented but outlawed.  The most dangerous mobs in the future use it now to dispose of people they want dead.  Apparently in the future, murder is much more difficult to get away with due to an advanced tracking system.  So the mob sends the victim back to the past where they have an assassin, or Looper waiting to kill them.  Sometimes when the mob sees fit, they want to seperate themselves from their current Looper.  They do this by sending back the Looper's future self, and the Looper kills themself from the future, effectively closing the loop.  They are paid very well and then have the next 30 years to enjoy life before the mob kidnaps them, sends them back to the past and they get killed.  Confused?  Yeah, its a movie you have to see.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays Joe, a top-notch Looper who one day is forced to close his loop when his future self appears as the target played by Bruce Willis.  Future Joe has come back on purpose to the past to change the past and prevent his loop from being closed.  The two then embark on a mission from opposite ends and different goals which is weird since they are the same person.

While the story was great and the action was good, my one flaw I felt the movie had was the makeup on Levitt. I feel like they used a lot of makeup and prosthetics to make him look more like Bruce Willis.  It was weird to kind of see a familiar face but then not.  I don't feel like any of the changes they made to Levitt's face really made him look more like Bruce Willis, other than contacts to change his eye color. And sometimes I felt like the makeup was harsher than other times. Another words it wasn't consistent the way he looked in every scene. I feel like they could have left that out and it would have been better.

Overall I really liked the movie.  I think it was great and different and entertaining.  I do not think it revolutionizes time travel movies though like Terminator, Bill and Ted's, 12 Monkeys, or Back to the Future did.  But I do think it was a fresh take and well done. I give the film 4 stars and definitely recommend taking a look at it in theaters.



Movie Poster from: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1276104/

Lawless

Lawless is the true story of the Bondurant boys who were legends in the bootlegging business in Franklin County Virginia.  The story follows the three Bondurant brothers who could not be more different.  The leader of their group, Forrest Bondurant played by Tom Hardy, was a simple minded, brutal but quiet, businessman.  The middle brother, Howard played by Jason Clarke, was addicted to his own product- the crazy alcoholic.  And the youngest brother, Jack played by Shia Lebeouf is the dreamer that romanticizes everything about their lives but is harmless and shy's away from violence.

The story revolves around these three brothers trying to continue their illegal operation after a special deputy, Guy Pierce, shows up to take his share of all bootlegging operations or shut them down.  Forrest is the only bootlegger who stands up to this insanely violent government official.

This was a great movie with some great acting.  I think this continues to prove Tom Hardy can be Bane, an architect for dreams, or a 1920's bootlegger whose life becomes a legend.  Shia Lebouf also did very well.  Gary Oldman's character of Floyd Banner was great however he did not seem to play much of a role in the movie.  I was surprised that such a big actor would really only have 2 scenes that could have easily been edited out.

I also found it very interesting that the novel this movie was based on was written by Matt Bondurant, the grandson of Jack Bondurant.  It lent a sense or truth to the movie even in it's most outlandish scenes.  The movie was great and very entertaining, but be forewarned- extremely violent!  It's one of those movies that does not need to be so violent and at times it is very disturbing and difficult to watch.  While the movie was incredible, it does remind me of how movies used to simply put the idea of violence in our head and let our imagination go as far as we felt comfortable going.  That may sound weird but I feel like such extreme violence simply targets shock factor which takes away the incredible talent of the actors, writers, director, and the incredible story being told.

Overall I really liked Lawless and would definitely recommend seeing it.  It's one that doesn't need to be seen on the big screen but I would still recommend checking it out in theaters if you can.  Based on the story and acting I give the film 4 stars out of 5.




Movie poster from: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1212450/

Total Recall (2012)

Colin Farrell, Jessica Alba, Kate Beckinsale, and Bryan Cranston all star in the new remake of Total Recall.  After watching the original 1990 version with Arnold Schwarzenegger, I have to say it does not stand the test of time.  What used to be a decent sci-fi flick is actually quite bad when watching it now.  The new Total Recall will probably have the same effect in 20 years.

The new Total Recall was very entertaining and action packed.  The story is similar but not exactly the same.  Colin Farrell plays a factory worker who is bored and unhappy with his life (even though married to the incredible Kate Beckinsale).  He goes to an underground place called Recall which implants memories into their clients brains so they can experience things they may have not been able to do in their real lives.  He chooses a super spy program with excitement, betrayal, and action.  However after the program, it becomes unclear to him whether he is still in the program or if he really was a spy before in his real life.

The one real surprise for me was how great Bryan Cranston was as the villain.  For me Cranston will always be associated with Malcolm in the Middle.  But after seeing his character here I am sold on him being a late comer to the big show.  For those of you already watching Breaking Bad, you know how great of an actor he can be.  I will definitely start watching this show now to see more of his brilliant work.

As I said the action and special effects were entertaining.  While this is certainly not the best movie of the summer, it was fun to watch.  Nothing was so big and over the top I would say you have to see it in theaters.  But when you are at home wanting to watch a good action flick, this definitely fits the bill.  I give this movie 3 stars out of 5.

The Bourne Legacy

The Bourne Legacy is the fourth installment in the Jason Bourne series and the first one replacing Matt Damon with Jeremy Renner.  Renner plays Aaron Cross, another, more advanced version of Jason Bourne that was a product of the Treadstone project.  As Edward Norton starts to shut down the entire program from the top to bottom, Renner and the scientist that developed the genetic enhancements on him, go on the run fighting to find out who was behind the shut down and find a way into hiding.

While all three of the Matt Damon Bourne movies were good, I really started seeing flaws in each one after the first one and really haven't thoroughly enjoyed one since the Bourne Identity.  The Bourne Legacy is an even further departure from the novels and while Aaron Cross is the main character, it is actually a cover name for Jason Bourne, not a totally different person as in the movie.

This movie had 3 major problems which made it by far the worst in the series.  1) The script.  The script  was not good and did not allow the audience to really witness impressing performances from the main acting team.  It further failed with too much technical jargon.  The story and entire "Bourne" process was totally changed and therefore needed way too much explanation for a 4th installment.  A lot of the explanation was incredibly scientific so that 99% of the audience seeing this movie probably did not understand any of the science behind this whole story.  I am not someone who thinks movies or scripts should be dumbed down for the audience but can indeed actually educate the audience.  But in this instance, we just needed an incredible action movie.

2) This was not an action movie.  There was action, but none of it overly impressive.  Matt Damon's character had some incredible fight scenes that just was incredible to watch.  This movie did not have anything overly impressive.  Some fight scenes were cool, but nothing fantastic.  Jeremy Renner was impressive as the character and did well.  But based on script and directing, he did not have the chance to really become "Bourne".  Even the final chase sequence was not overly exciting.

3) It seemed to really have an end.  Each of the other Bourne movies left the end open for a next installment.  While they all stood on their own and could have ended at any point, I felt that this one had a definite ending which kind of stops the story.

While this was not a good Bourne movie, it wasn't horrible- it just could have been a lot better.  I hope Universal does not stop with this 4th one as the final Bourne movie.  I feel like if they go back to the original story and build off that, it could continue as a lucrative franchise.  I give it 3 out of 5 stars.  I would recommend checking this out on DVD.  Its entertaining and if you enjoyed the first 3 Bourne movies, this will be entertaining as long as you realize, its only loosely a Bourne movie.

Drive

So I missed the boat on this movie.  Drive came out last year featuring Ryan Gosling, Bryan Cranston, Albert Brooks, and Ron Perlman.  When it came out, people went crazy over it and commented on how great of a movie it was.  Incredibly violent but in a very indie, quiet way.  While this was not the film that really launched Ryan Gosling's career (girls still oogle over him from The Notebook), but it was his first movie that solidified him as a interesting action hero that could act, kick butt, and look good.
As I said, I somehow missed this movie and while it has been on my list of movies to see, I just now got around to it.  It was not my favorite.  I think the hype definitely does not match the film.  The story revolves around a driver (Ryan Gosling- nameless) who is paid to be the getaway driver for thieves, robbers, and all around bad guys.  He befriends a woman next door whose husband gets sucked in for "one last job".  Ryan's character decides to help by being his getaway driver but through a web of deceit and double crossing gets caught up in a pretty sticky situation with some of the highest elite criminals.
The story was very unique but the film just seemed a little too independent.  There were times that the movie was so slow and I just lost interest.  I also did not find any of the actors all that likeable.  Even Ryan's character seemed very distant and one dimensional.  I did not feel involved in any of the character's development or problems.
Not a bad movie, but I had just been told to expect so much more.  Maybe this rare, bad review of the movie will allow others to enjoy it more than I did.  I give the movie 2.5 stars out of 5.  So many people talked about this movie which is why I watched it, but I definitely could have saved my time and watched something better.

The Double

Netflix has completely lost their edge and most of their movies are now B level or old- no new hot summer blockbusters.  While this is disappointing and a lot of the movies are horrible, every once in a while you find a gem- one that almost everyone overlooked.

The Double seems to be a 2011 straight to dvd or limited release movie.  On the outside it looks good- spy thriller starring Richard Gere, Topher Grace, and Martin Sheen.  As Hollywood shovels out more remakes, sequels, and CGI infested blockbusters, movies with a small budget but great story are getting overlooked.  This is one of those films.

Richard Gere plays an ex-CIA agent whose career was chasing down a international assassin who has fallen off the map and seemingly quit his calling card killings.  When the assassin returns and kills a US Senator, Richard Gere gets called back in to help the CIA catch him and put an end to the killings once and for all.  FBI profile specialist, Topher Grace, gets called over to assist in the investigation.  Topher made it into the FBI due to a phenomenal dissertation on the killer and has become obsessed with catching him.

This movie has some great acting, solid script, great twists and turns as a spy thriller.  Even with a low budget, the final car chase scene is really impressive.  I recommend checking this movie out.  It may have not been worth a whole $15 in theaters, but its definitely worth an hour and a half of your time on Netflix.  I give it 3 out of 5 stars.

Prometheus

Prometheus is the "unofficial" prequel to Aliens.  Ridley Scott, who started off the whole franchise in 1979 has made claims that this is not really a prequel just a different story.

The movie is breathtaking visually.  While, even in 3D, it does not create the entire environment to experience like Avatar did, its similar in the sense, you really feel transformed to a whole new world.  The set pieces were breathtaking and the overall feel of the movie was great.  In line with the other Alien movies, this one is not really a horror movie.  There are a few intense scenes that cause you to flinch or clench up, but its overall just an intense thriller about these unfortunate people.

Prometheus begins with scientists on Earth making cave drawing discoveries.  They believe the drawings prove that man did not descend from apes, but rather from aliens.  The two scientists use a private corporation, The Weyland Corporation (same from previous movies) to fund a search mission to a moon they believe these aliens are on.  Once they arrive they see that all (or most) of the aliens they believe to be mankind's ancestors, are dead.  Horror ensues as other aliens infect the bodies of the scientists and security team and they learn their ancestors dark secrets.

My problem with this movie is that everything sets up to be a sequel in Alien.  Without giving anything away, much of the last 30 minutes of the movie looks eerily familiar, and then they mess it all up.  Things are not where they are supposed to be anymore.  The ship that they find in Alien is the same one they explore in Prometheus.  It is in the exact same location, but there is something missing.  Its hard to describe without spoiling anything, but it just does not make sense.  The director dismisses this with the simple claim, "this is not a prequel", but clearly it is.  Too much matches up, for it not to be a prequel.  I think this was rushed through pre-production or for whatever reason they thought this would be sufficient.  But fans of the Alien stories will be disappointed.  Regular movie goers will probably be entertained.  As a stand alone movie, it was pretty good.

I give this film just 2.5 stars.  As a fan of the original Alien trilogy, I found this to be promising but overall a let down.  Watch it in 3D if you are a visual person, otherwise a rental would do.

Spider-Man versus The Amazing Spider-man

There are no spoilers in this review that were not shown in previews. The only spoiler is in the final point and there is a large warning before it- so read only if you dare!! I will compare 6 different categories and announce my pick for winner between Spider-Man (2002) and The Amazing Spider-Man (2012):

1) Spider-Man- While the Raimi Spider-Man's suit was more traditional, the Amazing Spider-Man utilized web-shooters which was more true to the comics. While at the time the organic web shooters was something many fans were able to swallow as a necessity to main stream the movie, this proved equally effective and believable. The Amazing Spider-Man spent less time showcasing his powers and more time having them actually use them. Raimi's Spider-Man was very corny. Webb's Spider-Man was darker and had more issues, but still made wise-cracks while attacking the bad guys. Winner- The Amazing Spider-Man

2) Peter Parker- Maguire's Peter Parker was much dorkier than Garfields. Maguire portrayed Parker as a true nerd- one that liked science and was picked on at school. Garfield was less nerdy, more emo-Twilight-esque. He had problems, he wasn't popular, Flash Thompson still picked on him, but it wasn't the same. He had a certain ease talking to Gwen Stacy that lacked the awkwardness you felt when Maguire talked to Mary Jane (Dunst). Garfield was just not as dorky as Maguire was. Winner- Spider-Man (minus the 3rd one, "Dancing Maguire"

3) Relationships- Gwen Stacy or Mary Jane? Emma Stone or Kirsten Dunst? Kirsten annoyed a lot of people and most did not like her. I felt like her portrayal of Mary Jane was great. Was she the best actress for the part? Maybe, maybe not. But I thought she really looked the part. What's interesting is both of these on screen couples were also behind the scenes in relationships. Emma Stone had less screen time, but the relationship is a more interesting one. Mary Jane's story in the comics is more of a supportive character for Spider-Man. Whereas Gwen Stacy drives story development. Her father is the chief of police hunting Spider-Man. Her story in the comics is one of legend and one that is much more interesting than Mary Janes. Hopefully they will stay loyal to that storyline and explore it through to the end. Winner- The Amazing Spider-Man

4) Web Slinging- When Spider-Man came out in 2002, everyone fell in love with the idea of swinging about in New York City. The scenes were beautiful and breathtaking and looked very realistic. Spider-Man 2 added a lot of high flying action which combine the beauty of web-slinging with Spider-Man's ability to use it as a tactical advantage fighting Doc Ock on the metro rail or the top of buildings. But nothing compares to seeing the Amazing Spider-Man in IMAX 3D. The web-slinging looks even more realistic now and this movie really captures the beauty from the comics. Its one thing to draw a person all contorted flying over NYC- its another thing to put it on screen. The final shot of Spider-Man web slinging in Amazing, was breathtaking and reminiscent of many comic book shots. Winner- Easy- The Amazing Spider-Man

5) The Villian- In Spider-Man, the villan was the Green Goblin which offered a story arc that would carry through to the end of the trilogy with the son taking over the fathers secret identity. The Green Goblin was crazy, but had many dimensions as a character and adding the vengeance of his son, best friends with Parker and soon to be arch-nemesis of Spider-Man, he was a very complex and interesting character. The Lizard was less so. Rhys Ifans did a great job of Dr. Connors, but the Lizard just did not seem as sinister as the Green Goblin. The Lizard was done very well and the action scenes were great, but the character just did not seem as evil and dangerous to Spider-Man's very existence as the Green Goblin did. There is also a scene where the Lizard has an inner monologue fight with the Connors alter ego. This was annoyingly reminiscent of both the Green Goblin and Dr. Octopus's inner dialogue. Sony- Take note- not every villan has an evil inner voice! Winner- Spider-Man


---SPOILER ALERT---SPOILER ALERT---SPOILER ALERT---SPOILER ALERT--- 

6) The End- The end of Spider-Man alluded to Mary Jane being in danger again due to her relationship with Spider-Man. Harry Osborn vows vengeance on Spider-Man for his fathers death. In Spider-Man 2, Harry Osborn discovers the Green Goblin's toys behind his fathers office alluding to the final chapter where Harry would finally attack Spider-Man. These were great and subtle preludes to the next movie. This movie did not have that. There was no clear picture of who the Lizard was talking to at the end. And even the most loyal comic book fans cannot figure out who it was. There are allegations to Norman Osborn, Mysterio, or just Lizards evil inner voice. In order for the director to excite fans with these post-credit clips- you have to give just enough to get the fan boys to know whats happening and then educate the rest of the theater. This was just a waste of time. Winner- Spider-Man

The Amazing Spider-Man

With only a ten year gap between the Raimi/Maguire Spider-Man, the Amazing Spider-Man seemed like a redundant mistake by Sony Pictures. Retelling an origin story that most people have already seen is risky. I went into the movie with low expectations. I expected to be bored by the retelling of a story I had already seen more than a dozen times. However the Amazing Spider-Man was an amazing movie and a great retelling of the Spider-Man story. It does not take away from the long-awaited first appearance made by Toby Maguire but it allows us to enjoy a different vision.