OLYMPUS HAS FALLEN

Cole's Rating: ★★

Thatcher's Rating: ★★ 1/2
Jesse's Rating: ★★

Director: Antoine Fuqua 

Year: 2013

Cast: Gerard Butler, Morgan Freeman, Aaron Eckhart

Genre: Action/Thriller

MPAA Rating: R

        Olympus Has Fallen has so many things going against it. First of all, the film basically is a modern, shiny, polished up Die Hard. Secondly, it’s unbelievably predictable; I mean come on, if you can’t predict the ending, then you are a Hollywood sucker. You’re the producer’s target audience, and you are a second-class cinema-goer. So why did I enjoy it? The answer is right there in the question: enjoy. It’s an entertaining movie that you can turn your brain off to, despite its great flaws. I sat in the theater with my two great friends, and we looked at each other in awe at every neck snap, every fight scene, and every explosion.

        When I look at Gerard Butler, I see a confident, fearless man. The unfortunate thing about this movie, is you hardly see anything else. You don’t see the compassionate and loving friend of the president because he, or should I say it, is hidden. The movie does a poor job delving into its characters and relationships. But I guess that’s what you get from this type of “popcorn flick”. 

        Now to the entertaining stuff. Violence is plentiful in this action packed suspense thriller based on Mike Banning (Butler) who plays the last remaining Secret Service man in the white house when the North Koreans take over and hold the President hostage. My exact words to my friend beside me, about halfway through the film were these: “dude, this movie doesn’t hold back!”. This isn’t any cheesy, low budget action flick where nobody dies. No, this is brutal, quick, and gruesome; and visual effects rule the film. But they don’t look fake; maybe Hollywood is looking out for us after all.

        And also, the film uses its violence to add much suspense and intensity, such as when the North Koreans executed on spot, and the the Americans didn’t know what to do. The pressure builds up, and it affects the audience... But not as much as it would’ve intended to because I found it hard to care about the characters, or should I say character (Butler) because I hardly knew him.

        I did, however, know what his relationship was like with the president’s son, which was the film’s major upside, because it basically was the only emotional aspect of the entire movie! Excluding of course the purposeless introduction of the death of the presidents wife. Talk about irrelevance...

        If you haven’t seen Die Hard, or say it was never produced, then this may have very well been a four star movie. But because it was produced, and is such a great and successful film, this lessens the caliber of Olympus Has Fallen because of its lack of originality and dawn of redundancy.  

        And Gerard Butler needs a new agent; now, given this film wasn’t entirely disposable, he still has Chasing Mavericks, and Playing for Keeps as his latest movies. C’mon man.

-Written by Cole Pollyea

Jesse's Thoughts: Olympus Has Fallen is the ultimate Die Hard ripoff. Director Antoine Fuqua has fallen a long way since Training Day (2001). The lead, Gerard Butler, becomes the poor man's Bruce Willis. In fact, he needs to call up Bruce and apologize for trying to play him in a movie. When you add it all up, this is one of the silliest, most idiotic action flicks I've ever seen. And the whole thing looks like a darn video game.

POOLHALL JUNKIES

Jesse's Rating: ★★★

Director: Mars Callahan

Year: 2002

Cast: Mars Callahan, Christopher Walken, Rod Steiger

Genre: Drama/Thriller

MPAA Rating: R

        To begin this review, I would just like to say that the only true false note in this movie is it's name.  Poolhall Junkies sounds like a flat out "direct to DVD" title to me. So I did some research and found out that it actually played in about 180 theaters in the spring of 2003. It is in fact a decent film and therefore above the whole "rental"stamp that so many moviegoers label a lukewarm experience at the local multiplex. "Junkies" doesn't take itself too seriously and that's part of its charm. But it does try to get the audience's attention in a big way. Characters deliver their lines at a "look at me" persona. To a fault it works. Therefore, I bought the performances and the story knowing that I wasn't ultimately viewing a cinematic masterpiece. And heck, when you're watching a film that registers as screen legend Rod Steiger's last role, you might as well pay your respects.

        With that in mind, I decided to view Poolhall Junkies after leaving it unattended for a few years. If I had to pick the brain of director Mars Callahan (he also plays the lead role of master pool hustler Johnny Doyle), I'd say he's not shooting (ha ha) a film about a bunch of guys who hang out in pool halls. "Junkies" is more of a character study of his Doyle not wanting to be a hustler but yearning to play on the pro tour. He gets sidetracked in the beginning of the movie when his "trainer" Joe (played with snarling intensity by Chazz Palminteri) holds him back from his dream by forbidding him to compete. "Junkies" then fast forwards to 15 years later with Johnny breaking away from the clutches of Joe and finding his own way. That's the blueprint. From there it's a fast talking, no holds barred tour of the bleakness that inhabits the world of pool-sharking. As the movie walks the tightrope between intense drama and dry humor, we find Callahan's character eventually trying to break out his brother from jail (Smallville's Michael Rosenbaum) by competing in a big steaks money match against Joe's protege Brad (Rick Schroeder channeling his inner Steve McQueen or trying to look like him (take your pick)). I don't want to give away too much of the story but be on the lookout for master thespian Christopher Walken (Doyle's financial backer) delivering a speech about lions on the nature channel. It's one of the hidden pleasures that screenwriter Chris Corso throws in to garner this quote machine of a movie a serious cult following (especially with people in the pool community).

        To be frank (that's the attitude "Junkies" permeates) it helps if you embrace this film for what it is.  Granted, it's not a viewing experience that will change your life. It's more like a beer and pizza flick on movie hypertension. It's not healthy; but it satisfies.

Written by Jesse Burleson

CAPE FEAR

Cole's Rating: ★★ ½

Director: Martin Scorsese
Year: 1991
Cast: Robert De Niro, Nick Nolte, Juliette Lewis
Genre: Thriller
MPAA Rating: R

        Scorsese delivers with an interesting, yet bland-ish piece on a rapist who seeks out his defense lawyer’s family after 14 years in prison; his lawyer lost him the case by withholding information that could have proved him innocent. Cape Fear’s main asset is De Niro’s Oscar winning performance as he offers a formidable and eery presence as the main role. Another interesting and beneficial component of the film is how it shows the perspective of the victim, played by Juliette Lewis. However, many viewers will lose interest much before the slightly entertaining, but incredibly plain ending, as it lingers in aridity for the majority of its running time. Something to note is De Niro’s impressive and intimidating accent that furthered his success with this movie. But in hindsight, I prefer any other of Scorsese’s films before this.

Written by Cole Pollyea

HITCHCOCK

Cole's Rating: ★★★ ½

Jesse's Rating: ★★★ ½

Year: 2012

Cast: Anthony Hopkins, Helen Mirren, Scarlett Johansson

Genre: Biography/Drama

MPAA Rating: PG-13


        “The great and glorious, genius Alfred Hitchcock” has struck again, only this time, it’s Anthony Hopkins; you can’t really tell the difference though due to his flawless acting. Hitchcock is a great movie that told the story of Alfred Hitchcock in the time of Psycho. Fortunately, when I saw this film I had already seen Psycho, which was a major advantage for me, the way I saw it. While you don’t necessarily have to have already seen it, it definitely will make the film more enjoyable. Hitchcock delves into the pre-production of the film and how it affected Hitchcock and his wife’s relationship, and his haggle with the MPAA, but not too much more, which was the film’s biggest flaw. After viewing it, while it is a great movie, I realized that it was forgettable because the film was too short and the emotional content as far as his pressure was fairly shallow.

        While I don’t consider the film firsthand as a biography, it did tell the life story of Hitchcock; so technically speaking, it is one. This means that it should’ve been longer than the 98 minutes that it ran for. Films such as The Kings Speech and Goodfellas are biographies that could not have been done in a shorter time; for good reason too, as they both spent much time developing their foundation. In my opinion, there are very little biographical films that can accomplish the label “good” when they are short. Don’t get me wrong, this movie earns that label, but because of its briefness, the movie does lack that emotional tug that makes us as viewers remember the film among many other biographies. 

        Aside from the described flaws, the film is immaculate. Entertainment factor, while it is a problem for some biographies, is not for Hitchcock. It focuses on so many different aspects of his career in Psycho’s time, and it’s all piled up into one little hour-and-a-half; how could it not be entertaining? Many intense scenes came out of Hitchcock’s assumptions of his wife’s relationship with another man, that were critical to the outcome of the film. Scarlett Johansson played the role of Janet Leigh (go figure, an actress playing an actress), and stole Hitchcock’s attention off and on the set, which was another thing that fueled his wife’s anger, and raised his suspicion. With many more intriguing factors to the film, I found myself stammering, “It-it-it can’t be over!”, but it was, to my misfortune. 

        Let’s face it; Hitchcock is irreplaceable. He changed the art of mystery forever, and his mark will forever remain on cinema. But how accurate, I wonder, were his dreams and nightmares of the characters in the movie? The answer to that is: it doesn’t matter. If those dreams occurred, great. If not, fine. But I’ll tell you this, it certainly made the movie better, and maddening, as we see what Hitchcock envisioned, and how he tried to produce something of that caliber; it resonates.

        To those who have seen some of Hitchcock’s works such as Rear Window, Vertigo, The Birds, and many more, this film did a necessary task for Hollywood; it celebrated Hitchcock even more. And to those that haven’t, it opened many eyes. Hitchcock left me yearning for more, unfortunately, but also very pleased with what I got.  If it were dessert, I would’ve ordered seconds.

-Written by Cole Pollyea

HOOPER

Jesse's Rating: ★★★ Year:  1978 Cast:  Burt Reynolds, Sally Field, Jan-Michael Vincent Genre: Action/Comedy MPAA Rating: PG         Screen legend Burt Reynolds stars as Sonny Hooper in this goofy, harmless 4 A.M. cable flick about the trials and tribulations of the world's greatest movie stuntman. Along with Burton (I like to call him that), the other members of the cast have a lot of fun also because it feels like there's a lot of improvisation going on. While you watch this movie, you almost get the feeling that during some scenes, the actors didn't even know that the camera was rolling. But seriously though, it's okay. When you got Sally Field as Gwen, Sonny's loyal and loving girlfriend who stands by him no matter how dangerous the stunts, current Hollywood burnout Jan Michael Vincent as "Ski," the young and upcoming rookie to the stuntman world who looks to take Sonny's job (not intentionally though), funnyman Robert Klein as the director of the film that Hooper is based upon (it's a movie within a movie of course), and James Best (Sheriff Rosco P. Coltrane from the tv show Dukes of Hazzard) as Sonny's assistant and friend, the result is a nifty collection of acting misfits. I'm sure after filming concluded, everybody who worked on this obvious tinseltown nugget probably became best friends. But heck, that's probably the case with any Reynolds film.          In the end, what you get from Hooper is uninhibited, tongue and cheek humor overload mixed with an exciting, sped up, documentary feel. The whole film concludes with a rocket car rambling through tons of explosions (Reynolds and Vincent are driving) and city wide destruction all for a perfect scene in the movie within a movie. Oh, did I mention the big Trans Am jumping across a 300 foot gorge to get to safety? Oh Hollywood, you never disappoint. Written by Jesse Burleson

SPRING BREAKERS

Jesse's Rating: ★★

Year: 2013

Cast: Vanessa Hudgens, Selena Gomez, Ashley Benson

Genre: Comedy/Crime/Drama

MPAA Rating: R

        Okay, picture this: Four college kids (Selena Gomez, Ashley Benson, Vanessa Hudgens, and Rachel Korine) are bored with their existence. It's Spring Break and everyone at their school has already left. With little money in their pockets and in a drug fueled haze, they decide to rob a fast food restaurant to bankroll a trip to St. Petersburg, Florida for Spring Break madness. While living it up, these girls are befriended by a gangster/rapper named Alien (James Franco) who draws them back into a life of crime with more mischief and mayhem. That's the basic idea behind Spring Breakers, a mindless farce that's kind of a cross between the films Point Break (1991) and True Romance (1993).  However, it's the rude stepchild of both of them. A sort of poor man's version if you will. 

        First off, Spring Breakers is a monumental case of an exercise that is all style and no substance. Possessing a couple of well done sequences and an Oscar worthy performance, it painstakingly thinks that it's a better movie than it really is. You also get the feeling that the cast felt the same way, like they were making a uncompromising college film classic. With a cast of former teen actresses who are all now in their twenties, this vehicle was probably chosen as the type of work that would shed their wholesome good girl image. However, the idea of these girls playing characters who infiltrate a fast food restaurant and put guns in people's faces is ridiculous and sad. What's even more sad is how disorienting this mid-March release is. There is never enough time to take in anything on screen especially the tone at which actors are gauging. Director Harmony Korine is obsessed with cutting from one thing to the next, and I know it's a Spring Break theme movie, but he has an annoying habit of constantly panning from an important plot point to a bunch of half naked woman doing alcohol shots. 

         That's why you have to hand it to actor James Franco for literally saving "Breakers" from being a total disaster. He shows up halfway in the movie and to his credit,  he makes the other cast members look better despite their limited acting range. Alas, everything in "Breakers" kind of slows down to tell a more coherent story the minute he's on screen. It's a shame he wasn't inserted in the proceedings earlier because his performance is downright oscar worthy.  

        With the exception of Franco, the only true bright spot, there is one more flaw in this film that's sticks out like a sore thumb. A lot of the script is tainted with dangling loose ends. You get the feeling that the actors didn't have much to say toward the end of the dialogue. The solution: Yell out the words SPPRRIINNGG BREEAAK! or SPRRIINNGG BRREEAAK FOR EVVEERR! Utter nonsense.  That's why I can't possibly recommend this movie. It continues the trend in today's dreck where there is sort of this lousy MTV style of not letting a shot just pan out. You know, keeping a scene in frame for longer than a couple of seconds. Therefore, in truth, we need a immediate"break" from films like this.

Written by Jesse Burleson

GROWN-UPS

Cole's Rating: ★★★
Jesse's Rating: ★★

Year: 2010

Cast: Adam Sandler, Rob Schneider, Kevin James, David Spade

Genre: Comedy

MPAA Rating: PG-13

        Adam Sandler, Chris Rock, Kevin James, Rob Schneider, and David Spade star in this crack-up comedy about four childhood friends who rent a monstrous lake house for a weekend with their families in honor of their old coach’s death. If you haven’t seen the film, and it doesn’t yet sound appealing, would it change your opinion if I told you that you get to see Schneider pull an arrow out of his foot? Or you get to see James fly into a tree? And if it still doesn’t then you’re inhuman, because this film is downright hilarious, and that’s only two small events that happen.

        I love that Grown-Ups is PG-13. It opens it up to a much greater audience, and eliminates the excessive, unnecessary raunchiness that could very possibly ruin it. And trust me, it’s still funny. I could name any other comedy of this nature that’s an R flick, and this is funnier. 

        Anyways, the cast makes this movie enjoyable, as we see them as not youngsters, not seniors, but right in between; and they all have families with problems of their own. Chris Rock’s family doesn’t appreciate him and see’s him as a joke because he is a stay-at-home-dad and he takes pride in his not-so-good cooking. James’s wife has a nursing problem with their four year old. Sandler’s got his hands full with a couple of really snotty kids. Schneider doesn’t have a problem, it’s mainly everybody else that has a problem with him, as he is in love with a 60-year old woman. And as for Spade, well he doesn’t have a family. So as you can see, this made room for hilarious outcomes, and never-ending conflicts when they came together for a fun-packed weekend. 

        Of course, it’s a Sandler movie, so it did have some stupid plot elements. But of all his movies, this contained the least amount. It’s a movie that everyone can enjoy, parents, kids, grandparents, and singles, because the movie displays all points of view, and has all types of humor. Watch Grown-Ups with anyone, your friend, your dad, or even by yourself. I guarantee that you’ll think it’s “amaaaaaaaazzzziinngg!”.

Written by Cole Pollyea

POINT BREAK

Jesse's Rating: ★★★

Cole's Rating: ★★★ ½

Year: 1991

Cast: Patrick Swayze, Gary Busey

Genre: Action/Crime/Thriller

MPAA Rating: R

        Kathryn Bigelow was a different director back in 1991. Before the success of The Hurt Locker (2009) and Zero Dark Thirty (2012), she was making films that weren't deemed Academy Award worthy. She was cutting her teeth with raw unflinching action flicks like Blue Steel (1989) and this screw loose guilty pleasure known as Point Break. I've seen it many times and honestly it just never gets old. It belongs in a time capsule. Point Break represents a lot of beliefs I have about the possibility of what an action film can be because it goes completely over the top and throws everything in it but the kitchen sink.  Yes, it's a movie that is choppy in shape and form. But it has bombastic originality along with a handful of important jaw dropping key scenes that make up for it's shortcomings. Initially, when I first set foot in the theatre over 20 years ago for my first screening of Point Break,  I was dumbfounded. I was completely taken aback by the casting (Keanu Reeves, Gary Busey, Patrick Swayze), the plot, and the fact that the initial viewing left me cold, like I had seen a film that an average audience would stay away from (the theatre was small, it was Friday night, and there were 8-10 people in the seats). Over time, I've grown to surrender to Point Break's giddiness as full blown cinema.  It stands the test of time and breaks every film making rule in the book. You think the director, the stars, or the production staff cared, well they didn't. I have one word for these people, bravo! 

        The story begins with our hero, Johnny Utah (Keanu Reeves in his first starring action film role) entering his first day as a  FBI agent in sunny Los Angeles. Right away, he gets paired with an over the hill aging veteran named Angelo Papas (played with improv overload by the likeable Gary Busey).  The two of them team up to try and catch a group of bank robbers who may or may not be surfers. Oh and I almost forgot, they also dress up as the ex-presidents with masks and all, only taking money out of the cash registers (apparently the vault takes too much time). Throughout the full running time of two pulse pounding hours, Reeves's character befriends a local named Bodhi (Patrick Swayze) and romances a spunky surfer girl Tyler Endicott (Lori Petty) all the while going undercover and bruising his "whoooaaa" like ego in the process. I'm not gonna lie, his performance demands attention. As a actor, he tends to be as wooden as aged oak but he's likeable in "Break". Bigelow saw something in Reeves that I think most directors would have dismissed as a veritable disaster. But she gave him his shot and he went on to shine later in Speed and the Matrix movies. Also, the pairing of Busey and Reeves as law enforcement associates is something I initially thought was some kind of nocturnal joke, but it works. Busey, with his purly white fanged teeth, runs amok with this character and becomes Utah's scary, perverse uncle. As the movie takes a lot of trippy twists and turns, the two of them form a friendship based on polar opposite attraction. It's the key to the film I think because ultimately, it's a buddy cop yarn just like Lethal Weapon (1987) and 48 Hours (1982).   

        Buddy cop movies aside, Point Break is pure adrenaline and has a harrowing intensity that shows in three key scenes, the sting operation of a drug house followed by mistaken identity, the skydiving scene with no parachutes, and the apprehension of the villain in Australia's nastiest waters. I can say that a cult following is well deserved. Kathyrn Bigelow, a maverick back, then and an academy darling now, deserves praise for this early 90's endeavor. She directed Point Break with reckless abandon and I'm proud to say it owns a special place in my eccentric collection of well worn DVDs.

Written by Jesse Burleson

PULP FICTION

Cole's Rating: ★★★★

Jesse's Rating: ★★★★

Thatcher's Rating: ★★★★

Year: 1994

Cast: John Travolta, Uma Thurman, Samuel L. Jackson, Bruce Willis

Genre: Crime/Thriller

MPAA Rating: R

        Pulp Fiction is in its very definition, a work of art. It is delicately constructed by master artist, writer and director Quentin Tarantino. It is viewed, respected, and loved by an astoundingly large audience. It’s my number one reference to Samuel L. Jackson, John Travolta, Uma Thurman, and Tarantino himself. Everybody should see this movie, especially those who have been alive since it came out, 1994; I should “strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger", on those who haven't seen the film.

        The idea of this movie and its events and chronological structure revolutionized cinema forever. I'm sure that titles such as Memento would not be what they are without at least some motivation from this film, as Quentin Tarantino wrote one of the most original, innovative scripts of all time. The film didn't have a main plot, or really a plot at all, but not like Scorsese's style. No, this this had a style that the world had not yet seen. It had several subplots that split the movie into portions. First off, Samuel L. Jackson and John Travolta give the performances of their careers as two hit men for a crime boss, Marcellus Wallace (played by Ving Rhames). Bruce Willis plays a crooked boxer who scams Wallace out of his money, and last but not least, Tim Roth and Amanda Plummer star as a hopeless couple who plan to rob a restaurant. Oh, and I forgot one of the most important subplots of all, the relationship between Travolta's and Uma Thurman's characters. (Thurman plays Marcellus's wife). All of these portions and characters in the movie connect and interact in and out of chronological order in the best and most intriguing way, that makes Pulp Fiction one of the best movies ever produced. I'm sorry, did my summary confuse you? What? Did you say 'what'? "Say what again! SAY WHAT AGAIN!!"

        Pulp Fiction is overflowing with whip smart, entertaining dialogue. That's not an easy thing for a movie to have either, and few movies contain it. Think about your average conversation with your dealer when you bring a OD'd woman over to his house for an adrenaline shot without his consent. Now that you've thought about it, write the dialogue, and make it sound good, and realistic. I can assure you, that only one in a million can do that, and that's what Pulp Fiction is; it's one in a million, but it sure stands out doesn't it?

        By the time this movie was over, my social life had shot through the roof, due to all of the friends that I made while watching the movie. I knew most of them pretty well, and would've undoubtedly been able to fit right in. Each character's life was delved into; especially Willis's character. His backstory contained Christopher Walken as a cameo, as he played his father's war buddy (it's a flashback). Samuel L. Jackson appears to be holding out for something, as he developed more faith throughout the movie. And as far as I can tell, the Wallace's don't have the best marital relationship, as they are shown in the same scene multiple times, however they never once exchange words on-screen. What every movie wants to accomplish is the ability to make its fictitious character come to life; that's exactly what Pulp Fiction did.

        This is not a movie for the queasy. This is also not a movie for pacifists; I can tell you that right now. This movie is filled to the brim with violence and death. Pulp Fiction wouldn't be what it is without it either, as it makes room for much humor, drama, romance (believe it or not), and intrigue. All of these factors accent each other perfectly to produce a film of this caliber.

        As I wrote this review, I feared that I would do the film injustice. It's too good to be reviewed; it's too good to be judged. And most of all, it's too good to be disrespected. Pulp Fiction will do many things for you, but it will do one of the most important things a great film can do; it will give you a taste of real cinema.

Written by Cole Pollyea

HARD RAIN

Jesse's Rating: ★ 1/2

Year: 1998

Cast: Christian Slater, Morgan Freeman, Randy Quaid

Genre: Action/Crime/Thriller

MPAA Rating:  R

        I never thought Morgan Freeman would do a movie just for a paycheck, but I guess even famous rich actors have to pay their bills just like us regular folk. Hard Rain is a robbery movie that takes place in a small town during a massive flood. The plot goes all over the place with unnecessary twists and turns. You really get the feeling that "Rain" just ran out of steam and the writers made up stuff up as it went along. You also really feel sorry for the actors especially Freeman. To make matters worse, oscar nominee Mini Driver shows up a little later with a thankless role. Hard Rain was a January release back in 1998. Critics refer to these types of films as "January Junk." This critic just feels that movies like Hard Rain are "wet" behind the ears. Thumbs down.

Written by Jesse Burleson

HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS PART 2

Cole's Rating: ★★★ 1/2

Year: 2011

Cast: Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint

Genre: Adventure/Family/Fantasy

MPAA Rating: PG-13

        Why can’t every series be as good as this? My answer is a big ‘dunno’! Both series of books and films outrank any other in both categories, and that’s really saying something. By now, if you have not read or seen the previous seven installments, then you should probably just stop reading, and definitely don’t watch the movie (without seeing previous films), as it will do nothing for you. It would be like reading a review for and watching an episode of the later series of Heroes, after reading a synopsis of the previous seasons, and realizing, well, that was a waste of time!

        I have enjoyed seeing Daniel Radcliffe age over the years, as he starred in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone when he was age 11. If I had to name one actor who did a superb job throughout his career, including when he was a youngster, it would be him. He portrayed the role of the curious, adventure seeking Harry Potter better than anybody could, especially at that age.

        The best thing about Harry Potter for me was the intrigue that I experienced. The idea of witchcraft and Hogwarts and all of the mysteries inside the castle fascinates me and I hate to think about how it’s just a set for a film. Undoubtedly the movie did that just for me, and any film that can do that, is one that should be praised.

        After reading the series, it was magical for me to see the story come alive. J.K. Rowling’s screen adaption was a complete success, all the way through. With each installment, the character development furthers, and the complexity of relationships increase. (It makes sense, as we watch them go through childhood, adolescence, and young adulthood). Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince was the only film that made changes more than minor for the storyline, to what I can remember. Together, the producers, and author J.K. Rowling did what very little are able to do, make the movie as good as or better than the book.  Despite Jennifer Lawrence’s appearance, The Hunger Games is an average (okay) movie, but an great and unforgettable book. Harry Potter will never be considered as such.

        At this point in the series, it’s just too far along to summarize the movie, but I’ll say that it is a face-off between Harry and Voldemort; It’s a great conclusion to a flawless series. It’s entertaining, it’s enjoyable, it’s everything a fantasy film desires, and what many lack. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 is epic; it’s a must-see, if you’ve seen the previous films that is.

Written by Cole Pollyea

LOCK UP

Jesse's Rating: ★★★

Year:  1989

Cast:  Sylvester Stallone, Donald Sutherland, John Amos

Genre: Action/Crime/Thriller

MPAA Rating:  R

Sylvester Stallone was churning out films like a madman in the 80's. This is one that was very overlooked. It's a pre- Shawshank Redemption prison drama in which Stallone (Frank Leone) has six months left in prison but is transferred to the worst, most dangerous correctional facility in the country to finish out his sentence. Donald Sutherland plays the sadistic warden out to get revenge on Leone for escaping from his own prison several years ago.Truth be told, this film takes no prisoners (get it). It's hard edged, brutal, and cynical. But Sly gives a very human performance that fits his Rocky persona. There are elements of Bad Boys (1983) and a football game sequence kind of out of The Longest Day (1974), but Lock Up has an identity all its own. The ending is something to behold. It's even a bit comical. It's a little relief from a prison thriller with tension that never lets up.

Written by Jesse Burleson

THE THIN RED LINE

Jesse's Rating: ★★★ ½

Year: 1998

Cast: Jim Caviezel, Sean Penn, Nick Nolte

Genre: Drama/War

MPAA Rating: R

        Director Terrence Malick came out of sort of a mini retirement (his previous films were Badlands in 1973 and Days of Heaven in 1978) to make this original and genuinely cerebral World War II film based on the infamous battle of Guadalcanal. A lot of big name actors with small parts contribute to his alley like return to the film making ring. The result is a powerful movie that stimulates the brain and pulls at the heart.The unique aspect of The Thin Red Line is the form of narration that goes with almost every character's thought. Add Hans Zimmer's legendary musical score and Malick's keen eye for camera movement and you get something special. It's a film with images that stay with you long after it's over. Next to Apocalypse Now (1979) and Platoon (1986), it's tops on my list of great war films.

Written by Jesse Burleson

GANGSTER SQUAD

Jesse's Rating: ★ ½

Director: Ruben Fleischer
Year: 2013

Cast: Sean Penn, Ryan Gosling, Emma Stone

Genre: Action/Crime/Drama

MPAA Rating: R

        Gangster Squad is a big, shiny, mess of a movie. It's loud, violent, and very mean-spirited. This January release (red flag there) harks back to the organized crime days of 1940's Los Angeles. The film is loosely based (I mean that sincerely) on the story of the LAPD (Los Angeles Police Department) forming a "Gangster Squad unit" to stop crime boss Mickey Cohen (Sean Penn) from causing havoc and taking over the city. The unit is comprised of Sgt. John O'Mara (Josh Brolin), detective Coleman Harris (Anthony Mackie), and Sgt. Jerry Wooters (Ryan Gosling). Also, you got a wire tapper named Conway Keeler (Giovanni Ribisi) and Robert Patrick's character, Max Kennard. The unique thing about these guys is that they are deep undercover. They basically aren't cops anymore. They are vigilantes. That's the jist of the film and you kinda get the feeling that everyone involved was trying to remake the acclaimed motion picture The Untouchables (1987). Nice try. 

        "Squad's" biggest problem lies in the screenplay. The words the actors say don't justify anything that's on screen. The script feels like it was written in a half hour. And what we get for the entire running time (1 hr. 53 minutes) is sparce dialogue between the characters followed by violent shoot-em-up scenes that have virtually no set up and no payoff. Don't get me wrong, the action scenes are well done, but it's hard to care about anyone involved because we don't know much about the the villains or the good guys. And the little we do know, isn't enough to care what happens to them. It's sad because the film was directed by Ruben Fleischer. His last two movies (Zombieland in 2009, 30 Minutes or Less in 2011) are ones that I would recommend. He brings a lot of energy to the proceedings. He misses the boat however, on this one because it lacks the character insight and juicy, playful banter between the actors in the two movies just mentioned. The other problem with "Squad" lies in the acting. Sean Penn is the only one in the cast that does any of it. His performance is over the top, but it's decent. The bad part, though, is that it also feels like it it's from another movie, a better movie. All the other actors in the film literally seem like they're going through the motions. Let's face it, they're being lazy. It's as if the director yelled cut and everyone went to their trailers for a nice long nap. These are actors that I like (Ryan Gosling, Josh Brolin, Nick Nolte). Added to this disaster is the casting of Emma Stone as pretty much the only woman in the film. She is Grace Faraday, the so-called love interest. It's obvious that she looks out of place. When you see her, all you think of is the other movies she's done. I'm talking teenage films like Superbad (2007) and Easy A (2010). It was also pretty creepy how she played Sean Penn's girlfriend. Finally, there is the look of the film. You notice I said "shiny" earlier in this review. I'm serious. If this movie ever made it back to theaters for a reissue (it's probably not gonna happen), you'd find out that "Squad" is so slick and glossy that you could probably see your own reflection on the movie screen. 

        You get the point. It's not necessarily that this film should have never been made, it's just that there was another film like this made earlier and with much better results. I tend to use the term "popcorn flick" sometimes in my reviews. The definition of "popcorn flick" is a movie that's good or bad, but not monumental. It can actually be a good waste of time. Gangster Squad is a bad "popcorn flick". It's of the stale, microwaved, and burnt kind. As a moviegoer, it's more than a waste of your time; it's two hours out of your life you can't get back. 

-Written by Jesse Burleson

THE INCREDIBLE BURT WONDERSTONE

Cole's Rating: ½

Thatcher's Rating: ½

Year: 2013

Cast: Steve Carell, Steve Buscemi, Olivia Wilde

Genre: Comedy

MPAA Rating: PG-13

        It’s too bad that Steve Carell quit The Office. That’s where he truly excelled; his movie career isn’t working out entirely as he planned when he left the show, with the exception of films such as Get Smart, The 40-Year Old Virgin, Crazy, Stupid Love, and a few others. And don’t get me wrong, he is a great actor, but performances like this are starting to get sad. We got Seeking A Friend For the End of the World, Dinner For Schmucks, and now this. Ouch! If the film business were like baseball, it would be three strikes and he’s out! And as for the film, The Incredible Burt Wonderstone didn’t know itself any better than I know it after viewing it once. The result of the film is an equivalent of horrid character motivation, a bad sense of dry humor, some sparks of weak romance, and wasted talent. With a cast like Jim Carrey, Steve Buscemi, Steve Carell, Alan Arkin, and Olivia Wilde, great things are expected. But actually, I was impressed at how bad the film was. Sure, I had a few laughs. Sure, it was slightly entertaining. But I can assure you that next year when I compile the worst films of 2013, this will be on it.

        Let’s begin with the characters. Steve Carell and Steve Buscemi star as two best friends for life who discover magic in their youth and explore that for their career in the future; but when their success rate drops, and they split up, they must figure out how to cope with an ordinary (not really) life. Now, this plot is not impeccable, but it’s promising; unfortunately it was tarnished with the extreme character motivation problems involving Olivia Wilde’s character. I wonder how may sexually offensive comments she can receive and still tolerate (more than tolerate) Carell’s character, because based on what I saw, I’m assuming as many as he wants. The transition between scenes was rough because previously, she had hated him... Then she loved him... Then she hated him. I couldn’t follow the motivation not because it was complex and required thinking, but because it was poorly acted and poorly scripted.

        Is anybody else sick of the lame dry humor used in so many movies these days? Because I know I am. Here are the guidelines for using it: 1. Cast a iconically humorous star role expecting little effort. 2. Hastily script poor, simplistic dialogue once again depending on the sole presence of the actor. 3. Don’t forget the ridiculously unappealing plot and poorly developed characters. If you follow those step by step, you’ll have your average modern comedy in no time. 

        Let me advise all that this is NOT a PG-13 flick, no matter what the MPAA says. Several cases of bad language were used, but that wasn’t the problem; most PG-13 movies have their occasional profanity. And some also have brief, non-graphic sex scenes that are mostly insinuated. This film decided to take the next step in the poorly developed, question-arising relationship by displaying condoms prior to an implied sex scene. But it doesn’t stop there, as it simulates drug effects towards the end of the film, as the main characters get high off of a rare leaf from a foreign country; what I’m saying is the appropriate rating for this film is R.

        The saddest thing in life, as Robert De Niro stated in A Bronx Tale, is wasted talent. I concur with him entirely, especially in the movie business. It’s rare that several great actors/actresses unite to make a terrible film; but that’s exactly what happened here. Jim Carrey, who is one of the best comedic actors of all time, performed like his usual self, good, however his character ended up to be not much of a antagonist. Audacious as ever, Steve Carell trudged through his role as an alcoholic (maybe, was briefly displayed), hopeless romantic (not understandable), depressed (who knows?) magician trying to get back on his feet. He tried to pull a ‘Will Ferrel’; I don’t think it worked but you tell me. I did, however, enjoy Alan Arkin in the film as he made room for several glances of humor. It’s too bad his screen time was limited, otherwise the film may have been better. I cannot express my disappointment with Wilde’s character, as she could’ve taken her performance much higher than she did, like what she did in In Time. But I’m sure it’s not her fault, as it was mainly the scripted actions of her character. Steve Buscemi was Steve Buscemi, but not at his best. The entire cast (with the exception of Arkin) could’ve done better, and should’ve. 

        Like I said before, this film had no idea what it was or where it was going, and frankly, it seemed like it was out of its own reach, and I don’t mean that in a good way. It started out as a full blown spoof, then turned into a drama, then a light hearted romance, back to a spoof, and ended a comedy. It definitely needed to pick one. I shall write The Incredible Burt Wonderstone up as a movie that I don’t recommend, and one that wasn’t incredible.


Written by Cole Pollyea

Jesse's Take On STAND UP GUYS

Jesse's Rating: ★★★

Year: 2012

Cast: Al Pacino, Christopher Walken, Alan Arkin

Genre: Comedy/Crime

MPAA Rating: R

        Later last year and in limited release, Stand Up Guys made it's way to theatres with a cast boasting a trio of the best actors ever to grace the silver screen. I have to say that when I saw a preview for this film, I salivated. I thought, who wouldn't want to see Al Pacino, Christopher Walken, and Alan Arkin in the same movie? Stand Up Guys opened on a gloomy February Friday and I was first in line, eager to see if these three cool cats could deliver a winner. However, my expectations weren't high seeing that the film saddled with mostly negative reviews from critics across the country. But I have to say I was pleasantly surprised. Stand Up Guys is entertaining, amusing and to some degree, touching. 

        It tells the story of three aging stick-up guys who reunite for one more night on the town (as a audience, you don't know what town or city these guys are in, but I'm thinking it's somewhere in L.A.).  One of them (Al Pacino as "Val") just got out of prison after serving 28 years for murder. Then we have Christopher Walken's character ("Doc") who is Val's best friend and old partner. He picks up "Val" from prison and then has orders from his crime boss to kill him by 10 A.M the next day. If Doc doesn't go through with these orders, he'll be dead too. In a small twist early in the film, Pacino's character figures out what's going on and accepts this fate. But not without having a heck of a lot of fun with his best friend and partner for life. They even go to a retirement home to pick up their other buddy, Richard Hirsch (the likable Alan Arkin). Actually, they break him out, but you get the drift. Mishief and mayham are abundant as these guys party like it's their last day on earth (actually it might be for Val). 

        The fact that we know as an audience, that Val already knows he's going to die, gives us a reason to tag along with these guys to see how the film ends. Stand Up Guys has a somewhat dark undertone but in reality I think it's actually more of a comedy. The actors, with the exception of Walken, are pretty much playing themselves. Pacino's character even goes back to parlay his Scent of A Woman shtick one more time. Arkin doesn't rant as much as he does in other films but you can still tell it's him. That leaves Walken, giving a surprisingly restrained performance. It's still solid because you can see raw fear in his weary eyes. His character has a big decision to make. Just like the movie. You as the viewer can decide whether Stand Up Guys is a drama, a comedy, or a typical Hollywood mob shoot-em up (there are a couple of well done gunfight scenes as well as fist fight scenes).  

        The plot that accompanies Stand Up Guys is relatively thin skinned. But it doesn't matter when you got three great actors having such a good time. It's a great idea for a film. It's something studio execs would green light in a heartbeat. If you want my honest opinion, this film is definitely not going to be a cult classic in 20 years, but if you want to turn your brain off for two hours and be royally entertained, Stand Up Guys "stands up" to anything in the local multiplex.

-Written by Jesse Burleson

Click Here for Cole's Written Review

MONEYBALL

Jesse's Rating: ★★★★

Cole's Rating: ★★★ 1/2

Year: 2011

Cast: Brad Pitt, Robin Wright, Jonah Hill

Genre: Biography/Drama/Sport

MPAA Rating: PG-13

        Let's me just start this review by saying that if The Social Network (2010) were a baseball movie, it would be the equivalent of Moneyball, my pick for best film of 2011. Both films are intelligent, dialogue driven, and brilliantly acted by the leads. And what I didn't notice until recently was that both films were written by the same guy, Aaron Sorkin of TV's West Wing fame. His screenplays crackle with biting information about the world the characters inhabit. 

        From his razor sharp script and director Bennet Miller's careful direction, comes Moneyball, a film depicting the true story of GM Billy Beane (Brad Pitt) taking his 2002 Oakland A's to the playoffs (20 game win streak) with a less than talented roster and minimal payroll. He gets help from Yale grad Peter Brand (Jonah Hill) and the two of them compile a roster of players based on unusual hidden stats that a lot of other teams don't pay attention to. This whole concept is based on a book Hill's character reads entitled Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game. To the dismay of team manager Art Howe (played by Philip Seymour Hoffman who may be the world's best character actor), the team starts out slow and makes his job miserable. But over time, the A's go on an unflappable streak and end up winning an enormous amount of contests for a standard 162 game season.    

         What really stands out in Moneyball is that it's different from most baseball films. It goes behind the scenes. You don't see a lot of the game being played. You see people talk about baseball. You get the ins and outs of the business. Normally, this would be looked at as some kind of documentary, but the film doesn't let that happen. It expertly delves into the mind of Pitt's character while not quite letting the viewer see if the wheels are turning. It's about the performances and Pitt, as Beane garnered him an Oscar nomination that was well deserved. In fact, all the actors make it look real, they make scenes stick. You really wonder if half of them were actually working for Major League Baseball.  

        Ultimately, if you want to be inspired or moved by the power of movies, Moneyball is an exercise in intelligent, good old fashioned film making. It's a HOME RUN!

-Written by Jesse Burleson

Cole's Thoughts: Moneyball is one outstanding movie. You see this movie not to watch a baseball game, but to be taken beyond the field, beyond the bunker, and beyond the locker room. It takes you into the life of a struggling, yet confident and cunning GM for a baseball team that lacks overall skill, but has a great man behind it. Not only does it do that, but it's really fun to watch also. This may very well be one of Brad Pitt's best movies. Truly!