"Ratchet & Clank" Movie Review

PlayStation has created some really incredible games over the years, but this year they are trying something different and diving into the world of cinema with their new feature-length film version of their wildly popular game of the same name; "Ratchet & Clank".

The story is set in a far away galaxy where we are introduced to Ratchet, a lombax who is working as a mechanic on a planet that looks a bit like Tatooine from "Star Wars". He dreams of joining the Galactic Rangers, a group of heroic crime fighters who keep their neck of the universe safe. Lately, there have been reports of whole planets being destroyed, so the Rangers are tasked with finding who is behind it as well as finding someone new to join their ranks. Ratchet, who then meets up with a small "defect" robot he named Clank, join forces and are then inducted into the Rangers and move forward with helping save the galaxy.

The Galactic Rangers [found on Google Images]

This film was released along side the new Ratchet & Clank game for the PS4, and both are retellings of the story from the first Ratchet & Clank game. While I never actually played the game as a kid, I heard it was pretty awesome; one of PlayStation's best. Having said that, they probably should have stuck with the game release and kept it at that. While the film wasn't horrible it just was pretty... meh. The animation was alright, the story was mediocre, and the characters didn't really bring anything new or original to really set this film apart from other movies with the same narrative. Ratchet is the A-typical wide-eyed dreamer who wants to do great things and go on adventures; Clank is a brilliant sidekick and is a great straight-man  for Ratchet, but wasn't much of a stand alone character. The villainous Chairman Drek who is behind the exploding planets plot is pretty one dimensional, as is his partner in crime Doctor Nefarious. The Rangers were pretty bland, too; there was the typical smart tech girl who no one takes seriously, the angry girl with attitude, the guy who likes to just shoot things, and the leader Captain Qwark is pretty much just Zap Brannigan sans velour.

There were a few jokes in the film that worked; one involving a Wilhelm Scream and a few old-school pop culture references, but other than that the humor and story were clearly directed to more of a kid crowd. There were also a few PlayStation in-jokes that fans of the console and games should be able to spot.

Qwark, Ratchet and Clank [found on Google Images]

Having said that, there were some things I thought really worked for the movie; mainly the superb voice work. I was really impressed with the film's cast; they not only had some big name actors involved (Paul Giamatti, John Goodman, Sylvester Stallone, Rosario Dawson), but a few of the voice actors from the original games (James Arnold Taylor, David Kaye, Jim Ward) played their characters in the movie, which I thought was really cool. It's always good to get actors and actresses with name recognition, but it's also really great when these phenomenal voice actors who normally aren't known to the same degree as their Hollywood counterparts get some actual recognition. Everyone was really on point with who their characters were, their personalities, and their motivations- it was spot on. There were a couple of times the lips clearly didn't sync with the words, but the voice work is good enough to almost let it slip. Almost.

Dr. Nefarious and Chairman Drek (below)
are the team of villains our heros must face.
[found on Google Images]

Ultimately, this movie was aggressively mediocre at best; it probably would have been a just-as-great movie on Cartoon Network or Nickelodeon or even just go straight to DVD. From what I know of the game the story line of the movie was pretty much identical to it, which is nice that they kept to the source material; we all know how that's normally not the case for video game movies. This film is arguably better than the likes of "Super Mario Bros.", "Bloodrayne" and other horrid movies of the same genre, but it's still not the blockbuster video game film everyone has been waiting for. "Ratchet & Clank" was an okay movie that super fans of the franchise or younger kids will probably enjoy, but at best I can't help but feel this is something parents can play on "Uncle T.V." to keep their kids occupied for 90 minutes. PlayStation, this was a noble attempt and an earnest first try. I'll be waiting for a film version of "God of War" in the meantime.

Ratchet & Clank [found on Google Images]

"Titus" Movie Review

 "Titus" is the film adaptation of William Shakespeare's first play "Titus Andronicus". The movie was directed by Julie Taymor and stars Anthony Hopkins in the title role as well as Jessica Lange, Harry Kennix, Alan Cumming, Colm Feore, Laura Fraser, Jonathan Rhys Meyers, Matthew Rhys, Angus Macfayden and many others. 

The plot of this film, as well as the play the film is based on, follows Titus Andronicus who has just returned to Rome after fighting, and winning, a war. He has taken Tamora, Queen of the Goths, (played by Jessica Lange) and her 3 sons captive. He kills the eldest son in front of his mother, who then swears revenge on Titus. The new emperor of Rome, Saturninus (Alan Cumming), wants to take Titus' daughter Lavinia (Laura Fraser) as his wife, but she is in love with Saturninus' brother Bassianus (James Frain), so the two run away in protestalong with Titus' sons, but not before Titus kills one of them for their dishonorable behavior. Saturninus then takes Tamora as his wife, which helps her set her plan of revenge into action as she is now the empress of Rome. Let me just say, to anyone who is not familiar with this story, this is a VERY simplistic summary of the plot of this film/play- there is plenty of blood-shed, treachery, insanity, rape and one wicked twist ending. This story could totally fit in with Game of Thrones. 

This film does the original play a great service by staying true to the dialog; very few things were changed from the original text. "Titus Andronicus" was Shakespeare's first play, as mentioned earlier, and while it may have been his first it is by no means his worst. This is a visceral tale of brutality in all its forms, and this film does not let up. It's visually stunning and it really embraces that ruthlessness to a point it's not only shocking to see, but almost beautiful at the same time; but more on that later. 

Anthony Hopkins plays a powerful Titus Andronicus
[found on Google Images]

The dialog in the film, as I mentioned, is written in the original verse, prose and iambic pentameter that was used in Shakespeare's time. However, it's not really clear what time, place, or reality this movie takes place in. While there is a lot of Ancient Rome displayed,  there are also motorcycles, tanks, microphones, and guns which are used side by side with ancient armor, swords and horses. It's fairly confusing for about the first 20 minutes of the movie, and I myself had a hard time figuring out what was going on, but after that point it's much easier to accept and just go with, as everything is so visually appealing and engaging. While the time and place of the film is hard to discern, the visual style set up in the movie is one that is very striking; it's definitely a style unto its own. The tone that is conveyed through the sets, costumes,and choice of colors really help aid in telling the story. Also, there are scenes that help add extra emotion to the story that look as though they came out of a music video; they're surreal and dreamlike and even sometimes bordering on being nightmarish. I honestly thought they were really well done and help inspire a more emotional connection for the audience. 

This could fit in with something in
American Horror Story... Jessica
Lange pictured [found on Google
Images]

Another major point of strength in this movie is the cast. The actors in this film are great in their roles- Anthony Hopkins IS Titus Andronicus. I honestly feel there's no one else who could have played this part as well as Hopkins did. He was not only a convincing father and family man, but also a war-hardened general who is bound to his country and his honor. Hopkins is known for his powerful performances and this one is very powerful indeed. Playing a proud man who then spirals into madness is no easy role, but Hopkins makes it look like a cake walk in this movie. Also, Jessica Lange does a fabulous job as Tamora. While you feel sympathetic to her pain as a spurned mother, you still can't help but love to hate her cunning and conniving plots through the story. Alan Cumming is also very fun to watch as a fantastically flamboyant Saturninus. All of the cast really did a great job with their performances, but these three are the ones that really stuck out for me. 



While striking visuals, costumes, and great performances helped to create an interesting world, it wasn't enough to please general audiences. Upon it's release, "Titus" received fairly

Alan Cumming as
Saturninus [found on Google
Images]

decent reviews from critics, but it bombed at the box office, earning only $22,313 during it's opening weekend. Worldwide it grossed a collective $2,259,680 but that still paled in comparison to the film's $20 million budget. The film was also nominated for Best Costume Design, but ended up losing to "Topsy-Turvy".


"Titus" is in itself a very strange film, but it is one that is trying to make something different and it succeeds at doing that; in fact I think it may have done too good of a job. The film is very artistic and lends it's visual style to the Shakespearean classic in a way that was touched upon in Baz Luhrmann's "Romeo + Juliet" in 1996, but this film takes it up a notch to a point that watching it can almost be considered an assault on your eyes, but I think that goes along perfectly with the savagery of "Titus Andronicus". I can see why general audiences didn't connect with the film, but as a Shakespeare fan and a lover of odd things, this film really impressed me. This movie is a great one to check out when you're in the mood for something classic and dark. I would give "Titus" a rating of 3.5 out of 5; while it's not the best adaptation of a Shakespearean play, it is one that is very original and memorable. 

"Strange Magic" Movie Review

For my next couple of reviews I'm going to pay attention to one of the greatest playwrights and poets of all time; William Shakespeare. His words have transcended not only the ages, but also into different parts of our classic and contemporary culture. It's no surprise that The Bard's works would eventually wind up on the Silver Screen either in faithful adaptation or as inspiration for other stories to flourish. "Strange Magic" is one such story that is roughly based on "A Midsummer Night's Dream".

"Strange Magic" was originally a story George Lucas came up with as a romantic girl-friendly version of Star Wars for his daughters. The film itself is a Shakespearean-inspired fairy tale that is also a musical, with all of its songs being made up of different pop and classic rock songs. Think "A Knight's Tale" with added enchantment. Back in 2012 when Lucas sold Lucas Film LTD to Disney, his animation studio was included in the deal. "Strange Magic" was in the middle of production, so Disney also inherited the movie.

The film opens up with a little prologue introducing the land the story will be taking place in. There's the Fairy Kingdom, and The Dark Forest; both are separated by a line of primroses that grow along the borders of the two lands. The leader of the Dark Forest, The Bog King (played by the amazing Alan Cumming), routinely orders the destruction of the primroses as they are a key ingredient needed to make love potions and love is something he detests. In his quest to snuff out love, he has also taken the Sugar Plum Fairy (Kristen Chenoweth) prisoner, as she is the only one who can make love potions.

We're then introduced to the main character of the story, the fairy princess Marianne (voiced by Evan Rachel Wood) who is engaged to be married to a fairy knight Roland (Sam Palladio).

Marianne [found on Google Images]

After Marianne discovers her knight in shining armor isn't who she thought he was, she calls off the wedding and rejects the idea of finding love and turns her focus to being independent and self reliant, while at the same time trying to keep her younger boy-crazy sister Dawn (Meredith Anne Bull) from making the same mistake she had made when it came to love. Dawn's best friend Sunny (Elijah Kelly) is an elf, who is in unrequited love with her, gets tricked by Roland into going into the Bog King's lair and getting a love potion from the Sugar Plum Fairy. The Bog King finds out a love potion was created and was smuggled out of his lair and into the Fairy Kingdom, and he goes to hunt it down, and in the process kidnaps Dawn and holds her ransom until the potion is returned to him. This leads Marianne, Sunny, and Roland and others on a mission to bring back Dawn, but in true "A Midsummer Night's Dream" fashion, hi jinx involving a misplaced love potion arise and add extra chaos to the quest.



It was released in January 2015 from Touchstone Pictures and the film did not do well at the box office and received lukewarm response from audiences and critics alike. While the main focus of the film is love, many felt that this film had little to no heart. All of the romantic tropes presented in the story line really aren't fully explored and in some cases they become more like

Dawn defending the Bog King [found on
Google Images]

stereotypes; which is a missed opportunity because the characters and the story did indeed have a lot of potential. Also, a lot of movie goers weren't too thrilled with the music in the film; all of the songs were covers of different famous songs such as Mistreated, C'mon Marianne, Three Little Birds, etc, and many said that the songs' arrangements were lacking in originality. On top of all of that, this type of story has been done to death in cinema and it really doesn't bring anything new to the playing field that sets it apart from similar stories. All of these complaints are valid; but I do feel there are some really good points to this film that are actually worth checking out.

I feel that while this movie really is a pretty simple love story and an even simpler fairy tale, it's no where near as terrible as a lot of critics make it sound. The animation, for one, is absolutely beautiful. As with any George Lucas movie or story, the world he creates is not only simple in concept (light and dark) but it's really rich and interesting to look at while the characters traverse through it. The character designs are also pretty impressive; while the fairy characters are the most visually grabbing due to their pretty colors, the movie also plays around with cool, psychedelic wing tricks from the characters which is well worth checking out alone, if just for the sake of seeing interesting animation. Also, the best design, character and performance award all goes to the Bog King. Visually, he is so unappealing he's appealing; you can tell the animation team really went to great lengths for coming up with his design. Also, Alan Cumming

not only brings a hard and harsh air to the character, but he also adds a complexity to him that's pretty fun to watch; and as an added bonus, the man can sing and he probably has the best lines in the movie. While the rest of the characters are pretty fun, hands down, I think the Bog King is the best in the film. If anything, you should check out the film just for him. Also, I thought the songs were rather enjoyable. They were a bit like Glee musical numbers, but I don't think that's a bad thing, as the songs add a little more storytelling to the film, in true musical fashion. 

In final prospective, I would give "Strange Magic" a 3.5/5 rating; while it's really not the most original story we've heard before, it's still worth looking into. While it's no where near the level of "Shrek", "Beauty and the Beast" or even "A Midsummer Night's Dream" for that matter, it's also still not bad enough to be lumped together with horrid animated films like"Delgo", "Norm of the North", "Chicken Little", or "Mars Needs Moms". THOSE movies have a special place in animated movie hell. At worst "Strange Magic" could be in limbo.

"The Jungle Book" Movie Review

"The Jungle Book" is one of Disney's newest live-action retelling of one of their classic animated films, which seems to be a thing now, what with "Cinderella" being released last year, and movies like "Pete's Dragon", "Beauty and the Beast" and others on the way. 

"The Jungle Book"  is directed by Jon Favreau ( director of Iron Man, Chef, etc.) follows the story of Mowgli, an orphaned "man-cub" who is raised by wolves in the Indian jungle. Mowgli has to be taken to a "man-village" before the villainous tiger Shere Khan can kill him. However, on his journey back to the world of man, Mowgli encounters many different animals, some who are friendly towards him and others who aren't as kind in their intentions. After Shere Khan threatens Mowgli's family and friends, he returns to defend those he loves. 

This movie was really impressive overall- not only did it pay homage to the original Disney version, but they also tried to incorporate elements from Rudyard Kipling's classic novel. I also feel like this movie was much more of a step-up from Disney's other live action version of this story that was released back in 1994. While that movie was more like "The Jungle Book" meets "Tarzan" this one seemed to be more to the point. I also saw a lot of similarities in this film to the classic short "Mowgli's Brothers" which was released in 1976 and was animated by the late, great Chuck Jones. 

Mowgli and Baloo
[found on Google Images]

That being said, while all of these films clearly share the same basic story line and name, there are many things that set this film apart from it's predecessors. The main thing is the fact that this film is entirely done in CG. Normally, this would be a point against the movie for me, as I personally am getting a little sick of movies relying heavily upon that medium and not even seeming to try to achieve practical effects or anything else. I can honestly say however, that for most of the film I had no idea I was watching a CGI film because all of the sets and locations in the movie appeared to be real. I couldn't believe it after I saw the film! You can still tell the animals are CGI, but the animators really

Jason Scott Lee as Mowgli in "Rudyard Kipling's The
Jungle Book" in 1994 [found on Google Images]

nailed a lot of the animal casts' natural mannerisms, types of fur/skin/scales, as well as movements. If I had to pick one animal that just looked the best versus the others, it would have to be Bagheera the black panther, but honestly, all of the animals looked great. It really was amazing to see. I also really liked the fact that no real animals were used to film this movie. While I said I do prefer practical effects over CGI effects any day, I really feel that this was the best way to go to achieve what these characters needed to do in the story. They really helped maintain the suspension of disbelief whereas I feel that live animals, especially wild animals, need much more coaxing than domesticated animals in order to achieve the desired action, and there is nothing that will break that aforementioned suspension as seeing an animal clearly trying to gain the trainer's approval. Also, let's just face it- wild animals deserve to be out in the wild enjoying their lives and not on some sound stage trying to get treats for a job well done. But that, dear children, is for another blog entirely... 

Mowgli saying goodbye to his mother, Raksha. A very
emotional scene that displays Sethi's acting skills at their
finest. [found on Google Images]

I also have to give a lot of credit to Neel Sethi for his portrayal of Mowgli. He was literally the only real thing about this movie, and for him to pull off the performance he did while acting with literally NO ONE else, it really was a testament to how talented this kid is. He's definitely got some mad acting chops and I look forward to seeing what else he can do in future films. 

Dangers of all shapes and sizes wait for Mowgli
in the Jungle. Shere Khan pictured above, Kaa below.
[found on Google Images]

The rest of the cast isn't without merit, though. While Neel is making his film debut in "The Jungle Book", the rest of the cast is made up of seasoned actors and actresses. Ben Kinglsey gives Bagheera a voice, and it's a very smooth, collected, and stern one. He was a perfect choice for the role, for sure. Bill Murray is another example of a great casting choice who brings the comic relief as sleepy brown bear Baloo. This is the best performace I've seen from Murray since his cameo in "Zombieland", so it was great to hear the humor and wit of the Bill Murray we all know and love. Christopher Walken plays King Louie, who for some reason, is a gigantic orangutan. While the King Louie of the animated film was played by jazz-man Louis Prima, Walken makes Louie sound much more like a mob boss, which is basically what his character is, so that was a nice touch. Lupita Nyong'o does an amazing job as Mowgli's adoptive mother Raksha  and Giancarlo Esposito is a calm and peacful Akeala, who is the leader of the Seeonee wolf pack. Scarlet Johansen gives a voice to the duplicitous snake Kaa, which was a very interesting casting choice. A lot of people, audience and critics alike have been critical of this decision. I, however, kind of like it. While a lot of people say she should sound more reptilian/snake like, I feel that not only would that be the obvious choice, but it's a good idea to make her sound so innocent and appealing to Mowgli- how else can a serpent get someone to trust her and get close enough for her to wrap her coils around them? And finally, Shere Khan's voice comes from the talented Idris Elba. While his voice adds a level of classiness, he's also very terrifying when he delivers some of his lines. This tiger isn't playing around- he means business and with Mr. Elba's performance that becomes disturbingly clear as the story progresses. 

As you can see, I have plenty to say about this film. I thought it defied my expectations and made me a believer that the rest of Disney's live action adaptions may just be worth giving a shot. I give "The Jungle Book" 4 out of 5 stars; it's definitely worth checking out! 

"God's Not Dead 2" Movie Review

Oh... There is just so much I want to say about this movie... 

"God's Not Dead 2" is the newest film distributed by faith-based entertainment company Pure Flix and is a "continuation" of the story that was set up in the first film of the "God's Not Dead" franchise. 
This film focuses on a teacher (played by Melissa Joan Hart) who is accused of proselytizing in her classroom when a student asks a question about Jesus, and then must go to trial to not only defend her job and innocence, but also (apparently) her faith. 

While I myself am not a "believer", as this film refers to it, of the Christian faith I do know a little bit about it as I grew up in a home with parents who did support this faith. Having said that, I do appreciate that this film is trying to appeal to a Christian audience (more specifically, an Evangelical one), but I can't help but feel that this film while trying to sincerely make a point, is purely constructed on Strawman arguments and "the feels." This film, while no where near as offensive and hate-filled as the first "God's Not Dead," this film continues in the latter's footprints of painting all Evangelical Christians as  victims who are constantly trying to be taken down by 'The Man' as well as "Non-believers", and everyone who doesn't share their brand of religion are just generally terrible people. In the first film, all "non-believers" were rude, demeaning, combative, and insanely sarcastic, this film paints a slightly different view of these people that is no less insulting; apparently, everyone who doesn't believe are self-centered, sneaky, soul-less automatons who want to bring down and snuff out anyone who believes in Jesus. 

The film starts off by introducing us to the character of Brooke Thawley (played by Hayley Orrantia) who is having a hard time getting over the death of her brother 6 months prior to the film's opening. Her parents, however, have completely gotten over his passing and push Brooke to do the same so she can focus on getting into college. And when I say they've gotten over the brother's passing, I don't mean that they're putting on their brave faces for their daughter, or they've gotten therapy to cope with their son's death- no, I mean these people are treating their son's passing like that of a fly buzzing out the window. Honestly, while I watched scenes with the mother and father going about their day to day life, I started to question whether or not they had murdered their own son. I have seen quite a few real-life crime shows and a majority of the people who are found guilty of murder go about their lives like nothing ever happened until they get busted. The movie also tells us that he died in an "accident", though it's never reveled what sort of accident it was- was it an automobile accident? Did he drown in a canoeing accident? Did his parents "accidentally" shove him into a wood chipper? Who knows. At this point, it's anyone's guess. 
Anyway, then we're introduced to Melissa Joan Hart's character Grace Wesley, who teaches American History at a high school. In the middle of a lesson where she is covering famous peaceful leaders such as Gandhi and MLK, Brooke (who has been getting more into Christianity), asks a simple question about the similarities in what Jesus and MLK preached in their practices and whatnot.  When MJH answers her with a bit of scripture, some of her students started texting about it, and the next thing you know, Grace is being punished for having a sermon in the classroom. 

[found on Google Images]

Now, this is the point of the story where I start to have a real problem with the message of this film. I really believe there needs to be a separation of church and state, and I do not follow or believe any of the gospel. Having said that, I can honestly say that this exchange between Hart and Orrantia is in NO WAY pushing any sort of boundary. I really don't think that mentioning Jesus in the context of their exchange to be in any way forcing religious beliefs on her students. Even when she started quoting the scripture, she was not pushing Christ's divinity or his claims of being a savior, but rather it was more about how to treat fellow man. Nothing wrong with that. And that's the sort of thing that logically, most people would see as being a ridiculous charge- all Hart would have to do when brought before the school board is just explain the conversation that she had with the student as best she could, and then have the student recount the same thing. However, this did not happen and the Victim Card is played when NO ONE asks her to do that. No one. They just ask "Hey, did you mention Jesus in the classroom?" "Yeah." "Scripture too?" "Uh huh." "Well, you're going to be disciplined for that you naughty, naughty Christian".  Of course I'm paraphrasing, but that's basically how it went down. Trust me on that one. 

Mr. Burns = Ray Wise's Character

Hart eventually gets a union-appointed lawyer who is a "non-believer" and then they go to court and have to go up against Ray Wise playing an atheist lawyer stereotype. Also, when talking to her lawyer about why people are reacting to Hart's protection of her faith, the lawyer goes so far as to say that they want to make an "example" of her, and treat her "kind" like a disease that needs to be stomped out. Yeah. That happened too. And then you have Wise's character Pete Kane. Honestly, Mr. Wise gives a great performance, but through the entire movie I was expecting him to start rubbing his hands together and laughing in a menacing way every time he had a line. But really, that's how all of the "non-believers" are portrayed in this film as I said earlier; Ray Wise is just a good enough actor that he's entertaining to watch while he's doing it. 

As the case goes on, Hart and her lawyer get the great idea to prove to the court that Jesus was a real person, therefore making him a relevant historical figure that she can freely talk about in class without persecution. So her lawyer wrangles up a couple of authors who wrote books about how Jesus was a real person.

[found on Google Images]

Let me be honest here for a second and say that I have a problem with this again because both authors supplied answers that were nothing short of being strawman-like. They boasted that Jesus was a real person, but they never provided any solid proof or evidence that he was real. One author, who is/was a homicidal detective who specialized in cold cases said that he had studied the gospels and had come to the conclusion that Christ was real. He said he had come to this conclusion because of the "different accounts of the same situation" all said the same thing, even though there were slight differences. Really. Yeah, that was the argument. He never once went further into explanation of this, but kept insisting the same thing. And they kept saying that "non-believers" wouldn't be able to deny those facts. Riiiiight. While these witnesses are touted as providing "facts", all of the information they give is still speculative from the viewer's prospective. And instead of producing any ounce of logic, reason, or (like I said) facts, the case trudges onward until Hart is found innocent by her jury. Of course we all knew that was going to happen in the end, but how does it happen in a court drama where there is very little actual evidence to help prove her case? The power of prayer makes it happen. Yep. When things go South in the case, a whole bunch of people pray and miraculously, she's found innocent. If prayer has enough power to sway a jury into finding someone innocent in a court case, I'm sure things like a cure for cancer, ending world hunger, and stopping war around the globe would be totally within our grasps, right? Well, I hate to say it but apparently God finds helping a teacher who, if the accusation was handled in a logical way from the get-go, could have handled the case without going all the way to trial is more important than stopping any of those other issues. 

[found on Google Images]

This film is nothing more than a propaganda film created to foster a false sense of victimization as well as make the target audience feel good about themselves. While I have no problem with movies that appeal to a specifically Christian audience, I do have a problem with ones that paint a whole group of people in such a negative way, and fosters a sense of "us versus them" among the viewers. "God's Not Dead" 1 and 2 have both been fairly big successes with their target audiences; the sequel alone garnishing $7,623,662 on it's opening weekend which more than makes up for it's $5,000,000 budget. However, I feel that Christian films like this are nothing more than exploitation films. At the end of the movie, several court cases are shown via text crawl that helped "inspire" the story of God's Not Dead 2. While this isn't the first time that cases like this have inspired a film; afterall, "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" and "Silence of the Lambs" were both heavily influenced by various crimes and murderers- this film takes these different court cases and stitches them together to make a cinematic Frankenstein's monster that not only tries to make the point to the audience that their faith is the only valid faith and everyone is out to get them, but also show the rest of the world that a movie doesn't have to actually be good as long as it gives someone a warm fuzzy feeling afterward. I think it's time that Christian films be held to the same standards as general films, and audiences stop falling for this type of toxic storytelling. Films like "The Prince of Egypt", "The Ten Commandments" and "Ben-Hur" are all Biblical films that are also amazing to watch and witness. I know not all films can be masterpieces, but what's wrong with striving to make an actual work or art instead of making a film to not only exploit a group of people to gain their money, but also to tear apart human connection based on differences in faith. 

If I had to grade this film, it would be get 1 star. I feel that is more than generous for this propaganda film. 

"Batman vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice" Movie Review

Before going to see this movie, I was well aware of the split between general audience members and critics in regards to "Batman vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice". While it's been receiving low ratings on sites such as Rotten Tomatoes from critics at 29%, general viewers have been praising it, raising their initial ratings into the 70% bracket. 

While I am no comic nerd by any means, I am a fan of Batman. I've never owned a Batman comic in my life, nor have I read one; however I grew up watching Adam West's portrayal of the Caped Crusader, as well as watching Batman the Animated Series, and enjoying seeing Micheal Keaton bring the character to life in Batman and Batman Returns. I can also openly admit that when I was young, I enjoyed Batman Forever. I can't say the same about Batman and Robin; but that's another story entirely. The point is- I like me some Batman. 

I will admit that I was much more excited for the release of Suicide Squad in August, I was pretty interested to see Batman V. Superman- after all, this film in addition to Man of Steel, are basically laying all of the groundwork for the DCEU; with Aquaman, The Flash and others following this movie, there was a lot riding on it's success. The pressure was on. 

After sitting through this film, I can see why a lot of critics are panning it, however, I don't quite understand why they're giving it so low of a score, and that's something I don't say regularly. 

Here are my thoughts. 

I remember a few years ago when it was announced that Ben Affleck was cast to play Bruce Wayne/Batman for this movie. There was outrage, indignation, and general upset. And for all of the problems I felt this movie had, Affleck wasn't one of them; he was actually the best part of the movie. I actually really enjoyed his acting as the Dark Knight. DC movies/stories are sometimes hard to relate to, since all of the heroes are held at the utmost pinnacle of morality, but Batman has always been the one who was the most relate-able, at least in my eyes. He has a dark past, a lonely existence, and while he does try to do the best he can, sometimes he does make mistakes and he owns up to it, and works harder not to do it again. That was a quality of the character I was so glad to see they kept in this story, and Affleck really made you believe that he was that character. Frankly, I also feel that he did a much better job portraying Batman than Christian Bale did. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. 

Superman saves Lois [found on Google Images]

One thing I also heard people had a problem with in this movie was the fact that Batman was using guns and shooting people. As a reminder, Zach Snyder broke the DC "no-kill" rules in Man of Steel when Superman killed Zod, so that is something that seems to be continuing in these films. For me, however, it didn't really effect my view of the movie in any way. The movie also brought in these really weird dream sequences throughout the movie, and at times it almost felt like I was watching A Nightmare in Wayne Manor, as it was hard to tell when you were in a dream or in the present. These little sequences were a little unnecessary and could be taken completely out of the film and the story wouldn't have suffered from it. 

Henry Cavill as Superman gave another performance that was just like the performance he gave in Man of Steel; I didn't really care for that film, so I could have taken it or left it. However, compared to other cinematic Supermen, Cavill is holding his own. 

Gal Gadot who portrays Diana Prince/Wonder Woman was really fun to watch. The one gripe I had though, was I wish she had more screen time. 

Though I generally liked the heroes in this film, they're only as good as their villains. And to me, that is where this film hit a bit of a rough patch. When I learned that Jesse Eisenberg was cast as Superman's nemesis Lex Luthor; I generally like Eisenberg's work, so I was interested to see what he would do as this character. While I can say that he did give a great performance, I can't help but feel that he would make a much better Riddler than Lex Luthor. His character was quirky, twitchy and sinister, and I have always seen Lex Luthor as someone who was more serious, sophisticated and sinister. The studio took a risk in hiring him- while it may not have been the best casting decision, at least the performance was earnest. 

We're also introduced to Doomsday in this film, which upped the ante for the film. He really did add to the action in the film, and I thought it was a bold move to have him in here this early in the franchise. You Superman films out there should know what I'm talking about. 

The supporting cast was really enjoyable- I had no issues with any of their performances. Gold star everyone! 

Ben Affleck as Batman [found on Google Images]

I was a little worried to see this film; I honestly thought it was going to be another Transformers 4- way too much info crammed into the movie, too much destruction porn, and no convincing acting. While the length of the film was ridiculous (2 1/2 hours!!!), and there was a LOT of info, exposition and buildup, and also a ton of destruction porn, I'm happy to say I didn't find this movie anywhere NEAR as horrible as Transformers 4. Why? I honestly attribute it to the great casting. If it wasn't for a good cast of characters, even the weakest links; it was way better than Transformers 4. I've been nervous attending nerd-centered films for reasons like that, but this year so far I've been pleasantly surprised, and may actually try giving them a fair shot again. 

The only other issues I had with this film were: 

Shaky cam- I HATE SHAKY CAM; it's what I hated about Man of Steel, and this film is no different. Also, drowning everything in grey/blue filters could have probably been skipped, but that's just my personal opinion. 

This was a VERY serious movie; on the whole it made sense to be serious because of the story they built up through Bruce's eyes, but a little bit of lightening up wouldn't have hurt anything. While it was easy to connect with Bruce's struggle as well as parts of Clark's struggle, it really was lacking in any joy. The only scene where I felt any stab of levity was early in the
film in a scene between Lois and Clark. What made the first Avengers movie so enjoyable was while there was serious trouble throughout the movie, silver linings were aplenty, and when the team came together and won the fight there was just so much joy and excitement for that. In this film, while it was cool to see Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman come together for a common goal, it was just that; cool. It didn't leave the audience cheering like it did in the Avengers and I think that's where Marvel tops DC every time; there's just more happiness and excitement with the seriousness. 

I can see why critics don't think too fondly of it, however I do feel that 29% from Rotten Tomatoes is a bit exaggerated; I agree more with Metacritic and IMDB (Metacritic being the lowest score I would give this movie). I personally would put it somewhere in the 50%-70% bracket. 

Wonder Woman makes a brilliant entrance [found on Google Images]

Overall, it wasn't the worst film I've seen, but it also wasn't the best. If you're a fan of DC comics and heros, it may be worth seeing in theaters, but it would probably be a better rent from Redbox or DVD purchase. Having said that, I recently heard that in the wake of the negative reviews of Batman v. Superman, parts of Suicide Squad have gone back into editing to add more humor and to lighten the movie up a little more, because apparently it had the same amount of seriousness that this film had. I am a little worried now, but not enough to not go see it. The crew/writers/producers/director of Batman v. Superman are definitely learning from this release, and hopefully they can take these lessons forward in their new films. 

"Continental Divide" Movie Review

[Originally posted Mar. 18th, 2015]


"Continental Divide" is a romantic comedy that was released on September 18th, 1981 starring Blair Brown and the late great John Belushi. This film follows Belushi's character Ernie Souchak who is a well known and loved reporter in Chicago who, at the beginning of the movie, is writing a series of expose articles bringing the illegal and questionable actions of a city councilman to the public eye. After a run-in with some crooked cops who were paid by said councilman to beat Souchak within an inch of his life, Souchak's editor sends him to the wilds of the Rocky Mountains to write an article about Nell Porter, a reclusive ornithologist who is living high in the mountains in order to study the American bald eagle. Of course, at first the two can't really stand each other and couldn't be more opposite- she's savvy when it comes to surviving in the wild, he's a total city slicker. But as in most rom-coms, they learn more about one another and eventually begin to fall in love.

Now, before I go any further, let me just say that I wasn't always a fan of John Belushi.

Souchak in the hospital [found on Google Images]

Growing up I had seen "Animal House" which has been hailed as the best film he had been in, as well as it helping shoot him to star status along with his presence on Saturday Night Live and later, his success as 'Joilet' Jake Blues in the "Blues Brothers". While "Animal House" was responsible for bringing him into the limelight, I've personally never been one for gross-out or raunchy comedy. I will watch it and maybe have a few giggles here and there, but it's not my favorite kind of humor. And it seems that Belushi's character Bluto really was the cornerstone of the whole film- let's just face it, without Bluto you wouldn't have an "Animal House." And of course this performance not only helped to establish this type of comedy, but it also helped pave the way for other comedies like "Porky's" and "American Pie." However, I honestly thought that the only thing Belushi was capable of as an actor was just yelling complete nonsense and effectively acting like a zit. Boy, was I wrong.

My reintroduction to Belushi came, oddly enough, from watching a review the Cinema Snob had released on the 1989 "bio-pic" (and I use that term VERY loosely) "Wired". It was based off of Bob Woodward's book of the same name which claimed to be a "tell-all biography" about the life of John Belushi, but rather it was more of a sensationalized story that didn't really focus on the man, but rather his addictions and then his downfall. While it's hard to think of John Belushi and not think of his tragic death which was a result of his drug addictions, it's also not fair to focus solely on that and make him out to be 'just another junkie' and forget the fact that he was in fact someone with a life, a personality, loved ones, passions- all of the things that make someone human. While I won't get into too much more about "Wired" since Mr. Jones (The Cinema Snob) did a fantastic job with his review (you the man, Brad!), it was this that got me curious about Belushi the man. While the majority of "Wired" was an utter train wreck, there were parts within the movie that focused on his personal life, his relationships, and talents that got me curious and left me wanting to know more about John Belushi. So after watching numerous documentaries, interviews, reading articles about him, as well as purchasing a copy of his wife's book "Samurai Widow" (I still haven't finished it yet- I can't pick it up and not cry), I wanted to see more of his talent. I am a fan of SNL, so I went out and picked up a DVD copy of "The Best of John Belushi" and am currently thinking about picking up the DVD sets of the first 4 seasons so I can see more of his acting and humor. And finally, I decided to give some of his other movies a try. "Continental Divide" being the first of a trend I'm hoping to set. 

The movie itself was created from a powerhouse team- the screenplay was written by Lawrence Kasdan who is best known for co-writing such films as "The Empire Strikes Back," "Return of the Jedi", "Raiders of the Lost Ark"- you know, just little movies like that. Then, the movie was directed by Micheal Apted who directed "The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader", "The World is Not Enough" and "The Coal Miner's Daughter". The film even had Steven Spielberg and Bernie Brillstein, Belushi's manager, as executive producers for the film. The movie was distributed by Universal Studios, and was even the first movie to be made by Amblin Entertainment, Spielberg's own production company. With credentials like that, you would think that the movie would be set up to do really well. Actually, it's gotten much higher feedback since the death of Belushi, but at the time it only got mediocre reviews, and made $15,000,000 at the box office. At the time, people only wanted to see Belushi play high-humor type roles, while Belushi himself wanted to branch out as an actor. Also, critics basically pegged the movie as being another typical rom-com; predictable, unrealistic, and forgettable. While I can agree with some of those judgments, I don't see that on the whole with this film.


Some bits in the film were little bit shaky to say the least- there are parts in the movie that I really felt were a bit unnecessary. WARNING- I'm now traveling into spoiler territory. For example, the character of the wildman "Possum"- he could have been completely removed from the movie and you never would have known. His character basically is first spotted by Souchak on his way up the mountain to Nell Porter's cabin. He and his hiking guide witness Possum chasing after, and I'm assuming, killing an elk with his bare hands. Later, you see Nell having a little afternoon delight with the wildman. A scene or so after that, he and Ernie have a fight, you find out that he's a football player who ran away into the woods, and he and Nell have a talk about her liking Ernie. Yep. That's about it. Really, you could cut all of his stuff out of the movie and you wouldn't be missing anything. And really, the affair with the mountain man only bothers Ernie up until the point he gets attacked by the guy- after that it's totally forgotten and never mentioned again. 

[found on Google Images]

Also, a lot of the councilman story and the eagle research is kind of hit and miss. While both things are touched upon in the movie, you get most of the information about it through small montages, or small discussions. While I did like the fact that the movie put a lot of focus on the development between the romantic leads, I can't help but feel they could have shown more of each of their passions. Souchak and Porter do have a small conversation about why they're in their professions, and why they feel passionate about it, but it was kind of in passing. It could have been a nice scene if they had lengthened it a bit. And had they just gotten rid of Possum the football player, it could have easily been done. Just saying. 

Also, I will admit that my biggest problem was the end of the movie. After coming to Chicago for a lecture on bald eagles, Souchak and Porter reunite and enjoy a few days of romance in the city. However, Porter tells Souchak she has to go back to the wild because that's where she belongs. He implores her to stay with him in the city, but she tells him that they both belong to very different worlds. Her life is in the wilderness, his life is in the city. Souchak tries to escort Porter to the train station, but finds that she isn't in her hotel room. He rushes down to the station and finds her in a train. She tells him she didn't want to see him before she left since it would be too hard to say goodbye. Souchak then stays with Porter on the train, and says he'll get off on the next stop. Then a cute little montage takes place where at each stop he says he'll leave, but then ends up staying longer. It was adorable. Eventually, they make it all the way back to Wyoming, but instead of just going up the mountain with Porter, he knows he has to go back to Chicago. So, before the train to the city arrives, he and Porter get married, and when Souchak is leaving, he promises he'll be back to his bride soon. While the sentimentality is cute, I was left saying, "Dude, really??" That just makes no sense! They had to get married for him to promise to come back? If they were that in love, it wouldn't matter if they got married or not. Also, what if, while he's away, Porter has another outing with the wildman? I've never seen a ring block a hole, if you know what I mean. This ending is right up there with the ending of "Pirates of the Carribean 3: At World's End"- it's romantic... I guess... It shows emotion... I guess... But it's totally ridiculous and while there is the bond of marriage in play, we all know that that vow doesn't mean shit when it comes down to the nitty gritty of things. 

However, while the story was, I will admit, a typical romantic comedy, I found myself actually rooting for the couple. Brown's character has her tough shell that eventually gets cracked, Belushi's character also has a shell, but is much thinner than hers. And honestly, I like that. It's nice to see a male role in a romantic film (even thought I don't really care for them) that has a softness to him. A lot of the time, the guy is made out to be this womanizing, nonchalant sexy man who changes for the female lead. In this case, it's nice to see that while not only do both characters have their guards up, it's the sincerity, vulnerability and likability of the male lead that brings about the "change of heart". It's his soft sweetness that doesn't just change him, and doesn't just change her- it sparks a mutual shift between the couple that leads to walls being torn down, and creates a real connection between the two that forms in an organic way. Also, it's nice to see that a guy who isn't "classically" handsome become recognized as handsome just through his heart-felt performance. There's even a line in the movie where Belushi tells Brown that she's beautiful. She replies, "I'm not. You're just in love." Which is a great line if you think about it. You honestly begin to feel something for both characters, so after a while, they both just look so good together you totally forget that someone like Belushi was pegged in Hollywood to play up his short and stocky frame for the sake of comedy. You begin to see the attractiveness in both people- physical, and emotional. 

Belushi and Brown [found on Google Images]

"Continental Divide" was the first and only romantic comedy Belushi would star in. While everyone wanted to see more hilarity and manic energy from Belushi, this movie showcased not only a quieter and more subtle humor, but it also showcases something people at the time didn't expect- a true sincerity and sweetness that was clearly part of his nature. You can see it in his eyes and the way he delivers his lines, his interactions with Brown and the other characters of the movie. The man had depth. And that's the biggest tragedy of all- seeing Belushi's amazing acting talents and knowing that people just didn't want to see that from him since he had been typecasted in Hollywood. It makes you think of other actors and performers in show business- because of the popularity of some of their roles, they're never given the opportunity to explore other creative pursuits. And if they do, a lot of the time the feed back from consumers is so negative and focuses on how "This isn't anything like [insert character name here]," or "Oh, [insert character name here] is trying to be more artsy... Pfft! They should stick with what made them famous!" And it's that mentality that has haunted so many other stars when they try and branch out.

Souchak and Porter [found on Google Images]

When the movie was in the promotion phase before being released, people were calling Belushi and Brown "the new Hepburn and Tracy" because of the on-screen chemistry the two had in the movie. However, 6 months after the movie hit theaters, Belushi passed away, so this comparison couldn't be further explored. It's tragic- not only did he influence the world of comedy as we know it, he had so many other talents that will never be seen or showcased. To me, "Continental Divide", while being a run-of-the-mill rom-com, is actually a lot more. It's a look into the man behind the notoriety. It's a chance where the audience gets to see the person who was buried in the hype. While this movie was only seen as being mediocre at best when it was released, it now has quite the following, and even some high ratings among critics and viewers alike. The feeling and the emotion in this movie doesn't come from the climactic ending, the jokes that surround the odd-couple pairing, but rather are witnessed in the looks the two actors give each other. Or the small smiles you see on their faces after a sweet kiss on the cheek. That, ladies and gentleman, is what makes this movie a strong performance between the two leads. Those things created most of the butterflies in the stomach, and the smiles on the faces of the viewers. While the movie itself has been pushed aside by time and other better made movies, this film is in itself a gem hidden among other films of it's kind. I feel that it's definitely worth uncovering, and and giving it a second chance. And in viewing it, hopefully, seeing the depth and beauty that should have been seen and recognized all those years ago.