Kevin Reviews Jack Reacher

When I first saw the trailer to this film, I expected it to be pretty bad. While it was not nearly as bad as I expected it to be, I was still disappointed with Jack Reacher.

I expected this to be a Tom-Cruise-Kicks-Ass-For-120-mins film, which would have been the worst-case scenario. The trailer didn't reveal much, but it seemed to market this film as strictly an action film. I enjoyed the bits of humor sprinkled within the film. There is also a surprising amount of depth and mystery to this film which was pleasing, however, that's about the extent of the strengths of this film.

Jack Reacher doesn't bring a whole lot to the table as far as the mystery and crime genre go. This was a fairly predictable film and I didn't find any of the characters interesting or fleshed out in the least. The title character is extremely bland and we get little to no character development. I can't help but say that Tom Cruise's talents were wasted with this film because he played a role that Nicolas Cage easily could have played just as well. The character was poorly written and Tom Cruise apparently didn't have much to work with which led to a very uninteresting and one-dimensional character. The villains weren't very interesting either, which made the drama less exciting, to put it bluntly. Fight scenes were poorly choreographed, and the final action scene was just dull.

Jack Reacher isn't a terrible action/crime film in any sense. The humor greatly cushions this very average installment, but it's not enough to push me to a recommendation. Jack Reacher is a film I've seen hundreds of times, only the T's are crossed a bit differently.

MY RATING:

2.5 out of 5

-Kevin A. Millward

Django Unchained is OFF THE CHAIN!!!

Everybody and their mom knows I was excited for this film. I watched the trailer everyday and constantly reminded my dad that "the 'D' is silent". Quentin Tarantino is such a bold and ambitious filmmaker who has changed the playing field that is film and there is not a single film of his that I dislike. Some I love more than others, but there is no such thing as a bad Tarantino film (yet). I was a little nervous going in because I was anticipating this film so much. Would it be a Tarantino "like" film, or a Tarantino "love" film?

I will start by saying this movie is very different from Tarantino's previous works. As far as I know, this is his first film that follows the traditional chronological order. Additionally, we follow Django around most of the film, similar to how we follow the Bride in the Kill Bill series. This is different from, say, Pulp Fiction or Inglourious Basterds. While I prefer the more epic storytelling style better, that didn't hold me back from loving this film. The writing in this film doesn't disappoint. It meets the high standard Tarantino has set with his previous films. There really wasn't a dull moment in this film. This film was very dark at times, from a vicious Mandingo fight (in my opinion, the most brutal scene), to a man getting ripped apart by bloodthirsty dogs. However, a very healthy dose of humor made it easier to watch. There were scenes where I couldn't believe my eyes, and there were other scenes where I was in tears from laughter, and neither side seemed to outweigh the other. Jamie Foxx was good in this, however, Christoph Waltz and Leonardo DiCaprio really stole the show. I really liked Waltz's character as a German bounty hunter better than his portrayal as "The Jew Hunter" in Inglourious Basterds. It was also clever how they stuck in the original Django in the bar scene. One actor that I wish I could have seen more of was Walton Goggins as Billy Crash. I have always said he is a great actor and I loved his character on The Shield, I just wish we got to see more of his character in this work. There were some interesting musical cues to say the least. I love the soundtrack, especially the "Django" theme. Even the hip-hop worked for such a historical setting, which was hilariously awesome, and maybe even a first for cinema. Django Unchained is anything but predictable, and I absolutely loved the last 30 minutes of the film.

I don't have a lot of complaints about this film, but I do have a few that are worth discussing. First and foremost: there are a few pacing issues in Django Unchained, most prominently near the climax of the film. Some scenes seemed a bit too long, and some were too short. However, these pacing issues weren't enough to hinder the film's flow. Secondly, I thought Quentin Tarantino's appearance in this film should have been omitted. His performance was poor, to say the least. Maybe I've watched one too many interviews with him, but I wasn't buying his fake southern accent. Pulp Fiction Tarantino: Yes. Django Unchained Tarantino: No. I guess that's what you get from a director that always has cameos in his films: either a hit or miss.

Django Unchained is one of the best films I've seen this year, if not, the best. It's right up there with Looper, and I am already anticipating Django's Blu-Ray release. Django Unchained is a bloody, brutal, hilarious, and bold film that throws us into America's dark past of slavery and adds a dash of fantasy to it to make a phenomenal Western (or Southern, as QT insists it is?). Of all of Quentin Tarantino's films, I'd say this is one that is the most straightforward and easiest to follow, which may be a good entry film for QT newbies to start at. All in all, this is a highly recommended film that I consider to be classic Tarantino.

MY RATING:

5 out of 5

-Kevin A. Millward

Chris Reviews Jack Reacher

This was one of those films that I really didn't have any expectations coming into the theater. The reviews looked OK and the trailer looked OK, and I had not read the books so I really had no idea what to expect. Was it a forgettable and terrible action film? Read below to find out.....


The Good-

This movie was a lot of fun! The first thing that stood out to me was the excellent direction from Christopher McQuarrie. He definitely created a unique tone and feel through the pacing and cinematography. This easily could have been a very bland PG-13 action film but McQuarrie did his best to make it above average. The opening sequence of a sniper shooting people in Pittsburgh felt chillingly realistic. The fight scenes had a very gritty and realistic feel to them as well that made them stand apart from traditional PG-13 action films. The story was also fairly interesting as it became much more than a simple cop thriller. All of these aspects of the film would not have been enough though, had it not been for Tom Cruise. Say what you want about his personal life but he always brings his best to every role he plays.The combination of McQuarrie and Cruise helps make this a very fun and enjoyable Action/Mystery film.  

The Bad-

My main problem with the film is how long it took for the plot to develop. It seemed like it took all the way until the last 30 minutes before we actually knew the real premise of the film and the thus the first two thirds of the movie meandered around not achieving much. Another issue I had with the film was with the rest of the cast. None of the other characters really stuck out and honestly I cant even remember their names. I also felt that Rosamund Pike was a bit awkward with her very forced American accent which distracted me every scene she was in. My final issue with the film is that it felt very much like a vanity project for Tom Cruise. The whole movie there are always woman coming on to him, characters talking about how bad ass Jack Reacher is and other things of that nature. I actually found it kind of funny but it also felt VERY cheesy.

Summary-

Jack Reacher is a very enjoyable piece of time wasting action cinema. It may not be a classic but it could be the start of a very fun and interesting action/mystery series. If you like Tom Cruise and your just wanting to watch a fun movie over the Holidays I would definitely recommend this film. (Also look out for a very awesome and funny performance from Robert Duvall!)  


MY RATING-

3.5 out of 5

-Chris "Da Franchize" Hart 

Chris Reviews The Hobbit

A week ago I attended the AMC Lord of the Rings marathon. It was a lot of fun and refreshed my memory on one of my favorite film series ever. Not only did it help me rediscover films that I loved but It also got me excited for the Hobbit release. Is the Hobbit an epic adventure on the same level as the Lord of the Rings trilogy? Read below to find out...

The Good-

I have always enjoyed the story of the Hobbit. It is much more lighthearted than  the Lord of the Rings as it was meant to be a children's story. The film is definitely able to bring to life that feeling of fun and adventure from the book. Visual effects have also drastically improved since the LOTR trilogy came out as well and thus the CGI looks more polished than its predecessors. The acting was pretty good as well and Martin Freeman nails the role of Bilbo.

The Bad-

I saw the film in IMAX 3D so that I could see the 9 minute sneak peak of Star Trek: Into Darkness (which was awesome!) but that also gave me a headache. I have never been a 3D person and for a film that is so long I had a hard time, but that's just me. The length is a bit of a problem as it does feel a bit more drawn out than it should be. I wish we could have gotten further in the story because most of my favorite parts of the Hobbit come in what will be the 2nd and 3rd films. The CGI while it looks good is a little overused, I would have preferred more practical effects for the creatures. The pacing is a little problematic as well, especially in the 1st act but it gets better as the film progresses.

Summary-

The Hobbit  unfortunately is not as great as the Lord of the Rings Trilogy. That being said it is still a pretty good movie in its own right. I think a lot of peoples issues with the film have more to do with it not meeting expectations rather than it being a poor film. The choice to split the film into 3 parts definitely feels like a money grab ploy but they have pulled it off, because I really want to see the next film now. All in all the Hobbit is a fun fantasy adventure film that is a promising start to a hopefully very good trilogy.

MY RATING-

4 out of 5

-Chris "Da Franchize" Hart

Why Pulp Fiction is My Favorite Crime Film

Crime is my favorite genre of film, and I have a lot of knowledge of the genre and its tropes. I've seen the good, the bad, and the ugly. As I get closer to reaching a recorded 500 films watched since last summer, I decided to take some time and go to a Fathom event to enjoy one of my favorite films in theaters: Pulp Fiction. In this post, I will discuss why Pulp Fiction is my favorite crime film of all time (and possibly my overall favorite) and what I got out of seeing it on the big screen.

Quentin Tarantino is a very distinguished and stylistic director. His films have a distinct attitude and visual style that you don't find in any other films. In most cases, you love him or you hate him. Either way, you have to respect the man for generating such a cult following. This following seemed to have started after the release of Pulp Fiction. I saw this in theaters on Thursday as part of a nationwide one-night screening in celebration of the Tarantino XX film collection being released, as well as in anticipation of Django Unchained. This was my third time watching Pulp Fiction, and it was by far my best experience with the film. Most of Tarantino's films require multiple viewings to fully comprehend, enjoy, and appreciate because all the films he makes are so radically different from each other. Every time I watch his films, I pick up on something new. Not only did I notice themes and comic elements I had missed before, it was really awesome to experience such an iconic and legendary film with an audience. The audience was gasping and laughing at all the right places which made for a great experience. I was also happy with the big turnout. That gives me hope that some people still appreciate great cinema.

This is among the top 3 best-written films I have ever watched. I find myself drawn into the small talk about foot massages and five dollar milkshakes, totally engaged with the characters and their conversation. Quentin Tarantino does a spectacular job keeping every single line of dialogue in this film interesting, comical, or thrilling in one way or another. As a dialogue-driven film, this film needs it and also thrives on it. As I watched this in theaters, hearing the audience laugh at certain points also made me pick up on how much comedy is in this film. The comedy is also subtle and dark, but so well written that you aren't really sure if you are supposed to laugh or not. This film challenges the audience to think and experience beyond what they are comfortable with and throw themselves into the intertwining stories of so many great characters (Butch being my favorite).

Another reason I love this film is the acting is spot-on. While I'm not normally a fan of John Travolta, he gives it his all in this film. Sam Jackson of course is hilariously awesome as always. Bruce Willis' performance was my favorite because you come to see in his movies and interviews that he is a very soft-spoken man. Seeing the hurdles he jumped to play the part of Butch was very entertaining, and I can't imagine anyone else filling the role the way he did.

Some of my favorite films do what Pulp Fiction does best: balancing many subplots and having a lot of character's stories without overshadowing the main characters. Sin City does this well, which is also among my top 3 favorite movies (and crime films). I love how we don't follow Jules and Vincent throughout the film. We see a little bit in the beginning, a little in the middle, and more of them at the end. Throughout the film, the stories of Lance, Marsellus Wallace, Mia Wallace, and Butch are followed closely. While Vincent is the main character, it isn't always obvious in the film, and I really dig that. Quentin Tarantino so expertly walks us through each story, and not always in chronological order, and it makes for a very engaging and compelling experience.

I remember watching Pulp Fiction for the first time and thinking, "That's it? This movie is overrated." Not until I watched it a second and third time did I appreciate the value of this film, not only as a well-written, well-acted film, but as a cultural phenomenon that will leave fanboys like myself quoting this film until the day that we die. Pulp Fiction is truly the crime film of the century and has influenced American cinema in countless ways. This film has been imitated countless times (Lucky Number Slevin, namely) but no other film, director, or writer has ever come close, and probably never will come close to achieving what Quentin Tarantino has with Pulp Fiction. This film is a masterpiece on so many levels and should be viewed by anyone that considers themselves a fan of crime films. This film is not for everyone, not only because of the strong adult content but because of how different this film is from anything else. However, I cannot recommend this film enough because it has completely changed the way I watch movies. I look forward to watching this again and getting even more out of it than I did on my last viewing.




-Kevin A. Millward
Two Dudes Doing Movie Reviews

Scenes of the Crime Blog-A-thon: The Lookout

As you may know after reading some of my blog posts, one of my favorite actors (if not, my number one favorite actor) of all time is Joseph Gordon-Levitt. I've read up on him and I agree with many of his thoughts about the film industry as well as what an actor should be expected to do to prepare for a role. I've been watching every film that he stars in, and recently, I watched The Lookout.

In The Lookout, JGL stars as Chris Pratt, a once promising high school athlete who faces many challenges after being involved in a car wreck. I felt a bit of a Memento vibe when watching this film, as Chris forgets a lot of things and has to rely on notes to remember them. Chris works as a janitor at a bank, which he discovers is going to be robbed. He is forced into participating in the robbery, and finds himself in more danger than he initially anticipated.

The Lookout is one of those films you can take for face value and enjoy in one viewing. This film is not deep or extremely memorable in any sense, but it is well worth watching because of Joseph Gordon-Levitt's performance and because it is an all-around good crime film. The best thing about this film is the characters, which are easy to follow and develop a sense of compassion for. You can easily empathize with JGL's character because he's a good guy that gets caught in a bad situation. This could potentially be a good character study film as well as a crime thriller.

I can see where this film could get some criticism. Chris' therapist, Janet, is in one scene in the film and we never see her again. There are subtle (and not so-subtle) hints of a romantic/physical relationship between the two of them, and this subplot never really pans out. As a whole, this is a somewhat generic crime film from the standpoint that it sticks with many of the conventions of the crime genre, and doesn't bring a whole lot of new ideas to the table.

The Lookout is a film with great characters but a story most of us crime fanatics have seen many times before. I watched this film purely to see Joseph Gordon-Levitt in a different role and to continue my studies on a phenomenal yet underrated actor that I'm sure will garner some attention for his acting and directing talents.

MY RATING:

3.5 out of 5

-Kevin A. Millward

Scenes of the Crime Blog-A-Thon: Chris Reviews Black Dynamite

I have to give credit to Kevin for exposing me to this movie. We both have discovered a love for exploitation movies and recently there have been a lot of parodies of these types of films coming out (Grindhouse and Machete for example). Of all of the parodies of these types of films I have seen this is arguably the best. 

Black Dynamite is a former CIA Agent who sets out to avenge his brothers death after he is killed by pimps and drug dealers. He cleans up the streets and in the process uncovers a ridiculous plot that leads him to Kung Fu Island and eventually the White House!


Often times movies that are intentionally bad, feel very forced but in Black Dynamite it never feels that way. It feels like the filmmakers actually loved the material they are parodying and so they are able to strike the right tone. This is a film that is filled with amazing and memorable moments. There are moments of hilarious ineptitude such as the scene where the boom mic drops down into view and Black Dynamite continues to stare at it while he is delivering his lines. There are moments of pure absurdity such as the scene where Black Dynamite and his crew put together the secret plot of the Asians on Kung Fu Island who are trying to shrink all Black Men's penises by drinking Malt Liquor. Not to mention a plethora of fun and hilarious fight scenes.

Black Dynamite is an excellent example of a Bad movie that is very good. It shows bad filmmaking but not excessively, bad acting but that is funny and dialogue that is really bad but creatively bad. This is just a fun Action/Crime/Comedy film that is a must watch for any guy that has that juvenile sense of humor that makes us love films like the Naked Gun so much. So go on to Amazon this instant and order the blu-ray for only 10 bucks because it is well worth it!

MY RATING-

4.5 out of 5

-Chris "Da Franchize" Hart

  

Scenes of the Crime Blog-A-Thon: Chris Reviews Eastern Promises

(This post is being published as part of the Scenes of the Crime Blog-A-Thon with Furiouscinema.com.)

I've recently been on a bit of David Cronenberg kick. I started with A History of Violence then moved on to Eastern Promises as it is essentially a companion film to the former. After watching some of Cronenberg's earlier films such as The Fly and Videodrome it is interesting seeing the evolution the he has made as a director. Earlier in his career he liked to analyze the physical aspects of horror and violence with less emphasis on the psychological aspect but now it seems he has flipped his focus on that subject.

Eastern Promises is an utterly fascinating film that I think will likely take me a while to fully appreciate which has been the case with most Cronenberg films. It has the feeling of a much more conventional crime film than A History of Violence but still feels very fresh and unique.

The film tells the story of a midwife (Naomi Watts) at a hospital in London who delivers a baby whose mother dies during childbirth. She finds a journal written by the mother among the woman's personal belongings but is unable to read it as it is in Russian. She finds a card on the inside that leads her to a Restaurant owned by a major Russian Mob Boss (Armin Mueller-Stahl). The film weaves the story of the midwife searching for the relatives to take care of the baby with the story of this Russian Mob family and a driver for the Mob (Viggo Mortensen) who ascends to power.

This is a brooding Crime film that really explores the Russian Mob which is an area I have not seen explored in the genre before. One such interesting aspect was the significance of tattoos in the Russian Mob as they carry the life story of these mobsters. Not only does it explore interesting subjects but it also features some great acting. Viggo (very different looking in this!) gives a clearly great performance which he was nominated for Best Actor for and I think he is really what elevates this film from being a decent Crime movie to a great one.

The other aspect of what made this film great was David Cronenberg himself. His ability to make uncomfortable to watch fight scenes and truly realistic and ugly deaths is a rare skill. Specifically the infamous Bath House scene where Viggo is completely naked and fights off 2 mobsters armed with linoleum knives. Which brings up an interesting style choice that Cronenberg makes with this movie. There are no guns in the entire film, all kills are done with straight razors and knives which adds to the discomfort. While he is making more of a psychological analysis in this film he is still able to create those visually disturbing scenes which have been a staple in his films his entire career.

I don't want to give too much away about this film because I think everyone needs to see it. There are some interesting twists that happen that if I give away definitely ruin the movie. Suffice it to say though, Eastern Promises is an amazing film. It has a hypnotically brooding tone that makes it hard to turn away and just when you start to get bored it throws a shockingly violent and disturbing scene to get you back into it. So for anyone craving a good old violent mobster movie I encourage you to watch this one right now!

MY RATING-

4 out of 5

-Chris "Da Franchize" Hart  

 
 

Kevin Reviews Killing Them Softly

Brad Pitt is one of my favorite actors. He was awesome in Inglorious Basterds and Fight Club, and I'm very much looking forward to seeing him in World War Z (minus the CGI zombies). How did his performance fare in Killing Them Softly?

I had mixed feelings about this film. Brad Pitt gives the performance you would expect from Brad Pitt, nothing special here. He plays an enforcer of sorts that investigates after a mob protected card game is robbed. The robbery scene is thrilling and very well done, arguably the best scene of the film. I also liked the very end of the film, the last line spoken by Brad Pitt, specifically. He says: "America is not a country, its a business. Now fucking pay me." I liked how this film made commentary on the overly high value America places on money. Up until the end of film, Jackie (Pitt) is the non-materialistic representation of society. He is the least selfish character of the film, however, we see his other side when Richard Jenkin's unnamed character fails to pay him the full amount of money he owes him. My favorite part of this film was the underlying theme and message it sent to the audience, who must be smart enough to pick up on to really appreciate this film.

There are a lot of things I disliked about this film. From the start, the intro titles were very jarring and hard to watch and hear. This film is very dialogue heavy, which I didn't mind. What bothered me was how dull these scenes were. There wasn't a whole lot to engage myself in through most of the movie, which made me feel very detached from the story. I also found the scene where Ray Liotta is beaten to be more brutal than necessary for the context of the film. As desensitized as I am to violence, this scene disturbed me. That's not to say that it wasn't well done, because evoking that reaction out of me is a difficult thing to do. I felt a bit insulted because references to Bush and Obama were constantly being thrown at me. I was thinking, "Okay, I get it, this is set in 2008." Andrew Dominick was obviously insecure about how good of a job he was doing with the setting, and hitting us over the head with this was a bit obnoxious. Finally, I thought this film mimicked the style of Guy Ritchie, who's films I don't really like in the first place, so an imitation won't really strike me as anything special.

Overall, I would recommend Killing Them Softly only to those who enjoy crime films and want to see the economic side to the crime world, as well as those who appreciate the underlying themes and commentary made on our country. Not recommended for the faint of heart.

MY RATING:

3 out of 5

-Kevin A. Millward

Chris Reviews Lincoln

If you are a frequent reader of my reviews you should know by now that I am a sucker for Historical Dramas. History is something that I am passionate about and something that I spend as much time reading about as I do watching movies. So a film about Abraham Lincoln starring Daniel Day Lewis who happens to be my favorite actor looks like something that should be my favorite movie of the year. Did it live up to my expectations or fall flat on its face? Read below if you want to know the answer.

The Good-

As with every Spielberg film it is well shot and has high production values. The acting is good to great and their is significant emotional weight to almost every scene in this film. Daniel Day Lewis will get an Oscar Nomination for his role and could possibly be the frontrunner for the award which if he won would be his third. He has put forth the definitive performance of Lincoln, which I doubt will be matched anytime soon if ever. Also John Williams has put together another solid score that complements the film well.

The Bad-

This is a much smaller scale film than I was expecting. I was expecting an epic tale of the Civil War and Lincoln's leadership and instead what I got was a much more personal film that featured a lot of exposition. I am still trying to decide if this was a case of my expectations preventing me from appreciating a good film or if its as truly flawed as I think it is. The first act of the film with the exception of the very brutal and interesting opening battle scene is very dull. It picks up pace as the film goes along but overall this is a fairly unexciting, dry and pretentious film that seems more suited for the stage than on film. The excessive exposition reminded me of another Civil War film that was equally dull in "Gods and Generals" which I think may be a fair comparison to Lincoln. There is a moment in the film when Lincoln begins to tell a story and a man flips out asking if he is going to tell another story and that he cant hear another one, and that is how I was beginning to feel by the end of this film. There is just too many instances of people giving monologues in dark rooms for my taste. Spielberg has been experimenting in his last couple of film,War Horse was a very epic film that seemed too over the top and childish, Lincoln on the hand is much too small scale and subdued for the subject matter and lacks the excitement of his better films.  

Summary-

For all of my complaints about this film I still found it mildly entertaining. As I said Daniel Day Lewis gives a good performances that makes watching the film worth while. Overall though this is a very dull historical drama that is one of the weaker films in Spielberg's career.   

MY RATING-

A generous 3.5 out of 5     

Chris "Da Franchize" Hart

Chris Reviews Hitchcock

Some of the most fun films are the ones that take a look at the film industry itself. Films like Ed Wood come to mind, which is a fun look at one of the most inept filmmakers of all time through the lens of the always interesting Tim Burton. While I was hoping for Hitchcock to be a good movie due to my previous experience with films in the genre I really had no Idea what to expect. So is Hitchcock a film worthy of its namesake? Obviously you should read below to find out.

The Good-

Anthony Hopkins is great in this! Not only does he visibly look like Alfred Hitchcock but he really becomes him and explores the emotions of a truly disturbed man. The relationship between him and his wife is fascinating and Helen Mirren is great in the role. The two of them really carry this film and I would not be surprised to see one if not both of them up for Oscar Nominations for this. The rest of the cast is solid as well and the story is fun and interesting. It pays adequate homage to one of the greatest filmmakers of all time and is a fun film that can be appreciated by both movie buffs and the average audience member alike.

The Cons-

While this is a very solid movie, outside of the leading performances there is nothing spectacular about it. It is not as memorable as a film like Ed Wood which I think is more of a directing issue rather than a writing or acting one. Other than that there is nothing that really bothered me about the film.

Summary-

Hitchcock is a fun historical drama that really anybody can enjoy. The two leads are outstanding and should receive Oscar Nominations for their work and the story is very engaging. Despite those strengths it never elevates itself above being a good film when it could have been a great one.

MY RATING

3.5 out of 5

Chris "Da Franchize" Hart       

Chris Reviews Red Dawn

I saw this film opening night this past Tuesday but was unable to write a review then as I left to go out of town the following morning. In fact I saw a number of films over the break so look out for some more reviews in the coming days.

Now the original Red Dawn is a cult classic, Its a somewhat decisive film that while its very campy and cheesy is a lot of fun and features some interesting political commentary. So does the remake feature the same fun and political commentary? Read below to find out....

The Good-

The original Red Dawn has always been a film that stirs the feeling that many young boys have of wanting to survive in the wilderness and shoot bad guys and this Red Dawn retains some of that juvenile desire. Chris Hemsworth is solid in the Patrick Swayze role of the original although they are very different characters. Where Swayze was that cool older brother, Hemsworth is very much the bad ass war veteran who knows what to do but is not particularly likeable. Other than that I really don't have much praise for this film, and I was stretching to write that much good stuff about it in the first place.

The Bad-

This film is truly a mess! With the exception of the opening act, the plot is almost incoherent. The basic premise of the North Koreans invading the United States is pretty easy but they attempt to set up a larger plot that leads into a potential sequel. That is one of my biggest problems with the film compared to the Original. In the 1984 version we get a shockingly violent ending that makes a somewhat anti-war statement at the end, resulting in a much more unique film than it is given credit for. In this version we get a very Hollywoodized film that is more interested in making money than being innovative or unique. Not only is the plot very weak but the acting is atrocious, especially Josh Peck. He sucks the life out of every scene he is in and is definitely the biggest weakness of the film. Not only is the plot terrible and the acting awful but even the action scenes are just mediocre. Yeah there are a lot of explosions and shootouts, but there is no emotion or importance behind them. Red Dawn is essentially just a montage of action scenes that lack any type of coordination and really don't serve any purpose to the plot. Even the bad guys are very weak, they really don't do anything once they invade. We have no perception of what their intentions are and what the bigger picture is outside of a few throw away lines.

Summary-

I did not expect a great film by any means, in fact I expected a pretty bad film and in that it met my expectations. I did not hate it the whole way through because I had set the bar so low. That being said I was really disappointed in this film. While it technically does a lot of the same things as the original, it lacks the fun, intelligence and energy of the 1984 version. I'm sure there will be those that like it, but if you have any taste for good film making stay far away from this film!

MY RATING

2 out of 5

Chris "Da Franchize" Hart  

Kevin Reviews Lincoln

I'm not a history buff, so I didn't expect to love Lincoln. However, there are a lot of good qualities about this film that make it worth a watch.

First and foremost, Daniel Day-Lewis is phenomenal in this film. You can tell he did a lot to immerse himself in the role of Abraham Lincoln. I won't be surprised if Daniel Day-Lewis wins an Oscar for his performance in this film. Secondly, I loved the star-studded cast of this film: Joseph Gordon-Levitt (obviously, if you haven't already learned he is my favorite actor), James Spader, Tommy Lee Jones, and even Walton Goggins (one of my favorite actors from FX's The Shield). For the most part, the performances from the supporting actors were also good. I was getting the vibe that Tommy Lee Jones was not into this film. His performance seemed tired and jaded. I think in general he is becoming burnt out with acting, and his acting days may be over soon. 

While the acting was great, that's about the only memorable thing in this film for me. If you are a history buff or are really into politics, you may really enjoy this film, but I am neither. This was part of why it was difficult to engage myself in this film too much. Also, I think Spielberg shouldn't have made this film. His time could be spent better elsewhere, and this didn't look or feel like Spielberg's work. My final complaint is the ending. "Spoiler" alert: after Lincoln dies, the camera pans to a flame, which dissolves into Lincoln as he gives a final speech. While I think this method is extremely cliched, it can be done if done the right way. But the whole "the legacy lives on" approach was extremely melodramatic and trite, which left me with a bad feeling in my stomach and left me rolling my eyes as I left the theater. 

Overall, Lincoln is worth your time if you are a history buff or a hardcore Spielberg fan. If you're not, you may want to spend your money on something else. 

MY RATING:

3 out of 5

-Kevin A. Millward

Kevin's Review of Skyfall

I've heard mixed things about Skyfall. Some critics claimed this was the best Bond film to date. Some of my friends said this was very slow paced. Chris enjoyed it. What did I think? Read on and find out.

Honestly, I went in expecting a slow, boring film. My co-workers USUALLY don't steer me wrong. I should have listened to their advice before going into the train wreck that is The Bourne Legacy. I was pleasantly surprised. While there wasn't quite as much action as I had anticipated, the film made up for it with witty and comic dialogue. There were several instances where the audience would burst into laughter and chuckle. The writers clearly put a lot of thought into appealing to non-Bond fans, which made this a somewhat easy watch. The cinematography in this film is phenomenal. Editing was pretty good, too. I loved the fight scene on the rooftop, where the fight is shot in just one angle, which is rare to find in modern action scenes.

There were a few things I didn't like about film. I wish we could've seen more of Javier Bardem's character. His character wasn't very fleshed out, either. Additionally, the final action sequence was a little disappointing. There were a lot of setups for this scene, and the payoffs happened so fast, it seemed silly with how much time was spent on them. Finally, the soundtrack was nothing to write home about, especially the title song.

In conclusion, I must say this is one of the better Bond films I've seen. This one really made me like Daniel Craig as James Bond, which is something I never thought I would say. Skyfall is a solid Bond film that fans and non-fans can appreciate and enjoy.

MY RATING:

4 out of 5

-Kevin A. Millward

Chris Reviews Skyfall

If you are a follower of this blog you should know by now that Skyfall was one of my most anticipated films of the year. I had tremendously high expectations of this film (like Prometheus) and had to view it twice before I could even begin to write a review. Did Skyfall live up to my ridiculous expectations? Read below to find out.....

The Good-

There are so many great things about Skyfall I don't even know where to start! Probably the most impressive aspect of it is the cinematography. When I heard that Roger Deakins was brought on to do the camera work, I was very excited and with Skyfall he has crafted one of the most visually interesting films in the history of the Bond film series. Not only is this a great looking film but it is well written and well acted as well. Javier Bardem will go down in Bond film history as one of the more intriguing villains in the series. From his homosexual innuendos with Bond to his final scene in the film he is a truly intimidating but fun villain. He brings back the spirit of the classic Bond villains who were both comical and serious. That can be said about Bond in this film as well, Craig has finally found the right balance of seriousness and humor to become one of the better Bonds in the series. This is not a typical Bond story either, it has implications that will forever affect the series. Skyfall tells a much more personal story that deals both with Bond and  M's past and by the end of this film Daniel Craig has become the Bond we have been waiting for.

The Bad- 

The first time I viewed this film I had a lot more problems with it, but after a second viewing many of my questions were answered. That being said there are still a few problems I have with this film. I think the thing I was most disappointed in was the score. Long gone are the days of great bombastic soundtracks from John Barry and David Arnold. The lack of a great score took away some of the impact of the action scenes that otherwise were fairly impressive. I think the biggest problem I inittialy had with this movie is the tone. It has a very restrained and subdued tone that initially bothered me but on second viewing I liked a lot better. 

Summary-

Skyfall finally wraps up the Bond becoming Bond storyline and catapults him into the next phase of the series. It is a beautiful, well acted and well written film that ranks among the best films in the series. Not only is it a good Bond film though, it is a good film overall and should appeal to Bond fans and non Bond fans alike.

MY RATING-

4 out of 5

Chris "Da Franchise" Hart

Chris Reviews The Man With the Iron Fists

This was definitely one of the more interesting looking films of the year. Whether it was good or bad you had to give RZA, Eli Roth and Quentin Tarantino props for making something so unique. That being said this was going to be a cult favorite movie at best and probably would not gain a large audience. So did it appeal to a guy that generally falls for exploitation/terrible old school action movies? As usual read below to find out......

The Good-

As I said the concept on paper sounds pretty cool and it was definitely a very unique film. I loved the concept of mixing martial arts and hip hop as I think it is something that actually goes pretty well together (like Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai mixed Samurai films with hip hop). There were some really interesting visual ideas that were presented in here as well. The best aspect of the film though had to be the acting performances that were so terrible they were funny. Russell Crowe stood out as he really phoned this one in but he just looked so terribly out of shape and essentially spent the entire film killing people and having fun with prostitutes that it was laughable.

The Bad-

Oh my gosh there is so many things wrong with this film! As I said the acting is TERRIBLE! Im sorry to say that RZA was not very exciting as the lead and he was hardly even in the film until the third act. His narration was almost incomprehensible which really made it hard to ever know what was going on. I think that is the biggest weakness of this film, you really have no clue what the hell is going on! I got the basic premise of there being some gold and that a bunch of dudes wanted to steal it but after that, the story fell apart and lost me as a viewer. Even the action sequences which were supposed to be the strength of the film, were sporadically cool but for the most part poorly edited.

Summary-

I really wanted to like this film and for the first 30 minutes it was fun. The problem is that when you have a story that makes no sense after those first 30 minutes the viewer gets lost and thus the film has no impact. It ended up becoming a collection of scenes of the most American sounding Asian actors fighting each other and Russell Crowe killing people and having fun with prostitutes. If you are a fan of bad movies and also like the martial arts/exploitation genre its watchable but for everyone else stay away!

MY RATING-

2.5 out of 5

Chris "Da Franchize" Hart      

Kevin's Movie Lookahead

Just a brief lookahead at the films I am most excited for.

I'm definitely gonna make time to see the latest Bond film next weekend. Reviews are pouring in, saying it is quite possibly the best one yet. I know Chris is really excited for this one and I can't wait to read his review of it.

I will see Killing Them Softly solely because Brad Pitt is in it. He is one of my favorite actors and is good in almost everything he's in. This film looks promising and I can't wait to see his performance in this!

I haven't yet seen The Hurt Locker, but I plan on doing so before this film is released. The trailer doesn't reveal much but if it's anything like what I've heard about The Hurt Locker, it should be good.

This is going to be my one guilty comedy. Come to think of it, I don't think I've even seen any comedies in theaters this year. I'm a big Seth Rogen fan, and even though this movie looks terrible, I will probably be laughing out loud just because I love his acting style. I'll laugh even harder if this movie actually gets good reviews.

Of the films on this list, I'm most excited for Django! Quentin Tarantino is my favorite director. I won't go into why on this post, but he's awesome and I already know Django will be yet another Tarantino classic. I'm not big into westerns, but this one has the potential to be one of my favorite movies, like many of Tarantino's films are. If I'm not working Christmas Day, you can bet your ass I'll be watching this one!

After Django Unchained, this is probably the next film I'm most excited for. Featuring an all-star cast with lots of sex and violence, this looks like it could be the movie that starts the year off with a bang. I'm disappointed it got pushed back to January, but that's just more time for me to get excited for it!

What else can I say about this film, other than the only reason I'm seeing it is for Arnold?

Being a die hard fan of Die Hard, I will go see this film. It is directed by John Moore, the director of the god-awful Max Payne, so it may fall flat on its face. I've also heard rumors that there isn't going to be the same John McClane humor we all love, which is also a disappointment. But like I said, I love Die Hard so I'll see it.

Flight: A Film That Doesn't Fly Too High

I tried not judging Flight by its cover art, which was terrible. The original art was just a blue sky with a tiny ass plane way up top. The second one is Denzel which is slightly better, but not much. Did Flight soar to greatness or did it result in a failure to launch? (Sorry, I had to). Read below to find out.

Okay, this blog is called Two DUDES Doing Movie Reviews, so obviously I'm going to take a DUDE stance on this. Within the first ten seconds of the film, we see female full frontal, so this film definitely had my interest. Side note, I seriously have no idea why half the audience gasped at this scene in the film. Read the freaking rating. Flight is rated R for a bunch of reasons, one of them being nudity. Nudity means private parts, like boobs and butts, and sometimes genitals, so don't be surprised when you see that in the movie. The film continues to follow the life of Whip Whitaker, pilot and alcoholic. Whip leads the fast life of drugs, booze, and sex, and it catches up to him when a routine flight goes wrong. This film focuses on his addiction to alcohol and how it destroys his life and those around him. I really liked the man vs. self theme in this film, as well as how Whip is his own worst enemy. Whip is the only thing holding himself back from moving on with his life and reconnecting with his ex wife and son. Some critics say this is Denzel's best film. I would argue there are much better films he has been in, but his performance here is still nothing short of fantastic, as always.

I had a lot of issues with this film. A lot of the characters aren't likable (especially the lead) which makes it difficult to have any real moral compass in a film that lacks any moral center whatsoever. Plagued with lies, drinking to excess, and an almost abusive father figure, Whip is not a very likable character. Even his girlfriend gets annoying. I didn't like John Goodman either, even though it seemed like most of the audience did. My biggest issue with this film is one scene that features Whip's attorney and NTSD buddy helping him cover up that he's drunk by doing cocaine. This seemed extremely far fetched and silly, and it took away from the serious tone of the film.

Flight takes off because of Denzel Washington's fine performance as an alcoholic and unrepentant liar, but doesn't quite level off because of some silly scenes that make what could've been a great film a good one. Still, this is worth watching, especially if you are a big Denzel fan like I am. This is certainly not a bad film, but it's not really a great one either.

MY RATING:

3.5 out of 5

Kevin A. Millward

Chris Reviews Cloud Atlas

I was very intrigued the first time I saw the trailer for the film and even more so when  I saw that the Wachowski's were putting it together. At the same time I was cautious because while the Wachowski's have made great films (The Matrix) they tend to be overly complex and ambitious, so much so that viewers get turned off. So I headed into Cloud Atlas cautiously optimistic, was it bloated and overly ambitious or was it a groundbreaking piece of cinema? Read below to find out.

The Good-

This is by far the most ambitious film of the year. Of course that was exactly what I was expecting but I really do think they pulled it off. While I was initially skeptical of the many simultaneous stories jumping back and forth, by the end of the film everything ties together in a very satisfying way. The visuals were at times breathtaking and imaginative and the score while not fantastic throughout does have one great theme that I have fallen in love with which furthers the emotional impact of the film. 

The Bad-

 While there is a lot to love about this film there is also a lot that many people will not like. The film is very densely packed with information that will likely overwhelm a viewer especially with its nearly 3 hours in length. The many stories bouncing back and forth will likely turn some people off as well. There are a few other complaints I had relating to how certain stories were resolved and some stylistic choices but that's about it. 

Summary-

Cloud Atlas is not a film for everyone and it may not be groundbreaking but if you love high concept and ambitious Science Fiction films than you will like this film. On the other hand if you think that it looks pretentious, confusing and boring than chances are you will think the same thing after seeing it. That being said I highly enjoyed this film and thought the 3 hours flew by and while it is not perfect it is definitely worth a watch!

MY RATING

3.5 out of 5

Chris "Da Franchize" Hart

Chris Reviews Argo

I have to admit that being a History Buff, films such as Argo tend to be the ones that get me the most excited. That being said if they are bad I will ream them but if they are good I will love them more than most people. So the question is did Argo tickle my history nerve or stab it? Read below to find out.

The Good-

Ben Affleck has cemented himself as one of the best directors out there. With his first 2 films he established that he had the Crime Drama down, but with Argo he has shown that he can make Oscar Winners. He fantastically weaves drama and tension with light hearted humor. The opening sequence alone (the storming of the US Embasy in Iran) makes this film a necessary watch because of the relevance of it. Argo is also a very accesible film, often times Historical Dramas become history lessons and take themselves way to seriously. Argo does not do any of that, it manages to tell a very interesting historical story while at the same time make it interesting and exciting to the average audience member.

The Bad-

There is not anything blatently bad about this film. That being said I think many of the characters were not fleshed out enough and while the performances were solid there was nothing spectacular about them. Other than the lack of notable performances there really is not much to complain about.

Summary-

Ben Affleck is quickly becoming one of my favorite directors and I can not wait to see what he does next. Argo is a fascinating Historical Drama that combines masterful tension with good comedy to create not only the best Drama of the Year but arguably the best film of the year. I would not be suprised if this does very well at the Oscars.

MY RATING

4.5 out of 5

Chris "Da Franchize" Hart

Chris Reviews Seven Psycopaths

I really came into this movie without any kind of expectations. The trailers looked OK (but its always hard to tell the quality of a film from a trailer) but the reviews were pretty good. So I sat down and watched the film without any bias for the first time in a long time. Was it good, was it bad? Read below to find out.

The Good-

If you saw Martin McDonagh's previous film "In Bruges", then you know what to expect from this. It's quirky, satirically violent, and filled with interesting and flawed characters. At times this film is fantastically fun with genuine laugh out loud moments. The commentary about the art of storytelling in films is fascinating which makes me want to watch this again just to pick up on all of it. This is a film that has a lot going for it but there really is one fatal flaw that prevents this from being a great film.

The Bad-

The biggest problem with Seven Psychopaths is the chaotic pacing. It is all over the place, and ironically despite it being a film about the art of storytelling it struggles to actually tell a coherent story at times. I think this is just McDonagh's style but that still doesn't excuse it.

Summary-

Seven Psychopaths is fascinating but flawed film that is well worth a watch. I have a feeling it will grow on me with time as I think about the commentary imbedded in the story, but the pacing is still somewhat of putting. Some will love it, some may hate it but it is undeniably an intriguing film.

MY RATING

3.5 out of 5

Chris "Da Franchize" Hart          

Taken 2: Possibly the Worst Film of the Year

Fans of "Taken" will probably enjoy Taken 2. But for me, the guy who sees the good, the bad, and the ugly when it comes to action movies, was unable to enjoy this film. This was an ugly film. Keep reading to see why.

Taken 2 is nowhere near as good as Taken. While Taken isn't the most inventive action film, it was very enjoyable and had some genuine excitement. This is not the case for Taken 2. Taken 2 takes the "Bourne" approach even more than the first, utilizing the very cliched shaky cam and quick cuts. Quick cuts are even used in slow dialogue scenes, and for no obvious reason. As an editor myself, I believe cuts should be precise, intentional, and purposeful. As I was studying some of the shots in this film, I came to the conclusion that the editors didn't really put much thought into WHY the cuts were being made, other than to make the film faster-paced, and it didn't work. Also, the director overused high-shutter speed cameras to "intensify" fight scenes. This made me dislike the film even more, as this is an extremely overused technique. This film wasn't just bad technically. The writing was poor. A friend I was with even pointed out some contradictions in the dialogue, causing some serious continuity issues. The writers were very sloppy and it is clear the focus of this film was not on the story or the writing, but the action, which is something a film should NEVER do.

I apologize for not being able to find anything good with this film. Taken 2 is a prime example of what I dislike about action films: fast cuts, shaky cam, and high shutter speeds, not to mention, poor writing and dry acting. This film was obviously action-based with weak characters and a very flimsy script. I would recommend this to anyone who wants to go to the movies and literally be in a coma and not use their brain whatsoever. This is easily a candidate for the worst film of the year.

MY RATING:

1 out of 5

-Kevin A. Millward

Chris Reviews Looper

I'm sure you have already read Kevin's review of Looper. He had been talking non stop about this film for a long time and it seemed like it had become his favorite movie before it even came out. Now I was excited to see this movie but no where near the extent he was. So was this movie another "Amazing Spiderman" situation where we have two contrasting opinions? Read below to find out........

The Good-

Well let me first start of by saying that Kevin and I are both in agreement on this, Looper is a fantastic film! I do not think I have ever seen a movie quite like this and I mean that in a very good way. Rian Johnson has created a truly unique film that is extremely engaging. I could not take my eyes off the screen, The story is interesting, the casting is perfect, the acting is great, the makeup work on JGL is awesome and the score is cool.

The Bad-

I really cannot think of anything blatantly bad in this film. Like Kevin said the film was marketed as more of an action film and there really is not much in here so some people might be disappointed. But other than
idiots who only like Michael Bay movies, everyone should like this movie.

Summary-

This is a film that establishes Rian Johnson as the next big Sci-fi director in the same vein as Duncan Jones. Although I think this is stronger than either Moon or Source Code. Looper does everything so well that I am putting it up for consideration as my top movie of the year. I legitimately feel that this should be an Oscar contender for Best Picture. So as you can guess I Highly Recommend this film! Although I could not quite give it a 5 due mostly to a rude a-hole who essentially shushed me and Kevin during the trailers before the movie even started.
   
MY RATING

4.5 out of 5

Chris "Da Franchize" Hart    

Looper: A Groundbreaking Time Travel Film

I went in with high expectations for this film. Ever since I saw the trailer, I have been super excited for Looper. I have never been so excited to see a film, and Looper grabbed my attention for a lot of reasons. I was thrilled when I saw it was getting good reviews, and after I watched it, my mind was blown.

I will start off with what I liked most about this film. Joseph Gordon-Levitt's performance as the younger Bruce Willis is nothing short of spectacular. In fact, his performance really sold the film and made it believable. Yeah, the makeup really helped, too, but JGL's sharp talent for transforming into another role (rather than mimicking it) completely changed the tone of the film. Looper easily could have been JGL chasing down Bruce Willis, but that was not the case. This was a young Bruce Willis chasing down an older Bruce Willis. Rather than the traditional man vs. man theme, this film effectively and creatively utilized the man vs. self theme, which I enjoyed.

I also liked the visuals of this film. The futuristic world in this film is very feasible. I look at this world and think that it could actually exist someday. Rian Johnson clearly put a lot of thought into the setting. From a technical standpoint, the cinematography and editing was beautiful. This film distinguishes itself with its unique text, narration, and, most of all, fantastic camerawork. I wish I could describe the visual style of this film, but it is so unique and unlike anything I have ever seen before.

As far as the acting goes, I really have no complaints. As I said before, JGL was brilliant. I'd say this is Bruce Willis' best film in years. I was skeptical about Emily Blunt's character, but I came to like her and was sold on the idea of her being a country girl. Even her kid was great. Usually, I hate little kids in movies. They are almost always obnoxious and are usually used for low-grade humor. This wasn't the case in Looper. I can't say much without giving away key plot points, but the boy's performance and role in the film is amazing.

I really have no complaints about this film, other than how slow it can be. The trailer makes you think this will be a fast-paced action film, but much of the action in the trailer plays out as quick montages in the film, which was a little disappointing. I think I would have liked just a little more action, and with this film being just under two hours, it could have spared a few more minutes of that.

Looper is a groundbreaking film on so many levels. It is well-written and thought-out, visually striking, and expertly acted. This film lived up to my high expectations, which is a rarity. Looper will definitely be added to my Blu-Ray collection. Highly recommended for Sci-Fi and Action fanatics, and anyone who wants to experience a mind-bending thriller.

MY RATING:

5 out of 5

-Kevin A. Millward

Chris Reviews Dredd

When it was first announced that they were gonna take another stab at bringing Judge Dredd to film I was very much against it. I really have not had a chance to read the graphic novels and the last film while hilariously bad, did not leave me thinking they should try to make another film. That being said once I started hearing the details and saw the trailer I jumped on board and got excited. So was that excitement warranted or did I leave the theater wanting to kill myself? Read below to find out..... 

The Good-

There are several aspects of this movie that I loved. The first being Karl Urban as Dredd, he made the character much more believable and realistic while maintaining a certain level of humor. This movie definitely had a unique tone and style to it as well, which I really liked. It gave you a feeling that If this movie does well, some even cooler adventures could take place in this environment.  The action while not spectacular was pretty gory and helped give the film the gritty tone they were looking for and the SLO-MO sequences were actually pretty cool as well and probably looked awesome in 3D.

The Bad-

The main issue I had with this film was the story and how much it was ripped from The Raid. Not only did they rip the premise off from it, but they didn't even do it as well. The action sequences were fairly unspectacular and didn't really stand out, yes there was a lot of gore but mostly of the CGI variety. This film also felted very restrained to me as well, it felt like they wanted to do more but couldn't because of budget restrictions.

Summary-

There is not really anything blatantly bad and if you have not seen The Raid you will probably love this film. I just wish it had hit a little harder with some better choreographed fights but outside of that I really liked this film. I came out of it wanting to see a bigger budget, more epic sequel but I'm not sure its going to happen if it continues to flounder at the Box Office. All in all this is a solid end of summer action flick that is worth checking out.

MY RATING-

3.5 out of 5

Chris "Da Franchise" Hart           

End of Watch: Decent, not Great Buddy-Cop Film with Aesthetic Issues

I have to admit: I expected this movie to be pretty bad. I'm very opposed to the seemingly trending visual style of "found footage", and by the trailer, it was more than clear that this was the approach End of Watch was taking. I was somewhat pleasantly surprised with the film, but is it worth a watch?

Let me start by saying I completely changed my opinion of this film by the end of it. About 3 quarters of the way through, I was around a 2.5, but things really pick up in the film toward the end: emotionally and dramatically. There are a few things I really liked about this film, the biggest being the partnership of Jake Gyllenhaal and Michael Pena's characters. Fantastic chemistry here. There's a perfect balance of arguments, ball-busting, and serious conversation to be had here. I feel safe saying this is one of the best buddy-cop match ups EVER. There are quite a few laughs in this movie, which is rare in such a dark film. I liked Anna Kendrick in this (mostly because she is my current Hollywood crush). There was also a healthy balance of work and personal life, which in turn contributed to the great character development in this film. I felt myself REALLY caring about what happens to these characters, which is a rare feeling when you watch as many movies as I do. I was also pleasantly surprised with how emotionally charged this film was, especially at the end. Great performances from Gyllenhaal and Pena make this film good.

I won't elaborate on the many reasons why I am so opposed to the "found footage" approach, but I will say that one of those reasons is that it is so overused. Project X, Cloverfield, and Paranormal Activity are three films in recent memory that try and fail using this method. This film did a slightly better job at using this technique, but like all "found footage" films, I was left feeling dizzy nauseous. That is my biggest issue with this film. This easily could have been one of my favorite films of the year, but the use of this choppy, shaky shooting style takes away from the sophistication of the story. I can see how they were going for the "Cops" look, which could've been done better as TV show, but for film, this is a style that shouldn't be used. This also caused issues throughout the film because we were being beat over the head about where cameras were, and there were one too many "get that camera out of my face" moments. The documentary style seemed forced, and that definitely hurt the score for this film.

In conclusion, if the shaky-cam doesn't bother you, this is a good buddy-cop film that has a serious take on the drug war and is very emotional. Great performances from the leads helps distract you from the aesthetic problems in this film, but you will still leave the theater wishing you watched a "film" rather than a bunch of splices of footage. Recommended for buddy-cop and crime fans.

MY RATING:

3 out of 5

-Kevin A. Millward

Chris Reviews Premium Rush

This is one of those spur of the moment movies for me. I really had not been anticipating this at all and had no expectations for what I wanted it to be. I went because Kevin can get us into movies for free and it looked mildly interesting. Was it worth the hour and half investment? Read below to find out. 

The Good-

This is a slick looking well placed thriller that brings a unique concept on to screen.Yes the story is somewhat formulaic but the biking element gives this a very distinct feel that has not been done before and that alone makes it worth a watch. Joseph Gordon Levitt is solid but gets overshadowed by a fantastic performance by Michael Shannon. This made me particularly happy because I came to see this movie to get an idea of what he will be like as the villain in Man of Steel. After seeing this I am anticipating that movie even more now. It is also refreshing to see a PG-13 action movie that does not feel restrained. Often times PG-13 action feels like they are holding back to get that rating but this does everything it needs to and really can be watched by anyone at any age.

The Bad-

I didn't find anything to be glaringly bad but nothing stood out as fantastic either. While Joseph Gordon Levitt was solid, he really didn't stand out in this film. The storytelling was a bit chaotic although it did not bother me that much but I think the main issue is the somewhat formulaic plot even if it is in a new setting.

Summary-

All in all this was a solid thriller that was well worth seeing. It has some interesting looking bike chase scenes that are somewhat cool, a unique concept and a great performance from Michael Shannon. The film suffers from a formulaic plot, chaotic storytelling and an average performance from Joseph Gordon Levitt. Is the film worth seeing in the theaters? The best I can say is maybe, because I'm not sure I would have gone to see it if I had to pay. (Wow Kevin and I have the same rating for 2 movies in a row!)

MY RATING

3.5 out of 5

Chris "Da Franchize" Hart          

Premium Rush: A Familiar Plot with a Decent Execution

Premium Rush is a movie we've seen dozens of times, but what I liked was the whole biking concept, and, of course, Joseph Gordon-Levitt as the star.  While this film doesn't present anything we haven't seen before, it is an enjoyable thriller to waste some time with.

I had a good time with this film.  Michael Shannon as the villain was great; he was funny, creepy, and lovably over-the-top.  JGL was good as Wilee, although it wasn't my favorite character he's played.  I had mixed feelings about the pacing of the film, as it jumps around a lot.  However, if you are looking for a quick thriller that doesn't require a lot of thinking and want to jump straight into the action, this is your type of movie.  Without wasting much time, Premium Rush dives into the meat of the story, making the 91 minute film go by much faster.  I'm a bit of a sucker for thrillers, especially ones that take place over the course of a single day.  This is one of those films, and it was enjoyable.  This film also had a minuscule amount of violence, especially for a thriller, which I was impressed with.


While I respect a film that doesn't waste time, Premium Rush didn't leave a whole lot of room for character development.  This made it difficult to be very immersed in the story.  I also wasn't a fan of the CGI building fly-throughs.  I find that to be kind of a gimmick and a visual sellout, and it seems very cliched in summer films.  One final complaint I have about this film is the overall plot.  I was a bit confused about what was going on, and the fact that this movie didn't follow the traditional chronological order made some of the plot even more difficult to follow.  I'm referencing what was in the envelope that everyone was scurrying after.  There wasn't a whole lot of build up to this, which made this aspect of the film generic and kind of bland.

Premium Rush is a solid movie and highly recommended if you don't have any expectations for it.  Michael Shannon's performance makes this worth watching, and if you want to watch a mostly non-violent thriller, you will probably enjoy this.  Overall, I would say you could wait to rent this at Redbox, because there is no terrible RUSH to come see this film.


MY RATING:

3.5 out of 5

Kevin A. Millward