THE LEGO MOVIE

Cole's Rating: ★★★

Director: Phil Lord, Christopher Miller
Year: 2014
Cast: Will Arnett, Elizabeth Banks, Alison Brie
Genre: Animation/Adventure/Comedy
MPAA Rating: PG

It's obvious that a group of intelligent individuals sat down and came up with the idea for The Lego Movie. That shows in the screenplay. It's also obvious that moviegoers were very receptive to their style of filmmaking. That shows in the notably high Rotten Tomatoes score of 96%. And when you throw in cutting edge animation and notable voiceovers, the end result is a kids' movie that deserves a spot on the DVD shelf.

With that being said, it’s important to recognize the fact that I wasn’t blown out of my seat by this movie. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a good flick, but through my eyes, it wasn’t as great as it was cracked up to be. I suppose that I was predisposed to it’s alleged excellence, and in turn, I was let down at it’s, for lack of a better term, mediocracy.

We’re thrown into the life of Emmet, a guy who strives to be “normal” and no different than “average” because, as it’s taken, the society revolves around this expectation of people. When he’s mistaken for the “most extraordinary person in the world”, he sets out on the adventure of his life to “save the world” with a multitude of friends including the funniest character in the whole movie, Batman.

As it sounds, The Lego Movie is creative. It stretches boundaries of animation that make us think, and along the way, it incorporates some genuinely funny moments that make it a memorable (enough) moviegoing experience. It really isn’t a hilariously comedic film, to my dismay, but it delivers time after time and it, overall, is worthy of your family’s viewing. Something to consider too, is that even if you don’t love it, the kids will. It’s charisma is simply too much to shy away from at a young age.

-Written by Cole Pollyea

NEBRASKA

Cole's Rating: ★★★ ½

Jesse's Rating: ★★★ ½

Director: Alexander Payne

Year: 2013

Cast: Bruce Dern, Will Forte, June Squibb

Genre: Adventure/Drama

MPAA Rating: R     

       Director Alexander Payne and writer Bob Nelson perched themselves on a stool and painted a beautiful portrait of small-scale, unnoticed life in their sensitive examination of old age called Nebraska. With what seems to be an infinite amount of insight and commendable artistic edge, it takes its premise and runs with it. Nebraska is a very, very well made film that will undoubtedly break the hearts of many moviegoers who come across this unique, heartfelt motion picture.

        Will Forte is David, who is, from scene one, burdened with the disorientation of his father, Woody, played by Bruce Dern. This relationship is, as we discover, not very deep, developed, or personal, and David feels obligated to do something about it. So, he humors his presumably silly, unaware father by taking him on a road trip to Lincoln, Nebraska to cash in what Woody believes to be a million dollar cash prize.

        The most mesmerizing attribute of this film is the obvious awareness and understanding that the filmmakers have for the characters that demand our attention and care. The screenplay that articulates everyone in the movie flawlessly defines the people that we grow to know and even understand. And what's more, it leaves us craving more of these people that up and leave when the movie ends; we yearn to hear the rest of their story, even if that's not completely necessary.

        But what really makes this movie shine is Bruce Dern and his considerable acting prowess. He's been in the industry since 1960 and, it seems like, after a lifetime of acting he's found his true role; he plays Woody honestly and wholeheartedly, and I couldn't help but savor every scene that he commanded. His overwhelming charisma and ability to become such a precious character is what earned him his Academy Award nomination.

        And it's those two factors that make this such an incredible movie. It's not a flawless road movie, as it's got its noticeable lags in storytelling. What it is, however, is a moving character study that, in nearly every respect of a movie driven by its characters, fails to let us down. Nebraska is a masterful movie that justifies not one, but multiple viewings.

-Written by Cole Pollyea

ALL IS LOST

Cole's Rating: ★★
Jesse's Rating: ★★★ ½

Director: J.C. Chandor
Year: 2013
Cast: Robert Redford
Genre: Action/Adventure/Drama
MPAA Rating: PG-13

        Stop me where I'm wrong. Robert Redford is stuck on a boat. Did I hear stop? I shouldn't have, because that's absolutely right. Robert Redford is stuck on a boat in All is Lost. Now, stop me where I'm wrong once more. Robert Redford is stuck on a boat and I care enough to watch him for nearly two hours. Did I hear stop? I definitely should have, because that is completely inaccurate.

        Cinematic escapism is an important thing nowadays. Being able to turn on a movie—a thriller—and become concerned with, and immersed in, the world that it creates is a desirable thing. The fact that All is Lost purports to be a movie that can serve as such a piece is an insult to our expectations. This movie's writing and direction, while steady, is merely unconvincing—and unsatisfactory. The screenplay doesn't create nearly enough opportunities to get to know the main character, and as a result, I'm left wondering how exactly the audience is supposed to care what happens to this man during his plight that is, while uninteresting, still well captured.

        While All is Lost isn't nominated for Best Picture, two other movies that share similar attributes are, being Captain Phillips and Gravity. I'm not a huge fan of Captain Phillips, but I do like Gravity, and I can say this: both of those movies are far more involving, and both far more worthwhile to watch. The reason for that is the screenplay for each movie seamlessly develops the characters in distress, and adds psychological layers that make it a viewing that is, well, more fun.

        All is Lost is, however, nominated for Sound Editing in this year's Academy Awards. It's status in these awards represent what I consider to its exact quality. I don't consider it a poorly made film because I'm someone who needs to be stimulated to an incredible extent in order to enjoy a movie, as I'm not. I just think that, ultimately, while its visual and sound effects may garner some attention, this movie, otherwise, just isn't worth viewing. 

-Written by Cole Pollyea

THE NUT JOB

Cole's Rating: ★★

Director: Peter Lepeniotis
Year: 2014
Cast: Will Arnett, Brendan Fraser, Liam Neeson
Genre: Animation/Adventure/Comedy
MPAA Rating: PG


       Before seeing The Nut Job, know this: it's been done before. Animals commit acts of theft in order to secure food for their survival during the winter. What's new? There isn't the slightest difference between this and the 2006 animated film, Over the Hedge, except maybe the voiceovers, which I found to below average here. Ultimately, The Nut Job doesn't have a lot of things going for it. I suppose its charisma may be on its side, but I wouldn't say that it's enough to justify a trip to the movies.

-Written by Cole Pollyea

THE SECRET LIFE OF WALTER MITTY

Cole's Rating: ★★★ ½

Director: Ben Stiller
Year: 2013
Cast: Ben Stiller, Kristen Wiig
Genre: Adventure/Comedy/Drama
MPAA Rating: PG

I’ve endured years of watching Ben Stiller on the big screen. I’ve chuckled at his decent romantic comedies, I’ve enjoyed his voice work in animated films, and I’ve winced at the ones that needed work, but The Secret Life of Walter Mitty is his first movie that blew me out of my seat. To people who haven’t seen this motion picture, it is, understandably, nearly impossible to fathom the beauty of what inhabits the silver screen. Stiller made a movie that is utterly genuine. As an audience member, I haven’t been moved by the honesty of people and their actions as greatly as I was here since I saw Silver Linings Playbook. 

In The Secret Life of Walter Mitty, Walter is a humbled Life Magazine worker that faces a generational difficulty when a young hotshot comes in, takes control, and transforms the company into an online program. This results in the firing of many devoted, “old-fashioned” employees. Walter’s job, for the last print issue of Life, is to find a missing negative (photo) that would prevail as the cover photo. He embarks upon a journey, a real one, that allows him to break free of his obsessive daydreams (to which he has fallen subject to over the course of his life). 

Along with a simple, yet intricate screenplay and astounding visuals, Ben Stiller is what makes this film so candid. His character is so believable because it feels like he’s effortlessly playing himself on screen. In short, he comes off as a veteran actor here, capable of encasing any role and making it as personable as possible. As a director, The Secret Life of Walter Mitty is, for the most part, a job well done. Though there is a sense of unsteadiness in the mood of the film as it progresses, and it feels like he hasn’t quite identified what makes his style of shooting his own. In a 114 minute vehicle, there is a large amount of visionary techniques that aren’t exercised to their fullest potential.


       Moreover, despite this, The Secret Life of Walter Mitty clocks in as the third best movie of the year for me. Taking in all of what it has to offer: mesmerizing cinematography, an incredible story of self-discovery and real-world encounters, exceptional performances, and an overall highly thought-provoking film, it’s fair to say that this exquisite, brilliant piece of art is the strongest chapter in Stiller’s book thus far.

-Written by Cole Pollyea

THE HUNGER GAMES: CATCHING FIRE

Cole's Rating: ★★★

Director: Francis Lawrence

Year: 2013

Cast: Jennifer Lawrence

Genre: Action/Adventure/Sci-Fi

MPAA Rating: PG-13

       Before teen dystopian novels became dull and redundant (yes, I’m talking about Divergent), there came a trilogy of teen novels called The Hunger Games. As they caught publicity and the eye of certain filmmakers, it seized its opportunity upon the silver screen. For a follow up to a good film (The Hunger Games, 2007), Catching Fire isn’t bad. It showcases a lot of the same stylistics used in it’s predecessor, and offers new insight, too. What’s more, it’s also very entertaining.

        To begin, after a performance beyond anyone’s wildest expectations in the 2012 masterpiece, Silver Linings Playbook, everything Jennifer Lawrence stars in is worth seeing. Her talent continues to be displayed as she sustains the character of Katniss Everdeen, “Girl on Fire”, who, here, is re-entered into the Hunger Games, a 75th anniversary that supposedly would solve all of the governments revolutionary problems. But things are not what it seems, and Katniss, yet again, is put against the odds.

        But it is a sequel, so it can’t just get off scott-free (haha). While this element was more evident in the first film of the series, it still irked viewers including myself here, that being the lack of adult material. Of course, it was put out to attract a teen audience (job well done), but the way it avoids the intimacy and violence is a clear indication that reigns were applied. However, it is important for there to be some films that earn that PG-13 rating, but it is one thing that held Catching Fire, and The Hunger Games for that matter, back from being better.

        As I sat with my class of students on a field trip we attended to see this movie, I heard whoops and cheers all the way throughout the duration of the movie. Some of those whoops and cheers came from kids who had seen the film multiple times before. It is a movie that is, by no means, a masterpiece. For example, it’s structured rather awkwardly in some portions of the film. Nonetheless, it’s a successful chapter in the creation of Suzanne Collin’s dystopia. To conclude, I would say that it caught fire with the fans, and spread like mad.

-Written by Cole Pollyea

Cole's Take on CAPTAIN PHILLIPS

Cole's Rating: ★★ ½

Jesse's Rating: ★★★ ½

Director: Paul Greengrass

Year: 2013

Cast: Tom Hanks, Barkhad Abdi

Genre: Action/Adventure/Biography
MPAA Rating: PG-13

I often hear the phrase, “don’t judge a book by its cover”. It’s a metaphoric statement to be sure, but in the case of film, this can translate to “don’t judge a movie by it’s title, year, cast, director, or what have you”. It’s too broad a statement to ring true, so when people asked why I wasn’t going to like the new Tom Hanks movie, Captain Phillips, (because I told them that I predicted it to not be that great of a movie) for me to explain to them that I was judging it before seeing it was futile. Their response was “you can’t judge a book by its cover”. Yet as I write before you, the readers, today, I find myself recycling the words I said weeks ago, before the film’s release. “The trailer says it all. It probably masks a good performance by Tom Hanks, but the plot is too fleshed out in the description. My money says that it doesn’t have much more to offer than what it purports, which isn’t immensely spectacular, so therefore, I don’t believe it will be that great of a film.”

Captain Phillips chronicles the week (or so) long journey of Captain Phillips, from the superficial conversation about the small troubles back at home with his wife and kids to a hostage situation with Somali pirates on a freighter ship in the middle of the ocean. If you’ve seen the trailer, I’m telling you nothing new, and that’s this movie’s major flaw.

 
Director Paul Greengrass is quite fond of his shaky camerawork. I’d stick my neck out and say that it gave me a major headache in his previous The Bourne Ultimatum, but here, I found it quite effective. It matched the pure terror of the situation, and best of all, it felt documentary-like. Along with the effortless way in which Hanks plays your ordinary guy, the first thirty or forty minutes is captivating, legitimate stuff. Then after the initial entry, the movie takes a plot turn that we all knew was coming. The Somali pirates start to press hard, and then the film successfully turns into an exhilarating motion picture. With steady, controlled handle of the cast and knowledge of the plot, Greengrass keeps ahold of the reigns for a good chunk of time, making this scary, exciting, and worthwhile. 

But then after it hits the hour and twenty minutes (or something like that, this movie is long) mark, it starts to deflate like a balloon, sucking all life, vitality, and exuberance out of it slowly until the only thing it’s got dragging the weight is Hanks. Considering all this, my first comment when the movie was over was “They should just give Hanks the Oscar right now.” And I meant every word of it. Mr. Hanks is one of the most talented actors in the industry, without question. He possesses the so coveted ability that is creating an invisible emotional connection with the audience, and his films all benefit because of it. From scene one, the thing that struck me first was believability. Hanks paints the images on his face and in his words more vividly than nearly any artist could on paper. 

What’s unfortunate is that he couldn’t totally save it. What can I say? The script just ran out of ideas, becoming more tedious and tedious as it went. I found myself yearning to walk out of the theater after some time because I knew how it was going to end, and after the repeated continuation of scenes inside the lifeboat, I had had enough. I knew what was coming (it’s got Hollywood written all over it, hint hint), and I wanted it to either end with a bang or end sooner. To my misfortune, it didn’t. The expected and necessary peak of the climax never quite came.

 
Considering that it harbors a cast that truly hits it home here (including the newbie Somali actors that protruded in a casting call to secure a well-deserved spot in the cast), it’s a crying shame that I was let down by Captain Phillips. Keeping that in mind, I will say this, though: it’s probably the best two and a half star rating that I’ve ever given a movie. It’s moving enough, it’s well-shot enough, and it’s enjoyable enough. But it’s just not good enough.

-Written by Cole Pollyea

Click HERE For Jesse's Review

Jesse's Take on CAPTAIN PHILLIPS

Jesse's Rating: ★★★ ½

Cole's Rating: ★★ ½

Director: Paul Greengrass

Year: 2013

Cast: Tom Hanks, Barkhad Abdi

Genre: Action/Adventure/Biography
MPAA Rating: PG-13

        Paul Greengrass seems like the ideal director to helm a movie about real life dramatizations. This can involve anything from terrorism to hijacking to the rifle shooting of a group of protesters (events or happenings that categorize some of his work). He is a former journalist and that may explain some of his career choices when it comes to various film projects. Of the three or more pictures I've seen of his, my understanding is that he likes to direct material that is based on true events (world news related, 9/11, you know, that sort of thing). Using hand held cameras and showcasing a sort of documentary feel, Greengrass picks unknown actors for a lot of roles in his films. He also shoots a flick in a way that allows these actors to have a smooth, unassuming style of delivering their lines. Scenes in his movies (like the near perfect United 93) have a real life feel to them. They almost suggest that you're not watching a movie but actual live content as it happens. This trademark is wholly evident in the Tom Hanks vehicle Captain Phillips. It's a 2013 release in which everyone seems overly natural on screen (this is a good thing). It's also one of the best pictures of the year (so far). With a superb, perfectly plotted opening 30 minutes and a sense of raw fear that accompanies the majority of that time, "Phillips" gets off to a stupendous start. What keeps it from perfection is a slightly bogged down second act in which the filmmakers sort of run out of steam. "Phillips" involves the act of kidnapping and piracy. With this notion in my mind, you'll find that a lot of the scenes between the kidnappers and the hostage seem like unnecessary filler. It doesn't help that the conversations between them are terse and involve minimal dialogue. Overall though, I'd say that this choppy (yet effective) nailbiter ends on a riveting, amped up note. It gives Hanks a chance to give one of his "Hanksian" performances (I didn't make up that term by the way) and it provides audiences a reason to believe that Greengrass is one of the most accurate, innovative voices in American cinema. If the film has any flaws, it would be the almost too by-the-book style of explaining true events and the aforementioned selected hostage/pirate episodes. From a director's standpoint, that sort of thing seems admirable. From an audience's viewpoint, it can be deemed monotonous and repetitive.

        Beginning without any opening credits (that's a Greengrass trademark) and featuring a small appearance by Catherine Keener (considering that she had a minor role, it would've been nice to see more of her in the movie), Captain Phillips tells the true account of Captain Richard Phillips (a straight faced Tom Hanks). He is a merchant mariner whose ship, the Maersk Alabama, gets hijacked by Somali pirates in 2009. Their first order of business is getting on board and holding people up with machine guns. Then, they ultimately want the insurance money (or as they say, they want millions). When these pirates don't get what's coming to them, they eventually get on a small vessel boat and take the Hanks character with them as a hostage (this is where the movie loses some of its dramatic power before regaining it in the final, explosive ten minutes).

        That's the overall gist of "Phillips" and with films like Bloody Sunday and the aforementioned United 93 (and this one as well), Greengrass likes to include a lot of faces that you've never seen on screen before. He squeezes terrific performances out of all of them and, in my mind, this takes the star power away and lets the viewer concentrate more on the story. This technique also makes a lot of the material seem more like real life (as mentioned earlier in the review). With Captain Phillips, a lot of the actor's lines seem improvised. And what he does with the casting of the antagonists (the hijackers with Barkhad Abdi as their leader) is absolutely amazing. These gentlemen had never acted in a movie before and got picked out of a group of 700 people (in an open casting call). Their screen presence is undeniably electric (the looks in their eyes are searing) and they hold their own with a 30 year acting veteran like Hanks. Speaking of star Tom Hanks, with the casting of unknowns being the director's strength, you wonder if the addition of him as the lead would hurt the proceedings. Honestly, I don't think it matters because this dude is a reputable icon and a darn good actor anyway (not an easy combination to pull off). Playing the "everyman" to perfection, he can undeniably get away with it because he effortlessly embodies the character of Richard Phillips. He sort of underplays this performance in certain spots and acts with a slew of dead on mannerisms (he only emotes when needed). With the exception of him clearly campaigning for an Oscar in the last few minutes of the film, I'd say that this is one of his 5 best screen performances of all time (especially concerning believability). I saw the actual Captain Richard Phillips on the news a week ago, and Hanks nails his persona. He looks like him, has the same facial expressions, and his accent is dead-on.

        All in all, the real life story of Captain Phillips was the perfect film for an accomplished director like Paul Greengrass and a Hollywood goody goody like Hanks (watch him in the last scene, not many films showcase stuff like this) to make. It has its ups and downs, but my overall observation is that it has what a lot of films today lack, which is the natural gift of sophistication. It also meets the basic Oscar criteria because of its association with its multiple Academy Award winner and the addition of its heroic true story value. You could also throw in historical value, too, as we all know that the Academy craves their antiquity. In its possibly overlong running time (it's not significant enough to fault it for), Captain Phillips is an accurate, professionally told, true story, an "everyman" drama, and a directorial showcase all rolled up into one. Oh yeah, and it's a solid action adventure with good sea legs, too. I always wanted to say that.

-Written by Jesse Burleson

Click HERE For Cole's Review

PERCY JACKSON: SEA OF MONSTERS

Cole's Rating: ★ ½

Director: Thor Freudenthal

Year: 2013

Cast: Logan Lerman, Alexandra Daddario, Brandon T. Jackson

Genre: Adventure/Family/Fantasy

MPAA Rating: PG

        Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters is the epitome of washed up, remedial, Hollywood sequels. That’s too bad because I thoroughly enjoyed the first one. I liked its introduction (to the modern day cinema world) of greek mythology, I thought it was plotted well, and I thought it was an overall thrilling experience. The characters were likable, as compared to what they are here: walking clichés.  There’s quite a few things that I could say that would sum up this movie, but I’ll say this: you know it’s bad when a CGI monster is making sexual inferences in a PG film.

        And that seemed to be the case for quite a few scenes/moments in this movie. Since the screenplay clearly lacked the ability to keep the movie afloat, the filmmakers decided to throw in some completely distasteful one-liners to lighten up the story (which is something that Percy Jackson and the Olympians: The Lightning Thief didn’t have to do). Right in the middle of a potentially good scene, they’d say something like: “I’m killin’ these shorts, didn’t you notice?”. Nope, I didn’t, I was too astonished at what was coming out of the actors’ mouths before that line (I found myself staring, jaw open, marveling at the incredibly inept writing).

        This film basically continues the adventures of the now cocky Percy Jackson, who, based on his prior excellence, believes that it is his calling to save the camp of the half-gods, to which he belongs. As the movie progresses, he becomes more and more unlikable, until I found myself desiring for his character to be put against the odds and not come out on top (to die). I know, call me a cynic. I’m no better than Neal Paige (haha), but that thought is as justifiable as any when the movie’s predictable conclusion arrives, which vexed my critical nature all too much.

        So why isn’t this an outright dud? Well, I continued to enjoy some of the greek mythological references made throughout, and there were a few scenes that caught my attention (in a good way, this time). With a summer full of bad sequels (this is no exception), let’s hope that there are a few more noteworthy follow ups to good movies as the year progresses; after all, asking the studio to stop making sequels is like saying that the Percy Jackson film series is a competitor with other younger audience fantasy movies like Harry Potter. As if!

-Written by Cole Pollyea

THE LONE RANGER

Jesse's Rating: ★★★

Director: Gore Verbinski

Year: 2013

Cast: Johnny Depp, Armie Hammer, Tom Wilkinson

Genre: Action/Adventure/Western

MPAA Rating: PG-13

        The Lone Ranger is a big, expensive movie with a lot of ideas. After all, director Gore Verbinski is known for that sort of thing (it's an admirable trait, but it may be his downfall). At a budget of over $200 million dollars, you can tell that every inch of the screen was well spent. The period detail and set design are all top notch. But here's the thing, a lot of Gore's films have an abundance of plot threads that tend to be rooted in confusion until the final twenty minutes wraps things up, and his films also suffer from a well intentioned, yet great amount of over length. "Ranger", mind you, is one of those vehicles. However, I'm gonna hold my breath and recommend it. Yes, it's an adequate crowd pleaser, but it probably could've been trimmed down by about a half hour. In hindsight, though, this is a film that, in my mind, secures its place in any summer moviegoer's checklist. It's got Johnny Depp teaming up once again with Verbinski (these two have a solid track record you know). They've made a handful of Pirates of the Caribbean movies together and if you are a fan of those endeavors, you'll for sure enjoy this take on the famed 1950's television show. Now it is for statutory purposes, a mild adaptation on that ancient sitcom as well as the 1930's radio program. But make no bones about it, we're talking "Pirates" of the old West here. Depp playing Tonto, riffs on his goofy, likable turn as Captain Jack Sparrow in that Disney theme blockbuster (he also sort of channels the voice of his Hunter S. Thompson character in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas). We also have an up-and-comer in Armie Hammer inhabiting the title role. Despite what you might have heard, I think he was well cast (Depp too for the same reason). The character of the mask hero (John Reid is his alias) needed to have a strong screen presence and an intimidating look. In real life, Hammer is 6'5", and he puts the napoleon complex of most actors being short to rest. All in all, "Ranger" entertains you with its tongue and cheek humor, its rollicking action sequences, and its accurate, stylish look of that time period (late 1800's to be exact). Also, it rides the curtails of the trait made popular by the "Pirates" movies in which you witness how many times characters escape death or peril in a 2 hour and 30 minute exercise. To be honest with "Ranger", I may have lost count, and that was only about an hour in.

        Never quite deciding whether it wants to be an action adventure or a full-on comedy (there are scenes that literally separate the two, especially with the background music), The Lone Ranger tells the story of John Reid (Hammer), a Texas district attorney who while on train ride to visit his brother (ranger and fellow law enforcement officer Dan Reid), finds himself in the middle of a robbery/hijacking orchestrated by cowboy thugs (William Fichtner as Butch Cavendish, is the ring leader with a sort of penchant for human hearts) with nasty facial scars and unkempt, yellow teeth. The thugs escape only to kill John's brother later in an act of unclear revenge. Hammer's character decides to hunt down the killer of his brother with the help of an eccentric, playful Indian named Tonto (Depp, carrying a dead bird over his head that he actually pretends to feed). By doing this, Reid unknowingly becomes "The Lone Ranger" through the act of masking his identity via name and appearance. Why you ask, because as Tonto states, "all good men must wear mask."

        As far as casting goes, Depp plays yet again, a kooky liberated character. Hammer, having brilliantly played twins in The Social Network, is a bold, risky choice that sorta pays off as long you don't take him too seriously like the more famous Superman and Batman. You see, within almost every frame, there are countless extras and bit parts. But the strongest hint of acting belongs to supporting player Tim Wilkinson (railroad tycoon Latham Cole). As a former Oscar nominee, he provides the film's juiciest dialogue. He truly has one of the best acting voices in Hollywood. Alas, he doesn't get to spice things till well past the halfway point.

        In essence, The Lone Ranger could've done without a few hiccups here and there. For one, I found the present day scenes with Depp as an old man (possibly 90 years old and reflecting on his life via side show) sort of unnecessary but mildly amusing (was it a fantasy? Did it come from the kid's mind who was listening to Tonto's yarn spinning?). In my brain I tried to avoid the notion, you know that maybe all the events in "Ranger" might have never took place (I'm not a huge fan of this concept). Also, toward the climatic train chase that really ties the whole thing together, you have an out of place helping of The Lone Ranger theme music coming on. I got annoyed by it because it didn't actually fit the flow of the scenes (why do the filmmakers feel it necessary to pay tribute to network shows they are adapting? For gosh sake's the movie is its own entity). Nevertheless, this is the type of cinematic toy that gets by on its strengths. It's campy goodness that succeeds with the humor and likability of the leads, the Indiana Jones style of escapism, and the rock n' roll style of Mexican standoffs (I hope Tarantino doesn't get jealous). I don't know if I'd hail it as groundbreaking, but with two and a half hours to kill, this is pure summer matinee bliss. And to echo the first part of my review, a plethora of film ideals is better than little or none at all.

-Written by Jesse Burleson

Cole's Take On: MAN OF STEEL

Cole's Rating: ★★★

Jesse's Rating: ★★★

Director: Zack Snyder

Year: 2013

Cast: Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Kevin Costner, Diane Lane, Russell Crowe

Genre: Action/Adventure/Fantasy

MPAA Rating: PG-13

         To date, Man of Steel is my second favorite film so far this year. Now given, it hasn’t been an incredible year for movies, I still think that this is a cinematic achievement—for some of its totality. My only wish for a movie like this, which is chock full of ambitious and irresistible elements, is that it could withhold its magnitude for the entirety of its running time. Director Zack Snyder isn’t capable of making this happen, but who knows that it was really him? Maybe Michael Bay swooped in towards the second half of the film and took over. I swear that I saw his fingers around the lenses of the camera during the action scenes. And if I should say so myself, they were tinted a bit green.

        Man of Steel begins with the introduction of the knock-out cast. Russell Crowe plays Jor-El, Superman’s father who sends him to Earth in a last second attempt to preserve his life from the apocalyptic (or soon-to-be apocalyptic) Krypton. A cold Michael Shannon plays General Zod, a Krypton-trained warrior who wants to rebuild his home planet on Earth. And finally, Henry Cavill plays the Superman character quite well, however, comparably not as good as Tom Welling in the Superman series titled Smallville. But as the movie progresses, I discovered that Cavill became more and more comfortable in the main role (and unshaven, might I add). Amy Adams looks the part as Lois Lane, who’s under-developed relationship with Superman is only a cause for the inevitable sequel. Kevin Costner also plays a big role in the movie, even though his screen time may be miniscule. He helps build the backbone for Superman as a child, and his performance is Academy-Award worthy (he is in the best scenes of the movie). The cast is excellent, the story is riveting, and it’s all carried out through a series of both chronological storytelling and flashbacks.

        You may ask, “what could go wrong?”. Well, instead of continuing the movie’s epic case of storytelling, it takes the easy, Hollywood way out by turning the whole thing into a sabotage picture: blowing things up and tearing buildings down. I will give the director credit though. Something that he possesses that most directors do not is the ability to be imaginative with the action scenes. I’ve never seen anything like it. So I guess I was wrong about seeing Michael Bay’s hands; after all, he could never make action scenes like this. I guess the greenish color was foreshadowing Snyder’s greater success (not to mention monetary benefits) to come, maybe even with Man of Steel 2.

        I took my nine-year-old brother to this picture, and I don’t think I will take him to another like this again. The movie takes a lot of intriguing plot turns, which is something that he had a hard time keeping up with. In fact, I think that’s what I liked about the first half of the movie. The plot is constantly developing at a nice, breezy pace, and the only thing that you might have to say is to slow down. I only found myself saying it once, as I was thoroughly impressed with how interesting the tellings panned out. Let’s hope that between our viewing of this and our viewing of the sequel, Snyder starts reading books instead of watching Transformers. That is if he decides to stick with it. 

-Written by Cole Pollyea

Click HERE for Jesse's written review of Man of Steel

Click HERE to watch the video on YouTube

MONSTERS UNIVERSITY (Published in July's FAMILY Magazine ~ Distributed in Michiana)

Cole’s Rating: ★★★
Jesse's Rating: ★★★

Director: Dan Scanlon

Year: 2013

Cast: Billy Crystal, John Goodman

Genre: Animation/Adventure/Comedy

MPAA Rating: G

        When you watch the trailer for Pixar’s MONSTERS UNIVERSITY, you witness two things: an offer to view one of the most clever approaches at a children’s movie in a dozen years (since MONSTERS INC.), and the film’s brightest spots of humor. What was effortless in the former (good humor) is harder for the latter to produce because a vast majority of it takes a much more heavy-handed route of storytelling... But storytelling it does; it tells the story of Mike Wazowksi and James P. Sullivan’s ragtag adventures while attempting to become a “Scarer” in the school they enlisted in, Monsters University. One of the greatest things about MONSTERS UNIVERSITY is how swiftly the story moves along, and how you learn to fall in love with the characters you already knew as it progresses, and as you learn more about the monsters’ origin in 2013’s best kid’s movie to date.

        Now, I loved MONSTERS INC. In fact, that’s probably one of my favorite children’s movies of all time. When I saw that they were making a prequel, I knew it wasn’t going to be as good as the original because of the loss of the little girl Boo that motivated the characters’ actions. It takes out the sentimentality that I cherished so much about the first one; and I’m a sucker for kids, so that’s where this falls short for me. But when you’re watching it, understand that it’s there to tell its own story, do its own thing, and entertain, despite the fact that it requires comparison to its predecessor.

        MONSTERS UNIVERSITY is for everyone in the family. The last recent children’s movie I saw, EPIC, was intended more for kids as it focused more on its visual aspect and entertainment value than anything else. But with this, parents will find themselves reliving their college experiences (whether or not they were majoring in “Scare”) thanks to the incredible production design and well crafted social situations among the monsters (who seem eerily human here). If you’re wondering if it is worth your time, that’s up to you. If you see it as dropping five to seven bucks per person on a movie that only lasts an hour and a half, I’d stay away. But if you’d like to invest your money in a great moviegoing experience by buying tickets to MONSTERS UNIVERSITY, I can’t advise you otherwise. I guarantee that you won’t regret it.

-Written by Cole Pollyea

Jesse's Thoughts: If you made an animated version of the recent release The Internship and sprinkled it with an edited for content addition of 1984's Revenge of the Nerds, Monsters University is what you'd get. It's a fun, briskly paced cartoon adventure that brings more kid humor to the table than adult humor. That's okay because the adults that take their kids to see it will still laugh and have a good time regardless (after all, it is rated G). I have to admit, this is a sufficient prequel that actually surpasses the original (Monsters Inc.).You get to know all the characters (Mike Wazowski, James Sullivan, Randall Boggs) and get insight into how they came together or met at where else, college. It's clever and though I've never been a huge fan of animated films, Monsters University surprised me. This flick gets things right pretty much the whole time until the ending which is sort of a cop-out. I won't reveal what happens but if I was behind the camera, I'd change it up a bit. Anyways, I will say this, if you want to take in an animated film that tells a straight story and moderately entertains, Monsters University will satisfy. It's "scary" good! 

Jesse's Take On: MAN OF STEEL

Jesse's Rating: ★★★

Director: Zack Snyder

Year: 2013

Cast: Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Russell Crowe, Diane Lane, Kevin Costner

Genre: Action/Adventure/Fantasy

MPAA Rating: PG-13

        For the record, I have only seen one of director Zach Snyder's previous films being 2004's Dawn of the Dead. That vehicle was a very small sample size compared to what I witnessed at a screening for his much anticipated Superman reboot Man of Steel. Within two and a half exhausting hours, I realized that this man is truly a visionary filmmaker. Snyder shoots action scenes like no other director I've ever seen (a lot of long shots and extreme long shots). There's a relentless sort of exuberant energy that comes with every frame. He throws a lot at you until you just can't take it anymore. Okay, let's lay it all out on the line, there's enough suspenseful battles/fistfights/shoot-em'-ups in Man of Steel to fill 7-8 movies (I'm not kidding). They are well done and totally eye popping. But this flick is a classic case of a cinematic exercise "living by the sword and dying by the sword". That means Man of Steel's strength is also its weakness. The last 45 minutes consists of carnage and destruction that you have to see to believe. There's an attempt of movie sabotage going on here which does two things: it bogs down the third act (story loses focus) and makes you, the moviegoer, feel like you're watching Transformers all over again (the part that hurts the most is that once the action heightens, the caliber of acting goes downhill and the characters become less dynamic). Now based on my rating, it's apparent that I will recommend this movie. But I am disappointed in the fact that it could have been so much better. The first half is incredibly compelling and invigorating (a possible Best Picture nominee). The second half, well, what can I say? It's a big explosion fest that would fuel the psyche of your typical action junkie. To conclude the first paragraph of this review, I will say this: Yes, Man of Steel is a "popcorn flick". In fact, towards the end, it's popcorn with a pound of butter and plenty of fine, iodized salt.

        Now if you've seen the first two Superman films (Superman (1978) and Superman II (1981)), or you have a love for comics, the story should be very familiar to you (Jor-El predicts that Krypton is going to be destroyed so he sends his son Kal-El to earth where his identity remains unknown. As time marches on, Kal-El realizes who he really is and identifies his possession of superhuman powers. This propels him to maintain and take care of our planet). Man of Steel stays somewhat faithful to the past Superman entries, but at the same time, there is a whole new take on the proceedings. This film has the distinction of being a remake with plot elements of not one, but the combo of both flicks from 78' and 81' (General Zod is a more pivotal character this time around and Lex Luther is non-existent). And let it be known, this is a much, much, darker adaptation. It's more military in nature and the whimsical love story between Clark Kent and Lois Lane is sorely left out. Now, a lot of critics have found the seriousness and darkness of this entry off putting. Thankfully, I have no problem with it. Snyder's new vision is realized and assured. And there's a kind of anti-hero vibe to Man of Steel that makes it surprisingly moving (maybe it's keeping with today's mindset, I can't be sure).

        The cast is mostly all aces. All the actors/actress that show up and contribute, probably could each helm their own movie (Russell Crowe, Kevin Costner, Diane Lane, Laurence Fishburne, Amy Adams). Almost everyone on screen delivers, but it's Costner (Jonathan Kent) who's stands out. His performance in a somewhat small role as Kal El's adopted father is quietly powerful (there's a scene with destruction by tornadoes that will give you goosebumps). And then there is Russell Crowe as Jor-El. Listen, nobody is cooler than Crowe. He even fights a little (Gladiator style at the beginning). But his performance doesn't quite match the intensity of Marlon Brando's stint from 78' (I think it was Marlon's voice alone that kind of sealed the deal). As for the lead of Superman, Henry Cavill does a fine job despite what you might have heard. He's no Christopher Reeve (it's impossible to equal Reeve's charm and charisma) but he looks the part perfectly, has a solid screen presence, and caters to the physical demands of the role. He's a little wooden at times, but with the next installment (you know it's gonna happen), I think his acting will probably get better and better. Just a hunch. That leaves the one weak spot in casting which would be Amy Adams as Lois Lane. Now I still think she's a solid actress but her minutes on screen lack a little depth. When Margot Kidder played the part in the original, she did more "reacting" than acting and it made her performance more natural, not to mention more human. Adams is no doubt a movie star, but when I saw her in Man of Steel, I just thought, that's Amy Adams (this tends to happen with a lot of big name stars).

        In conclusion, I found Man of Steel to be a solid entry in the retelling of the Superman franchise. There's shades of greatness that mostly show up early on. Honestly, if this flick had eyes, you'd see in them, a yearning early on, to become a cinematic masterpiece. Sadly, because of the plot going on autopilot late in the proceedings, things don't quite work out that way. But come on, it's going to make a ton of money and there's sure to be a sequel. How do I know? Well, you can painfully tell that the filmmakers do an obvious job of shoving that notion right down your throat. This is done at the very end and I've never seen a film try harder to announce a sequel than this one does. But hey, no worries. You'll probably enjoy the feverishness and relentless swagger that is Man of Steel.

-Written by Jesse Burleson

Click here for Cole's written review of Man of Steel

Click HERE to watch the video on YouTube

Three Takes On: 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY

Cole's Rating: ★★

Jesse's Rating: ★★★ ½

Darius' Rating: ★★★★

Director: Stanley Kubrick

Year: 1968

Cast: Keir Dullea, Gary Lockwood, Douglas Rain

Genre: Adventure/Mystery/Sci-Fi

MPAA Rating: G

Cole's Take: I can't believe how surprised I am at my reaction to this movie! “2001” for me, was a tantalizingly dull film that made a clever approach at revolutionizing science-fiction. It deemed that opinion for very few (I’m in the minority), and this for others: a brilliantly captured chronicle of man’s cycle of life, with mesmerizing effects and cunning direction. I’ll give Stanley Kubrick props, it’s a very cherished film by most people (including all of my fellow critics, seen on this co-review), and it’s very ambitious for its time, not to mention it’s success with its visual effects in the 1968 Academy Awards. But I’m rarely a fan of sci-fi anyway, so this film just about bored me to death. I know that people—sorry, moviegoers—would say that I didn’t appreciate its brilliance. My response to that would be: I didn’t see much to appreciate, for all it’s talked up to be. I observed it carefully, and came to this conclusion: “2001” is not a film for me. It has some classical elements, and some interesting scenes/ideas, but altogether, I didn't enjoy it. Maybe it’s because I would have appreciated it more when it came out (in its time) but based on my experience, I would go ahead and change the title to No Fun: A Graceful Nod-To-Sleep.

Jesse's Take: 2001: A Space Odyssey is a movie celebration of visual proficiency and technical savagery that in 1968, was so far ahead of its time; it's scary. This film has the power to allow debate and obtain thousands of different interpretations from moviegoers all over the world. It's all about the evolution of humans told through different 4 different sections, all brilliant and somewhat slow paced. But if you real take the time soak it all in, you get a calculated and original masterstroke formulated by none other than acclaimed director Stanley Kubrick. "2001" spends a majority of time showcasing its sequences in outer space and like the actors, has a cold and icy way of speaking to the viewer that takes it in. However, there are so many classic scenes, so many "awe" moments that you can't help but surrender to the eerie beauty that occupies the screen for almost 2 and a half hours. In truth, most people either love or hate this movie. In fact, it may take up 3 to 4 viewings before you can totally embrace it. Nevertheless, it's edited to perfection, scored for nullifying effect, and next to The Shining, this for me, is Kubrick's finest hour. He may be gone now, but 2001: A Space Odyssey lives on forever.


Darius' Take: Although it is a very slow movie to sit through as discussed in the co-review, I still think the atmosphere speaks for itself in 2001: A Space Odyssey. I also think that the characters are some of the best in history. The story basically revolves around a group of men in hyper sleep, 6 crew, and the most powerful supercomputer in history, named HAL. HAL has the ability to think for himself, which becomes a huge problem on the ship. All the while, a mysterious monolith follows the main character everywhere, which is explained to have been around since the dawn of man. Every time it appears, an evolutionary break though happens. This film is great for a number of reasons. First, is the lack of dialogue, which you think would be a problem. Actually, it gives the movie a charm not seen since the silent era. Sometimes we all have to follow Griffith's law: Sometimes the best movie is one that says nothing. Second is the symbolic undertones. Everything can mean something different/deeper in this movie. The monolith is often cited as god, evolution, human nature, and the list goes on and on. You can watch it as many time as as possible and never see it the same way. Finally is HAL, ironically the  most human of the characters, having worries, fears, lying, cheating and acting calm while the others act emotionless and robotic. The thing that's so disturbing about HAL is that we made him, and can make him in the future, if science goes our way. and then the dream will be a reality.  Accented with the beautiful sweeping "Blue Danube" and thrown together with special effects that rival our present day ones, “2001” is not only up to snuff with classic art and literature (and can be analyzed as such too), it is my all time favorite film.

EPIC

Cole's Rating: ★★★

Director: Chris Wedge
Year: 2013
Cast: Colin Farrell, Josh Hutcherson, Beyoncé Knowles
Genre: Animation/Adventure/Family
MPAA Rating: PG

        I ventured into Movies 14 on a warm spring Friday night with my dad and nine-year-old brother, excited to view the highly anticipated Epic. We found a seat, sat down, and became instantly immersed in the magical 3D world that the movie ambitiously creates. Epic, a slick spin on Honey I Shrunk the Kids, finds Mary Katherine (voiced by Amanda Seyfried), the daughter of a quirky scientist, reduced to the size of a blade of grass, in order to save the forest civilization (“leafmen”). This civilization that she encounters upon has been her father’s obsession for a large part of his life. It tells a riveting story with tasteful humor and wonderful dialogue, and engrosses you with its astounding visual effects, but it falls shorter than other more memorable family movies (such as Shrek, Cars, and Toy Story) due to its severe lack of character motivation. I’d describe it as trivial, because while it is enjoyable, it still doesn’t leave a significant mark on cinema in any way.

        Epic will undoubtedly leave you questioning its script. It’s told well and is interesting, but it feels like this should be a sequel. This is because the “leafmen” fight against the “rot” (who are bad guys that try to destroy the forest for some unknown reason). We know that the “leafmen” are trying to preserve the forest and its natural elements, and we know that the “rot” are trying to destroy it, but is there a point? It’s symbolic of life and decay in the world, and that’s alright, but the film would’ve been much better had there been a fictitious plot element to spice up its tellings and motivations that concern the civilization’s rivalry. Never are we told why either one of these civilizations try so desperately to accomplish their duties; but the film’s target audience (nine and under) won’t care too much about that aspect, which makes it a successful children’s movie.

        Overall, Epic is a lot of fun. It takes its impressive visual effects, meshes it with a handful of likable characters, blends it in with some nice dialogue, and the outcome is a family-friendly movie to spend a Friday/Saturday night watching. And although it’s a good experience, and it’s delightful enough to get by, it doesn’t quite live up to its title.

-Written by Cole Pollyea