Wrath of the Titans

Wrath of the Titans was a big question mark. Its predecessor, the critically bashed, big money grossing remake, Clash of the Titans was much of the same. But in this second chapter, the film stays consistent with the positives and negatives of its predecessor. Sam Worthington returns as Perseus, the half human son of Zeus (Liam Neeson), who attempts to save his father from Hades (Ralph Fiennes) and his brother Ares (Edgar Ramirez). Zeus was captured in order to drain his power to free the evil titan, Kronos. Kronos will of course destroy the world if he escapes.

The necessity for a full back story isn’t there because of Wrath’s status as a sequel. However, there should be a bit of a buildup in order to develop the story. In fact, that can sum up the main issue with the entire film, lack of development on the part of Perseus as well as the overall plot. But before you go and cause a big uproar about how “bad” of a movie it is, there are some bright spots. Extended screen time for Zeus and Hades means more of the Oscar nominated actors playing them. These obviously aren’t their best performances, but they still make the segments with the gods interesting.

Wrath of the Titans duplicates the moments that prove most successful in its predecessor by slightly changing situations and what mythical creature is getting beat up. The action is strong with very involved visual effects. But with the intention of increasing the scale of the movie, some scenes come off as cartoony. Kronos is too large, the armies too massive and an underdog story turns into something more fitting for a video game. So with all these problems, is it strange that I actually really liked the movie? No, it’s meant to be entertaining after all.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

American Reunion

It was kind of implied that American Wedding was the conclusion to the American Pie series, but American Reunion brings the group back together to attend their high school reunion. The plot doesn’t really go much deeper than that. They’re still perverted, ridiculous antics ensue and somehow Eugene Levy is in the middle of them. The cast is obviously so used to these characters and how to play them, they come across as better actors than they probably are.

Reunion maintains a theme of revisiting the 90s, since they were the class of ’99. Music from the 90s is used at their 90s themed reunion. But more subtly, the film maintains the feeling of that era’s comedy. The raunchy episodes resolved with touching moments have a very nostalgic feel to them. It is quite a feat that such awkward moments and stupid situations occur while maintaining the audience’s sympathy.

All the main characters develop enough to give the movie a purpose, but none of the arcs develop the characters very much. Maybe Sean William Scott’s, Stifler, who seems to finally figure out why people find him so annoying. The other stand out is Chris Klein, who does mope around a lot, but he shows that Oz belongs in the franchise after being left out of the previous film.

American Reunion runs a bit long and plays on some tired gags, but fans of the originals will enjoy the film. Smaller roles return with cameos throughout and loose ends more than ten years in the making are finally tied up. The trip down memory lane is fun, though it would be nice to see some new concepts thrown in there. The movie ends with the viewer hoping for another sequel, but I don’t really see that happening successfully.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

Mirror Mirror

The Snow White wars have begun with the more family friendly of the two films starring the fairy tale heroine coming out this spring. Mirror Mirror has Snow White (Lilly Collins) growing tired of the Queen’s (Julia Roberts) oppressive rule. While venturing out of the castle for the first time (ever, apparently), she encounters a traveling prince (Armie Hammer) as well as a band of thieving dwarves. She becomes allies with all of them while attempting to remove the Queen from the throne.

The film attempts to be a new spin on the classic story, but there are times where it just feels tired. The dialogue is often witty, which helps move the film along. However, the lack of diversity with sets, that begin with computer generated establishing shots and move to one of only a handful of sets, weakens the scale of what is meant to be a large movie. The film is well cast though, with Nathan Lane fitting his role as the queen’s assistant perfectly and all of the dwarves shining as their characters are surprisingly each developed to a certain extent. Roberts and Hammer are as advertised and I can’t really complain about Collins either.

The problem is that this slightly different spin doesn’t add any depth to the fairytale. Aspects like the poison apple are thrown in for nostalgia’s sake and a song and dance number during the closing credits seems woefully out of place. Young audiences likely enjoy the fun story equipped with name-calling and an evil dragon like thing. The movie actually succeeds at what it is trying to do, be a fun family adventure. It just can’t objectively be called innovative in any way, shape or form. That wouldn’t be an issue if the advertising hadn’t focused on this being a fresh take. At the end of the day, kids will laugh, adults may chuckle…maybe.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

Dr. Seuss' The Lorax

If I were in a position to bring one of Dr. Seuss’ classic stories to the big screen, the utterly depressing story of The Lorax definitely wouldn’t be my first choice. But someone thought it would be a good idea. The animated take brings the story a step further than the book, giving back stories to some of the characters and introducing others to round out the one dimensional arch readers are used to. Zac Effron provides the voice of Ted, a boy from the completely artificial town of Thneedville. After learning that the girl he has a crush on (voiced by Taylor Swift) is interested in now extinct trees, he visits the mysterious Once-ler (Ed Helms) in order to learn where he can find one. But first the Once-ler tells his story and the failed attempt of the Lorax (Danny Devito) to save the trees.

This adaption does well to add some fun elements to the plot, which originally is more of a death march than a comedy. With more than half of the film focusing on the story of The Lorax, the non-speaking characters (fish, bears, birds) provide a good amount of comic relief. In addition, the Lorax and the Once-ler have both been redesigned as comic characters. Though I wonder how happy Dr. Seuss would be with the fact that his attack on corporate greed was dimmed down to appease the masses. But on the other hand, the story deals with generalized stereotypes of both conservative and liberal minded individuals. Real life situations aren’t as simple as what the film presents. Corporate entities aren’t always out to destroy the environment for the sake of a few dollars. In addition, environmentally concerned individuals don’t just sit around playing cards in the sunshine. We all fall somewhere in between.

As far as production goes, Dr. Seuss’ The Lorax is very high quality. While other Seuss stories have a complete lack of human characters, this one doesn’t. So there has to be a balance between realism and the species ambiguous creatures. But Illumination Entertainment does well. Really all technical aspects of the film are done well. It just comes down to the script. On a scene to scene basis the film is a lot of fun for its intended young demographic. It moves along very quickly and keeps the viewer’s attention. Let’s just leave out some of the political buzz words next time. Kids don’t care.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

The Hunger Games

The reason The Hunger Games has become such a huge phenomenon is because the concept is a relatively fresh one. Plus beneath the intriguing surface, there are countless themes and messages about society, gender and media. The film adaption is able to translate those themes into a reasonably timed feature. For the few of you who are unfamiliar, the story follows Katniss, played by Jennifer Lawrence, who lives in a future where each district that makes up the United States must offer a teenage boy and girl to participate in the Hunger Games, a televised fight to death.

With such a small margin of error casting a blockbuster like this, each main character fits their actor very well. Sure Lawrence and her fellow tribute Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) are playing younger parts, but that’s okay by me. Director Gary Ross does well addressing the violence in a suitable way for a PG-13 audience by employing frequent use of handheld camera techniques. I wouldn’t have expected it to work, but the shaky camera actually dilutes the brutality. This becomes clear when Cato (Alexander Ludwig) breaks a tribute’s neck during a more solid shot. It caused the most audible gasp from the audience during my screening. Apparently the savagery didn’t get to them when the camera wasn’t clear.

As almost an exact adaption from novel to film, there’s a good chance that most fans saw their favorite scene make the cut. But it must be said that a less literal adaptation would have restored some of the drama that is lost from already knowing the twists and turns. That isn’t to say the film isn’t exciting. The reaping, the lottery which decides the tributes, is brutally sad. And there is a great deal of tension through many events, which could easily come across as mundane.

The film is likely too long for non-fans, but there isn’t much time spent not advancing the story. A dialogue hiccup or two also interrupt what is, for the most part, a very well-acted movie. The Hunger Games is not as poor as the critical viewers have stated and it’s not as perfect as the ultimate fans have claimed. But it definitely falls significantly closer to the high end of that spectrum.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

Project X

Let’s pretend for one minute that high school is the most important time in everyone’s lives. Then let’s pretend that the cool kids in high school are all drug addicts and skanks. If these generalizations were true, then Project X is the coolest movie of all time. But it’s not. The film is a found footage account of a group of average, unpopular high school students who throw a massive birthday party in an attempt to be noticed. But the party gets more out of control with each passing scene.

There is such a level of discomfort when watching the film, I often found myself wondering if that is the desired emotion. Is the audience supposed to be shaking their head in amazement with how “awesome” the party is? I sure didn’t. The fact that the cast of mostly unknown actors maintain the façade is definitely a positive. The film seesaws between severe discomfort and more positive emotions like humor. But the jokes don’t actually ease the tension for more than a second. The viewer ends up hating characters you’re meant to like because of the damage they cause.

Found footage movies tend to stay below 90 minutes and still feel too long; Project X meets the first half of those criteria, but is paced well. There is a good amount of time spent before and after the party to establish and resolve the story. And plot development actually does occur in between montages of drinking games and sex. When the films ends and the maximum amount of damage is amassed, the characters seem fairly proud of themselves. But was it worth it? To these misguided teenagers, I guess so. But the audience can ask the same question, is this film worth the cost of production or the cost of admission? Unless you are really into high school parties, it probably isn’t.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.