Lincoln

Let me explain how excited I was for this. I'm a huge fan of Steven Speilberg. It was his films that made me a movie fan in the first place and he ranks as one of my favourite filmmakers. And it goes without saying that Daniel Day-Lewis is one of the great actors of this generation. Do I need to give you this guy's resume? If you haven't seen any of his work, then go see it. The man is a genius. Also, I've always been interested in American history, and Abraham Lincoln has always been a hero of mine. I actually found out about this movie's production in 2011 from my American history teacher (By the way, he apparently loves this movie) Did it live up to my expectations? Oh yeah.

What can I say? Speilberg directing Day-Lewis as Lincoln with a script from the screenwriter of Munich. There is no place where this movie could not have been great. The script is tense and powerful, and it gives Day-Lewis plenty of time to develop his character. How good is he? I felt I was watching Abraham Lincoln in his real life. I wasn't watching Daniel Day-Lewis acting. He was Lincoln. This movie doesn't try to put Lincoln on a pedestal and treat him as some god. We see Lincoln the man as much as we see Lincoln the President. There are many times when we see Lincoln interacting with Mary Todd, and some great scenes when he is with his son Robert. We feel Mrs. Lincoln's anger at his threats to put her in a mental institution when she didn't stop crying over the death of their youngest child. We see their marriage warts and all: I'm glad they did that, it gives us a more human view of the whole thing. As much as I'm praising Day-Lewis, I actually think one actor manages to outshine him. Tommy Lee Jones was not a guy I was expecting much from when I heard he was going to be in this movie. He's a great actor, but I expected Day-Lewis and Sally Field to steal the show. Jones plays Thaddeus Stevens, and he's magnificent and an easy pick for Best Supporting Actor. Every moment he's on screen is full of power and intrigue. You just love this guy: I think he's my favourite character and the reveal at the end was very well done. The production values, as you would expect from Speilberg are the very best.  The Civil War scenes are minimal yet effective, but the rest of it looks great as a period piece. The makeup on Day-Lewis is great: he does look a lot like Lincoln. I also must say: the death of Lincoln was handled very well. Actually showing him get shot at the theatre would have been way too heavy. We've spent the entire movie getting to know Lincoln as a human being instead of a historical figure. People already mourn Lincoln just for what he did. Seeing him die in this movie would have been traumatizing. Showing his son's reaction to it worked better and was very powerful in his own way.

Is Lincoln one of the best movies of they year? Hell yeah. There was a ton of effort put into this to make a great film and a great tribute to Abraham Lincoln. Even if you're not a fan of history, see it. I realize this is not a great movie for young people (I was the youngest person in the theatre by like 20 years) but I would still recommend it to anyone. It's a great movie purely for the characters in it. Check it out.

Skyfall

I love James Bond. Who doesn't? Yes it can be campy. Yes it can be cheesy. Yes, everyone hates Quantum of Solace. But there is something about this franchise that is classic to me and I will always love it, but even I was hesitant to see this movie. I thought the trailers for Skyfall looked amazing and I do love Daniel Craig as 007, but the last movie's failure kept me away from immediately returning to the series. Thankfully I was totally wrong. Not only is Skyfall an amazing movie, but I would say it's the best of the series. Yes, I just said that. Better than Goldfinger. Better than Goldeneye. Better than Casino Royale. 

First off, this is Craig's best performance yet as Bond. He still brings that dark and brooding sense that keeps him apart from the other Bonds, he has a bit of a sense of humor in this one. Hell, he actually smiled a couple times. I liked him more here as a person rather than a character than I did in the last two films.  Do I even need to praise Judi Dench? She's a great M, and I won't spoil anything on her arch in this movie. By the way: hey there Ralph Fiennes, I have a feeling we'll see more of you. I did have issues with Javier Bardem as the villain. I know he's meant to chew the scenery: he is a James Bond villain after all. But the rest of the movie tries to be serious, so having such the villain overact some much is distracting. Even so, I won't deny he wasn't creepy and effective in the end: just a slightly more subtle performance would have been better. As for the story, I liked it a lot. It wasn't anything special, but it worked for what it was and lead to a really enjoyable movie. I liked the concept of Bond having to return from the dead. He could have continued enjoying his life with CGI scorpions (okay, that part was stupid) and ignoring MI6, but he knew he had to return and find the will to keep going. It was essentially the same idea as The Dark Knight Rises, but the idea of the hero's comeback is a little more underplayed here.

Now here is where the movie really shines: in the action and the visual style. The fight in the skyscraper in Shanghai was one of the best fight scenes I've ever seen in a movie. From the pacing to the action to the photography to the tension, it was just flawless. The fight at Skyfall was huge and awesome: it was basically Home Alone without slapstick and a lot more guns (speaking of, it was great to see Q in this movie)

Skyfall is highly recommended. Even if you're not a fan of Bond, I still say it deserves a watch. From beginning to end this is one of the best action movies I've seen in years. Welcome back, Mr. Bond.

I'm Back

Yeah, I'll be the first to admit I pretty much abandoned this blog recently. Things in my life kept me busy and running a blog on entertainment kind of got pushed to the side. But I would like to come back and post again, or at least when I can. Here are some points I'd like to make now that I'm back.

-The Walking Dead review series is cancelled. I kept missing episodes and I found having to review them became a chore. Is that lazy of me? Maybe, but I don't think my reviews were all that great anyway. I'll say this: I think the third season of The Walking Dead is outstanding and the episodes I missed are all great. It's a huge improvement over season 2. Yes, I have heard that showrunner Glen Mazzara is leaving, and I'm very sad to hear that.

-I haven't seen as many movies as I would have liked to since The Expendables 2, but I have seen some. I will post those reviews asap. 

-I hate the NHL lockout. Hate it. 

-I realized recently that I actually really love all Christmas music. 

-Congrats to Gangnam Style on getting one billion views. 

That's all I got. Good to be back.

The Walking Dead "Killer Within"

Soooooooo, uhmm, yeah. That just happened. I'm still struggling to form words after what I just saw, but I will say this: this episode was easily the best thing this show has ever produced. Better than the pilot, better than the second season finale. You know what? I'm not going to review it anymore. And that's not me being lazy, that's me being at a real loss for words on how to describe this episode. Instead, I'm just going to list some words that could describe this episode for your reading pleasure.  Enjoy.

Exciting
Thrilling
GORY
Emotional
Powerful
Sad
Hopeful
Depressing
Action packed
Mysterious
Did I mention GORY?

The Walking Dead "Sick"

Yes, I'm very late with this one. Been a busy couple of weeks. I don't know how much it matters though, because I'm not sure I have a tone to say about this episode except that it was outstanding. The pacing was great, the action was great, the story and emotions were great and the stakes were huge. I'm spoiling a lot here, but let me try and explain what a great setup this episode had. Hershel was bitten on the leg by a walker. In order to save him, Rick chops of his leg with an axe. We then see that there are in fact human prisoners left in the prison which the group must deal with while trying to save Hershel. And did I mention that the only person who is at all qualified to help someone survive this ordeal is Hershel himself? Oh, and that if Hershel dies there will be no one to deliver Lori's baby, especially considering she'll likely need a C-section? And of course there are the prisoners, one of which has already proven to be hostile towards Rick and his group. Everything is timed well with every scene taking no more than what it needs to serve a purpose. The acting as always superb. I don't think I've talked much about how unbelievable Andrew Lincoln is as Rick. He brings an intensity and humanity that perfectly conveys the character. Is he as good as Bryan Cranston is in Breaking Bad? No. But I can't think of many actors as good as Cranston is in that show, so that's hardly a fair comparison. No, Lincoln is very good, and I hope his performance in this show will lead to more roles later on.

(SPOILERS)

Now the thing that is sure to be controversial here is Rick's decision to execute one of the prisoners in cold blood. I just thought it showed how different Rick is from the good cop we saw in the pilot. There are new rules in this world, and Rick is using them. Was he right or wrong? I don't see an answer to that question. He did what he felt he had to do. It'll be interesting to see where this new attitude takes the group in the future.

The Walking Dead: "Seed"

Just like I promised, here is the first review in my series of reviews for each episode of The Walking Dead. I was really hyped for this episode after the stunning season 2 finale. It was an episode that finally let the show live up to its potential and go all out. No slow pacing, no bullshit, just straightforward zombie action coupled with a pretty good story. Did this episode live up to the hype? Well, not exactly, but I still enjoyed it a far bit. SPOILERS!!!!!

The episode started out fantastically with the group trying to take down a group of walkers and take over a house. It's very well done: there is no dialogue and the group acts like a well oiled machine. They efficiently take down a group of walkers and then proceed to flee when an even bigger group approaches them. We see Carl has fully embraced this world now. He is carrying a gun and participating in the attack. We also see Rick has really enforced his "This is no longer a democracy" rule. People can advise him on his decisions, but he gets the final say. It's also clear there has been a large passage of time since the last season ended. Since Lori mentions at one point that their baby is just "days away," I'm going to go ahead and say it's been nine months. The episode does have a very cinematic feel. It really seems like a sequel to a movie that came out years ago. The pacing is much better. It does drag at times, but for the most part everything seems to be moving well. I also liked the evolving dynamics. Rick and Lori have clearly become hostile towards each other, and I'm amazingly not blaming Lori for that. She actually tries to have a conversation with him to try and sort out some "things," but Rick will have none of it. I didn't mind Lori a ton in this episode, but that's largely because she didn't have much to do. Hey, that's a great solution for the Lori problem: ignore her! The zombie action was great, and the ending was top notch and more than a little bloody and shocking. I kind of saw part of it coming, but I did not see the results coming. Now, I said I didn't like everything about this episode. The biggest problem I had were the occasional pointless scenes. I did not get the scene that had Maggie and Beth singing. Maybe there was some symbolism behind it or maybe it was meant to generate atmosphere, but I felt it just brought the episode to a screeching halt for two or three minutes. I also did not like the scenes with Michonne. Yes I know she's important, but you could have held off on her for a bit, or at least just kept the single scene she had with Andrea. Again, those scenes brought the episode to a halt. But at the end of the day, those may just be nitpicks. It was a good return for the show, and I hope to see it improve next week.

In Defence Of Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull And Condemnation Of Temple Of Doom

I realize the above title alone may turn most people away from this blog forever. You know what? I don't care. I like Indy 4. I don't love it necessarily, but I do like it. Is it the worst Indiana Jones movie? Not at all. This one is: 

Yeah, that's the one. The worst of the series by far. In fact, I think it's Speilberg's worst film, and matches only The Phantom Menace in anything Lucas has touched. Disagree? Well read on dear reader, and see if you agree (You probably won't, but whatever) 

Let me be clear: Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (hereafter known as Indy 4) is very, very flawed. I really dislike the CGI effects in the movie, and I can't say I'm a fan of Shia LaBeouf's character, or at least in terms of LaBeouf's portrayal, but I'll get to that. There are just a lot of dumb moments, scenes with refrigerators included. But is that enough for it to be  the disgrace many people make it out to be? No. Not at all. I think much of the criticism aimed at the movie comes are signs of the times. In every negative review I read of Indy 4, one word kept on coming up: unrealistic. That the fridge scene is unrealistic, that the waterfall is unrealistic, that the alien plot is unrealistic, and that everything in general is unrealistic. Well, if I sat down to an Indiana Jones movie that completely realistic, I would walk out. This series is the ultimate in unrealistic action adventure. Making it realistic ruins the whole point. Sure, getting thrown through the air by an atom bomb while sitting in a lead lined fridge is absurdly unrealistic, but let's be honest: the first movie has Nazis opening the Ark of the Covenant, which literally melts their faces. That's okay? That's realistic? Using a life raft as a parachute is all right? I consider lack of realism as a weak criticism of this film. It was never supposed to be a realistic story, and I'm glad it's not. Everything has to be grounded in realism these days, and that's a shame. Cinema is an escape from the grind of real life, so it's too bad that realism has to be essential in Hollywood these days. These movies are meant to be carefree, wholesome fun and this movie has that sense. Is it as successful as Raiders or Last Crusade? No. But this movie does have a sense of adventure that is interesting. What's wrong with aliens in this movie? The other movies all dealt with religious artifacts, but this one did it in a different way. To the ancient civilizations portrayed, this was religion. Legends do tell of beings that came from the sky that acted as gods to them. Is it real? Well, it's a matter of belief.  But to them, it was real. Why can't Indiana Jones deal with alien beings? It's not like the other movies were crazy realistic with their religious symbols. Call me a bad fan, but I legitimately do not see a problem. Now, there are obviously problems with the movie. I'm not sure how I feel about Shia LaBeouf's character, but I don't care for LaBeouf's acting as the character. He did nothing new: he was basically just recycling his Transformers character. I hated the fact that there was so much CGI in this movie. It could have been a chance to honour the classic stunts from the original movies, but they screwed it up. We did not need the scene with the monkeys: that is the only scene in the movie that makes me cringe. But for all the flaws, this movie is still fun. That's all: good mindless fun that is well paced. 

Now for Temple of Doom. Good Lord, it's a trainwreck. Let me get out the most commonly cited problems with this movie: Willie and Short Round. I hate these two. God, I hate. They are without a doubt the most agonizing characters in this series. Willie is a female stereotype at its most offensive. She whines, cries, screams about breaking her nails and overall acts as a waste of time, film and oxygen. She is also given NOTHING to do. She's a throwaway character who is there for no reason other than to give Indy a love interest. Then there is Short Round. Another stereotype, this one being an Asian one. He spouts his accent because Speilberg thinks its funny and acts terribly. Hey, did you know the guy who would one day create Jar Jar Binks wrote this movie? And that the guy who directed it would one day go on to produce Transformers: Revenge of The Fallen? But the real problem I have with this movie is the tone. Now look, it's not unusual for sequels (well, technically Temple of Doom is a prequel) to be darker than the original, and that's not always a bad thing. On the contrary, movies like The Godfather Part II and The Dark Knight have used a darker tone to improve themselves as films, and even surpass the original in the case of The Dark Knight. In fact, Lucas had already made a great second act to a trilogy in The Empire Strikes Back. But this one just went way, way, WAAAAAY too far to the point where it's unpleasant to watch. Lucas and Speilberg were both going through divorces when this movie went into production and that really reflects in Lucas' script. Gone are the senses of heroism and adventure. Replacing them are child slaves, kidnapping human sacrifices, voodoo ceremonies, mind control through curses, human hearts being ripped out of chests and tons of blood flowing everywhere. Again, I have nothing against going darker for Part II in a series, but this was just hard to watch. The villain is terrifying, but overly so. He is disturbing in many ways because of how powerful and psychotic he is. Heath Ledger's Joker did not scare me this much. Keep in mind that much of the marketing for this movie was centred on children. There was a toyline and few video games. I would not take a kid to see this. I saw it when I was 11 and it scared the crap out of me. I know this is a weird criticism of a movie, to say the villain is too scary, but it really does go too far. Being scary is fine, but you have to know your audience. This guy was like something out of a voodoo Saw movie. The relationship between Indy and Willie is unbearable because I do not buy for a second that someone as tough and badass as Indy would ever develop feelings for someone this annoying and needy. He fell for Marion in the first movie, but Marion was tough and resourceful. When we first meet her she is taking shots with a bunch of guys. Elsa in the third movie was also believable because of her love for archeology and history. She and Indy had tons in common, even though she turned out to be a traitor. Willie has nothing in her personality that would make Indy think of her as anything more than an annoyance. In  fact he does view her as an annoyance for the beginning of the movie until they suddenly fall for each other for no real reason. If this movie did do one thing right was that it really established Indy as a hero. He has nothing to gain out what he is doing other than save the children who are captive. Outside of that, I do not like a thing about Temple of Doom, and I am not alone on this. Speilberg has openly admitted that he is not happy with this movie. I'm not 100% sure what Lucas thought of it, but considering it's the guy who did the Star Wars prequels he probably loves it. So why do people seem to like Temple of Doom more than Crystal Skull? I think it's the nostalgia googles. People have been watching this movie for years and is considered one of the "classic" Indiana Jones movies. The new one never had a shot. People will always remember the original trilogy and that's what they did. So that's it. Proof I have no intention of bowing to popular opinion. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull: not perfect, but still not bad. Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom: awful movie. 

Marvel Marathon-The Avengers

Well, this is the last part of Marvel Marathon, and like the series, is what this marathon has been building up to. It took a lot of work to do Marvel Marathon. I'm not a comic book guy, but I liked the movies a lot, meaning I had to do tons of research into who these characters are and how true the movies were to them. In hindsight, I still can't believe this movie exists. Crossover two franchises? Rare, but it has happened before. But let's be frank, those movies kinda suck (I'm looking at you AVP). But tying together four different action movies into one gigantic movie? Never been done before. The fact that only one of member of the main cast ended up being recast (For the best, I might add) made this movie even more of a huge accomplishment before it even hit theatres. It's funny how my personal hype went. I was excited to see it for sure, but The Dark Knight Rises was easily my most hyped movie of the year. It was in the hours before I saw this movie that I got excited. I went on opening day, and I saw a newspaper ad shortly before I left for the theatre. It featured the poster for this movie with a brilliant slogan above it: "TODAY THE WORLD WILL ASSEMBLE." Confused? The line comes from here:

It's a catch phrase from old Avengers stories. And for some reason, I started to get really hyped from that brilliant poster. When I got to the theatre, I was greeted by the longest lineup I had ever seen for an opening night showing (By that I mean the 7:00 showing: the real opening night showing). Bear in mind I have seen Spider-Man 3, Avatar, The Dark Knight, Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows Parts I and II on opening night. None of those lineups were longer, and none of those lineups had as much hype. I sat down in my seat, begging the Movie Gods to allow this movie to be good. I had just had a sudden love affair with this thing. Don't let it suck. Ladies and gentleman, I am proud to say the Movie Gods are real. 

I already said in my Summer In Review post that I loved this movie, but I now want to say why I loved it, what was so good. Well I ask you: what was bad? What didn't work? Not much. Sure, there are inconsistencies and flaws, but those are minor. Does anyone really care how Bruce Banner was suddenly able to control his transformations into the Hulk? Not really, or at least from my point of view. This movie has it firing on all cylinders and managed to avoid any potential problems I was afraid it might have. The biggest fear I had was that some characters would be used more than others, especially Iron Man. He was hugely popular, and Robert Downey Jr. was suddenly the biggest thing in the world, so I assumed he would get the most screen time and development. I was completely wrong. Every character gets their time to shine. I didn't like one character any more than the other, and that is quite an accomplishment, and I got the sense the actors were having a ton of fun, and that extends to the audience. This is one of the most entertaining movies I have ever seen, but not in a Transformers way in which there is no story or character. This movie had heart. It tried to tell a good story. Yes, it is about an evil villain trying to take over the world, but it was done well in the execution. We cared about the characters and hated the villain. Tom Hiddleston really stole the show as Loki. He is still hateful, so despicable and so wonderfully villainous that you have to just love him. He loves what he is doing and always has a creepy smile on his face. The Avengers as a whole have good chemistry together and the actors manage to play off of each other extremely well. You can see the effort that everyone put into this. It was how an action-adventure like this should be done and acts as proof you don't need an Inception style story to have a great movie like this. You can have your explosions and your CGI effects, but you also need to have something beneath the surface. One of the movie's best aspects was the humour. Not only are there gags in here, but they work. Hulk grabbing Loki and throwing him around was completely hysterical, as was Hulk punching Thor. It kept the movie light and fun. Sure, comic book movies can get serious and have it work, but that would have been wrong for this one. It's about superheroes teaming up to save the world. You can't take that too seriously and I'm glad Joss Whedon was smart enough to not go down that road. Now, I can keep going all day about this movie, but it's pointless. Everyone has seen it, and there are millions of reviews on the Internet that point out every good aspect of The Avengers, so I will end it here. It's a fantastic movie, as we all know.

 And that is the end of Marvel Marathon. It took a lot of research into these characters, and I'm kind of glad it's over. But it was fun looking into these movies. Yes, even Iron Man 2. 

Revolution

I'm taking a break from Marvel Marathon to rant about this crap (Which is good, because I don't have to research old comic book stories just for a review). There are good people working on this show: J.J Abrams is a producer, as is Iron Man director Jon Faverau, who directed the pilot. But, this show sucks, which reminds me why I need to stop being hyped for upcoming television shows. I was super hyped for Terra Nova last year, but it ended up sucking, and sucking hard. But even it doesn't compare to this. Bear in mind I'm writing this based on the first two episodes, because that's all I'm planning on watching.

So, as the promos say, all technology in the world shuts off. All electronics go out, all cars stop working, planes fall out of the air. Of course, guns still work just fine. Isn't storytelling convenience great? So mankind falls back into feudalism, which is where we meet our main characters, living in a village 15 years after the blackout. There is Ben Matheson, a man (scientist?) who predicted the blackout. However, Ben is killed shortly after his introduction by the villain of the piece, Cap. Tom Neville, a member of the Monroe Republic militia (That is the name of the area they live which is headed up by Sebastian Monroe, who I guess will end up being the real villain: kind of a Darth Vader/Emperor thing). Following his death, his daughter Charlotte (Known as Charlie) swears revenge, and goes to find her Uncle Myles, based on her father's dying breath. Charlie...... so she is a tough, resourceful young woman who provides for her family by hunting with her weapon of choice: the bow and arrow. Gee, DOES THAT SOUND FAMILIAR????

But give Katniss Everdeen credit: she is nowhere near as annoying as Charlie. She whines and complains constantly, and the actress clearly has clue what she's doing, constantly trying to make anannoyed face for the camera. After all, she's supposed to be tough, right? Yeah, Jennifer Lawrence she ain't. So she and boring ragtag group find Uncle Miles, and he's a jerk. Yeah, the stereotypical cynical, one-liner spewing jerk who you know will go on a character arc which will result in him accepting his niece and becoming a good leader, blah, blah, blah. And Miles also feels guilty, because he was once friends with Monroe. Let me explain this idiocy: right after the blackout Myles and Monroe go to a military base where I guess Myles was stationed. Myles gets in with his ID, and Monroe gets in with...... a tattoo on his arm which bears his last name. So, the world just went to hell, and you let in a guy based on a tattoo? Even if Sebastian Monroe is known to them, maybe there's another guy who has a tattoo on his arm? Maybe the tattoo is military grade, but then why did Myles have to show his clearance instead of his own tattoo? You'd think the military would be on high alert, but I guess not. Before long Danny, the ungodly annoying little brother to Charlie is captured by Cap. Neville, who forces him to ride with them. They find a rebel towards Monroe who is hiding guns: punishable by death. They kill him and find the symbol of resistance: an American flag (symbolism, I'm sure) When Danny seems to disapprove, Neville demands to know the problem. The answer? "I think you just kill because you like to kill. Because you're a murderer. A psychopath." That line made me laugh so hard that I had to pause the show for a good five to seven minutes to regain my composure. The idea that this is Neville's only motivation: that a seemingly evil but sane man would do all this just so that he can kill? God this show is lazy. That and the delivery of the line is so forced, so weak and so painful that it is downright hysterical. Finally, there is the plot of Miles finding Nora. In fact, that is the plot of the whole second episode. Who is Nora? "She's really good at blowing up stuff." Yeah, that's all we get. She's good at explosions. Why should we care about them looking for her when we know nothing about her? Nora ends being a lot like Miles: cynical jerk who is working for the resistance. What is the goal of the resistance? To bring back the United States. Assuming this blackout is global, that is a dumb plan. It's implied that all of the country is split into these republics, and Monroe's Republic is just one of many. How is Nora going to destroy them all, restore democracy, get a new President, get all of the States back together and somehow get these people to honor the Constitution? Plus, what about the rest of the world? Do they just get hung out to dry? Then there is the whole kill-or-don't-kill issue. Seen it before, you're not doing anything new. As a matter of fact, everything here has been seen before, and that is one of the biggest problems. The concept of a post apocalyptic world is so overdone that it no longer carries any weight. The only way to make this seem powerful is to really drive home the fact that the world has ended. There is no future, there is barely a sense of history. There is just brutal survival. That would need to be adult and maybe a little graphic, but that can't happen: it's network TV. With better writing and acting, this might have worked on HBO or AMC. Even Fox probably would have let more stuff go. But this isn't HBO or Fox: it's on NBC, one of the worst networks around today. 

So there we go, criticism over. This show sucks, and the fact it has gotten decent ratings is beyond me. There are better television shows out there. Speaking of which, The Mob Doctor, a show which looked kind of good is also terrible, although I'm not getting into a review of that. It's just bad and the TV season has not been kind to me. Don't fail me now, Walking Dead. 

Marvel Marathon-Captain America: The First Avenger

I love Captain America, and I'm a Canadian. There is a place in this world for a super patriotic superhero, and this is it. You just have to love Steve Rogers as a character. He's someone we all aspire to be: the grand hero who is still true to himself, the great leader who is never wrong, the good soldier who will take a bullet for his country. This is actually not the first Captain America movie Marvel has made. In 1990, another movie was made that was intended to mark Marvel's introduction into the movie business to compete with DC's hugely popular Batman movie. The result was a disaster. It was met with numerous delays which resulted in the theatrical run being cancelled and the film going straight to video I have actually seen that movie, and the production values are on par with movies from the late 60's and the plot is a mess. Here's the trailer: judge for yourself.

I always wanted a great Captain America movie. I saw the whole thing in my mind's eye and I wanted Marvel to create what I wanted. But my skepticism set in when I heard some questionable casting decisions. I wanted this movie to defy my expectations, more so than any other Marvel movie. Did I get my wish? Well....

The casting decision I spoke about was the casting of Chris Evans as Captain America. Evans was known to marvel fans for playing Johnny Storm/The Human Torch in the awful Fantastic Four movies. I did not like Evans in those movies at all. He tried way too hard to be funny and got on my nerves constantly. Hearing he was going to be Cap was terrible news. Thankfully, I was completely wrong. Evans owned this role as well as Chris Hemsworth and Robert Downey Jr. owned their respective roles. He is heroic and powerful, yet humble. Captain America is a simple man at heart, and Rogers perfectly captured that. I still remember when we saw him for the first time in the costume. The moment sent chills down my spine, because he was here. Captain America was real. He was there in front of me, living via this movie screen. Evans was so good that I forget he was playing a character. He was Steve Rogers. Sadly, I had the opposite reaction to another character, who I felt was a perfect choice going into. When I heard this movie was going into production I felt there was only one man who could play the evil Red Skull: Hugo Weaving. Much to my surprise, I got my wish. I walked into this movie waiting for Weaving to blow my mind with his performance, and that didn't happen. His performance was bland, but he was given nothing to work with. Red Skull as a whole was kind of underdeveloped, which is a real shame. He had the potential to be great villain, but it fell flat. I would say Red Skull as a whole was the movie's biggest problem. He looked fantastic, but he was underdeveloped as a villain. I never felt he was as hateful as Obidiah was in Iron Man. Yes, he is a Nazi, but that is really the only thing he was going for him as a villain. But even with a weak villain,
this movie shines in other ways. The best strength, excluding Evans' performance is the way this movie is put together. It's set in World War II, and the style of the movie reflects the times and culture of that era. It reminds me of the 40's adventure serials in many ways, which makes it feel very exciting and nostalgic. Director Joe Johnston had already made The Rocketeer, another love letter to that era. I loved the relationship between Steve and Peggy Carter. Let me explain the way this goes (SPOILERS) Steve and Peggy had been growing closer together throughout the entire movie. In the end, Steve is flying the airship over the ocean and knowns he has to crash the ship to destroy the weapons on board, but losing his own life in the process. Hearing Peggy beg him not to do this is heartbreaking, because I loved the chemistry between them. They make plans for a date when he gets back, to go dancing. They know he is not coming back, but they don't want their last conversation to be depressing. They wanted to end everything on hope. Steve is frozen in the ice and revived in modern times. He runs through New York City in confusion, and Nick Fury asks him what the problem is. His answer? "I had a date tonight." Now that is sad. I was ready to leave the theatre depressed, but luckily there was a trailer for The Avengers after the credits and I left full of anticipation. It has been confirmed Peggy Carter is still alive in 2012 in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, so I look forward to their eventual reunion. And that's all I got from Captain America. It's a good movie, but suffers from the lack of a good villain. But fear not. Our next review is the last part of Marvels' Cinematic Universe Phase 1, and also happens to be the finale of Marvel Marathon. And oh boy, are we going out with a bang. The Avengers is next!

Marvel Marathon-Thor

Let me start off by saying this: I bought a ticket to this movie completely expecting it to suck. I had never heard of Tom Hiddleston or Chris Hemsworth and did not think they were up to much of anything. I also did not think much of Natalie Portman (I had not yet seen Black Swan yet, sue me) I also had not yet seen Hamlet, so I do not anything about Kenneth Branagh as a director. I only knew of him as Gilderoy Lockhart, and the thought of Gilderoy Lockhart directing Thor was laughable. I also thought Thor as a concept was close to impossible to take seriously. The weird helmets and outfits, the capes and the overall idea made the God of Thunder the hardest of the Avengers to bring to the big screen. I bought a ticket, put on my 3D glasses and sat down in the theatre for what I expected to be a two hour suck-fest. Gods, was I wrong.

I had no clue that Hemsworth was another brilliant casting decision on Marvel's part. He NAILED this character. The arrogance, the regality, the power, the nobility. It's all here, and believable. He plays Thor as a character as an arrogant jerk who must find the noble man within. We see him in the beginning thinking he's the king of the world, and a lesser actor would have just made him completely unlikeable. But Hemsworth gives him an air of charisma and likability that carries on later. We know that he is a good character at heart, and this movie is about him discovering that for himself. He has great chemistry with Natalie Portman. I liked the relationship between Thor and Jane Foster a lot, much more than the Betty and Bruce relationship from The Incredible Hulk, although has more to do with the fact Portman was actually trying. I felt very sad at the end when Thor has to destroy the Bilfrost Bridge, preventing him from coming back to Earth. I was a tad disappointed to see that Jane not appear in The Avengers (she is mentioned), but am excited to see her back in the upcoming sequel. Tom Hiddleston.... I love this guy. True, he is much more dastardly and hateful in The Avengers, but he was not meant to be a monster here. This was the setup. He realized the history of his origins and swears revenge. Simple, but understandable. Towards the end he really does become more evil. I think this carefully balanced performance proved no one other than Hiddleston could have played this role. Anthony Hopkins is good as always, and I really liked the ragtag group who tags around Thor, them being Lady Sif and the Warriors Three. They had great chemistry and provided for some great battle scenes. That reminds me: this is easily the most visually stunning of all the Marvel movies. The realm of Asgard looks jaw dropping, as does the Bilfrost Bridge. The action scenes are spectacular, especially the final fight between Loki and Thor. The only issue visually belonged to the Frost Giants. They were not CGI: they were actors wearing latex costumes. I can't fault them for not going the CG route, but they never really looked giant. The original Godzilla movie did the best job for making something small look giant. Everything was shot from a low angle against objects made to scale. There are too many shots of the Giants alongside the main characters, and that can get distracting, but I guess that's not a huge deal. Branagh was really the only director who could have done this movie. Yes, the characters are all wearing capes, helmets and viking inspired armour. But he never loses sight of the human angle. This movie still feels real, even if the concept may be silly. It's proof almost any concept can work if the execution is good.

I love this movie. Yeah, there are a few nitpicks here and there that I didn't mention, but they're not important. (Except for the pointless Hawkeye cameo. Seriously, why?) This was a huge step up from Iron Man 2. Yeah there is setup for The Avengers, but it feels natural. Loki's villainy felt like a natural progression from this movie. Kudos to this movie, and good on you for proving me wrong.

Marvel Marathon- Iron Man 2

Let me get the obvious out of the way: I was really excited to see this one. The first one was brilliant and I wanted to see what they were going to do this time. I had plenty of reasons to be hyped, not the least of which being that director Jon Faverau was returning to direct, and that Terrence Howard had been recast and replaced with Don Cheadle, a great actor who gave an amazing performance in Hotel Rwanda. I went on opening night, with huge anticipation, and..... huh. Well now. Let's see.

First off, I know this movie has gotten a very mixed response from fans, and I'd be lying if I said I didn't get why people are mixed towards this movie. It has a ton of problems, and is a letdown in that sense. There's not point in tiptoeing around it: Iron Man 2 is nowhere near as good as Iron Man was. There seems to be a sentiment among fans that not only is this movie disappointing, it downright sucks. I wouldn't say I agree with that. I think this movie is okay. Let me be clear: there is good stuff. Robert Downey Jr. is once again brilliant as Iron Man, and there is a great twist this time. The reactor in his chest is poisoning his blood, slowly killing him. It's interesting to see the fun loving billionaire playboy humbled by his own mortality. We see him trying to cram everything he wants to do with his life in a short period. We also get to see more of his father in this movie. He is presented as a Walt Disney style visionary genius who dreamed of the world of tomorrow. Another strength to this movie is the excitement. The actions is excellent and plentiful, and the set pieces are terrific. The Stark Expo is an amazing visual accomplishment in its own right. The villain, Whiplash is also cool, or at least his portrayal is. Mickey Rourke gives an interesting performance, or at least tries to. We'll get to that. Finally, there is the ongoing friction between Tony and Pepper. I like how the romance develops here, and I look how they take their time in getting them together. Now, for the problems. First off, Don Cheadle REALLY disappointed me as Rhodey. He was boring, boring, boring. I found myself looking at my watch (or cellphone, whatever) every time he is on screen. I was begging to have Terrence Howard back: he is that bad. The movie is also too cartoony throughout. The first one was fun, but took itself seriously. This one took a lot of cues from Transformers. It never does get to that level of stupidity, but it does come close at times. There is also the villain's motivation. He swears revenge after his father dies and attacks Tony. It's implied Tony's father cheated him at one point, but it's never really explained. I don't need everything spelled out for me, but this was way too underdeveloped. I couldn't hate this guy because I didn't get what he was after. The other villain, Justin Hammer is almost played for laughs. Sam Rockwell was clearly having fun with the character, but he did not seem anywhere near as threatening as Obidiah Stane in the first movie. Now for the biggest problem: Marvel's involvement. It was clear this was not Jon Faverau's movie. Marvel had their hands deep into this movie and it prevented Faverau from creating the film he wanted to make. Now let me be clear: Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk both had their share of buildup for The Avengers. It was clear that an Avengers movie was the eventual prize we would get, but both of them were allowed to be their own movies. This movie? Not so much. Black Widow is introduced kind of pointlessly and Nick Fury literally just appears late in the second act. Agent Coulsen is also given a bigger role. I would be okay with this if the connections were less jarring, but the movie does not do a good enough job of blending them in. It feels as if Faverau filmed his movie, and then Marvel went and reshot most of it and edited it in. It's sad, because there was potential. Just ask Mickey Rourke if you need proof that Marvel was wearing the pants on the set:

"When I did Ivan Vanko in Iron Man, I fought... You know, I explained to Justin Theroux, to the writer, and to [Jon] Faverau, that I wanted to bring in some other layers and colours [to the character], not just make this Russian a complete murderous revenging bad guy. And they allowed me to do that. Unfortunately, the people at [Marvel] just wanted a one-dimensional bad guy, so most of the performance ended up on the floor. It's too bad, but it's their loss. If they want to make mindless comic book movies, then I don't want to be a part of that." 

So that's Iron Man 2, the first disappointment to come out of Marvel. But this movie had a great post credits scene, involving Thor's hammer. That was the movie that fans hoped would get them back on track. Were they successful? Next time....

Marvel Marathon-The Incredible Hulk

Let me start off by saying that out of all the Marvel Studio movies, this is the one I have seen the most. It was one of the first Blu-Ray Discs I ever got, and I watched the hell out of it. Does it hold up well? Yes and no.....

First off, let's get something out of the way: this movie is not as good as Iron Man. But that was a tough act to follow. There are a number of things I like about this, especially the story. It's nothing groundbreaking, but it's what I wanted. It's very much the story of the desperate scientist wandering the planet, looking to cure the monster within while being hunted by the military. You do feel for Bruce Banner a fair bit. There is no dumb subplot with his father and there are no fights with poodles (I'm looking at you, Ange Lee) It's Hulk stripped down. Edward Norton is decent as Banner, but not Robert Downey Jr. levels of good. He does the job that's given to him. The rest of the cast is mixed. William Hurt is fine as General Ross,  although he is not at all memorable. As always, Tim Roth is good in this movie and Tim Blake Nelson is fun (C'mon Marvel, let him be the Leader!) But the problem comes with Liv Tyler. Oh boy, is she bad. Bad isn't the word: she is downright atrocious, giving a performance on par with Keanu Reeve's worst day. She does nothing but stare blankly at the camera with her mouth wide open in fake surprise. She doesn't say a word with a hint of emotion. There's one point where she and Norton are in a taxi which is driving way too crazy. She gets out and screams at him. The scene is unintentionally funny because of her terrible delivery. She is completely hollow throughout the entire movie, which she admits, and tries to defend. I heard her say in an interview she tried to play Betty Ross as caught like a deer in the headlights when Banner re-enters her life. Well I'm sorry, if you openly admit you did nothing but stare blankly at the camera for two hours, then you know you sucked and you're just trying to rationalize it. And if you're going by that logic, she gets a scene before Bruce meets up with her, and guess what? She sucks there too! Liv Tyler was never a good actress, but this features her at her worst. She does not care at all about the role or the lines she's saying. She just wanted to be in a summer blockbuster. That's it. Well, that little rant kinda wiped me dry, but I'll do my best. The Hulk looked great. I liked how they trimmed him down a bit so he could move fast. The Abomination was nothing at all what I expected. He was much more of a mutation here, and the name is fitting. He was actually scary to look at. The final battle between Hulk and Abomination was great, as was Hulk's entrance. Banner thinks he has been cured, but sees the Abomination from a helicopter and knows he has to do something (I can talk about the terrible forced goodbye Liv Tyler gave him, but I'll refrain) He jumps out and crashes through the pavement. We know he's not dead, but it's still really cool to see Hulk's arm punch out of the pavement.

This is a really good movie, but not perfect, mainly thanks to Liv Tyler. It's a fun flick, and gives us a good enough Hulk movie. It's too bad that this movie is going to be the only Marvel movie to not get a sequel. It deserves it, but the movie did not do as well at the box office as it could have. Overall a good flick, but not Marvel's best. And Liv Tyler? You suck.

Marvel Marathon- Iron Man

This was the beginning of everything. Originally, Iron Man was seen as its own thing. It would be released, hopefully get a trilogy, and that would be all. The idea of including SHIELD came later in production and was cemented when Samuel L. Jackson was cast as Nick Fury. But enough about that, let's talk about Iron Man on its own.

It's pointless to talk about this movie without bringing up one key thing: Robert Downey Jr. He is one of the biggest reasons this movie became a hit. Why? Simple: casting RDJ as Tony Stark was one of the best casting decisions since Francis Ford Coppola thought Marlon Brando would make a good Don Corleone. Too steep praise? I don't think so. Downey owns this role in every possible way an actor can own a role. He is not giving a performance: he IS Tony Stary. He doesn't play a billionaire playboy who comes to realize the destruction he has caused with his weapons: he IS that character. Every nuance is perfect. Every joke connects, every dramatic moment is spot on. I can perfectly believe this man's transformation. I totally buy him as a guy who wants to save the world and have a great time while he does it. I'm a big film snob who can nitpick things to death, but I have absolutely nothing negative to say about this performance. He is perfect. Oh yeah.... this isn't just Robert Downey Jr. being awesome for two hours? There is a movie here? Well yes, and it's a damn good one. The plot moves along very well. Tony Stark goes on a huge journey throughout this movie and the plot guides him well. We buy his personal change. He saw terrible stuff in the Middle East, and saw a man who saved his life die in front of him. I can see why he would want to stop making weapons and step up to put a stop to what he caused. On the other end of the spectrum, the movie has a great villain. Obidiah Stane basically helped raise Tony and nurtured him after his father died. He would never expect him to become a traitor which just makes the final battle more emotional. He is fighting someone he has come to love. Jeff Bridges is very good as Stane. He can play a warm and kind hearted man one moment and then reveal his true colours as a bloodthirsty maniac the next minute. In case you haven't noticed, we already have a very good movie here. The story is good, and the actors are brilliant. But I'm not done. There is also a very fitting love story here that is different from other love stories because it is implied, not stated. There is tension between the two and some flirtation, but an actual love story does come until the sequel. It works because of the natural onscreen chemistry between Downey and Gwyneth Paltrow, who is also very good here. Visually, the movie is spectacular. Iron Man's armours look great. They are shiny and metallic, looking very photorealistic even if they are largely just CGI. There is a satisfying amount of time spent with him in the suit and one very good fight involving an exploded tank. If I had one negative thing to say about this movie, it would be Terrence Howard as James "Rhodey" Rhodes. He's kind of bland and speaks in a very high pitched tone that got on my nerves after a while. I didn't believe him as the tough solider who acts as Tony's moral compass. But that doesn't ruin the movie. It's an excellent film that gets better every time you see it. This movie served as an excellent beginning to a franchise unlike any other.

Announcing My Marvel Marathon

I am here to announce the beginning of my Marvel Marathon, a nice little run where I will write a little review every single Marvel Studios movie up until The Avengers. I'm only going to review the movies Marvel has made by themselves, meaning Spider-Man, X-Men, Fantastic Four, Punisher, Daredevil are off limits (I do want to review Howard The Duck sometime....) I feel these are in a class all in their own. For example, Spider-Man was not made by Marvel, it was made by Sony in association with Marvel. Iron Man was made by Marvel and distributed by Paramount. I will probably review those "other" movies at some point, but for now I'm just going to look at the true Marvel movies.

Now for a little history lesson. Marvel Studios has technically been around since the 1990's, but they got beaten through the dust for a while. They really only co-produced movies like Spider-Man and X-Men, while the studios took over the actual creative duties. The result was a mixed bag. The first Spider-Man movie was not perfect, and neither was the first X-Men. But both were still good movies. Spider-Man 2 remains one of my favourite comic book movies. I think it's a shame how it was treated. Everyone loved this movie when it came out. Then Spider-Man 3 came out, and suddenly everyone hates the Sam Raimi movies, something I heard all the time when the reboot was coming out. I also think X-Men 2 is a good movie, but I do find it a bit overrated. Outside of that, the movies kind of sucked. Ang Lee's Hulk was a disaster. It went off on tangents, it was boring and had a terrible villain that was basically an insult to the Hulk's comic book origins, something I read religiously as a kid. I hate the Fantastic Four movies, but I won't say any more: that's another review. After the hatred spawned from the crap-tastic Spider-Man 3 and X-Men 3, Marvel decided to make a change. Marvel Studios decided they were going to make their own movies, and they would be distributed by Paramount. They were going to feature characters from the Avengers in their own films and finally tie together into an Avengers movie. Many doubted it would happen, simply because such an idea was crazy. Crossover movies are few and far between. How would they get all of the actors back together? Well, it did happen. I've already said I love The Avengers, but the same is not necessarily true for all of the movies. I'm going to review them all in the next few days, so stay tuned.                    

The Walking Dead

This show and I have a love-hate relationship. The first season was overall really good. It was spearheaded by the great Frank Darabont, the man who brought us The Shawshank Redemption and The Green Mile. The storytelling was strong, the acting was good, and it was an overall good show. So make a blog post off of a show I clearly have little to say? Well, season 2 ain't so good. And we're going to take a look. Please note: SPOILERS!

First off, there is some behind the scenes stuff to take care of. Immediately following the season finale, Darabont insisted on firing the entire writing staff. Why? No idea. The staff created six episodes of quality television. Frank Darabont is not known for his modesty, but even this was a weird play from left field. Even now, no explanation was given as to why this happened, but it was a factor working against the quality of season 2. Next up was a huge shock: the firing of Frank Darabont. It was originally thought Darabont had quit the show, but it was revealed that AMC had fired him. The budget was cut as well, even though this season was going to have 12 episodes instead of 6. Then it was reported that a cast member had asked to be written out of the show (the events of the season do not to contradict that report) Needless to say the odds were against this show to follow up with a good second season. But, with the highly competent Glen Mazzara hired to replace Darabont, there was hope. How did the show work?

To be honest, the season is largely very boring. But wait! How could a show about zombies possibly be boring? Even if the story is good, at least there will be some good zombie action, right? Well no. There were zombies, but they were often few and far between. Let me go on record and say no of this criticism applies to the last two episodes of season 2. They were great and restored my faith in the series. The rest of the season suffered from deadly slow pacing. In the first episode, Sofia, a little girl runs away from the group. Six episodes later, she is found (spoilers) as a zombie. The problem was that the search for her was so tedious and borderline non existent. Only one character really looked for her. A character which fell off a cliff looking for her and suffered hallucinations, only to come back to camp  later. What was the point of that episode? Good question. The next problem was the setting. The first season showed the group living somewhat of a nomadic existence. They went from camp to camp, and even went to the CDC building. This season puts them on a farm where zombies apparently don't like to go. I was bored of this farm three episodes in. Little did I know, I had thirteen more episodes to endure. I kept waiting for them to leave, and they refused. It was here you can see the behind the scenes trouble. There was just no direction and there was a clear emphasis on saving pennies rather than making good television with what they had. My TV broadcasting professor even used season 2 of The Walking Dead as an example of a TV show "doing it on the cheap." Finally, the characters. They get real annoying this time, especially Lori. The whole series featured a love triangle between Rick, Lori and Shane. In one episode, Lori tells Rick it may be best to kill Shane, because he poses a threat. And Rick does that, and tells Lori. And, in my one criticism of the season finale, Lori hits Rick and starts crying.

...

...

...

...

...Did they actually READ that part before they filmed it? He does exactly what she says and she hates him for it. Lori is the worst character this season. Here is a scenario. Hershel takes off from the farm and Rick goes after him. Lori starts to worry and drives in pursuit of him. She hits a zombie, and her car flips 360 degrees in the air and crashes. Rick knows what's he doing. And if he was gone a while, he was probably dead. Looking for him will not bring him back and will only put you in danger. Oh, and drivers in cars which flip like that generally die. Just sayin'. Carl is also annoying. They could have picked a competent child actor but noooooo. They picked a kid who seems like Keanu Reeves' less talented baby brother. Hershel gets on my nerves, as does his family. At the very least, they could have had zombies, but as I said before, they were few and far between. Sometimes they were cool and threatening, but other times they were just filler. A zombies shows up, kill it, move on. There was no drama, and no stakes at all. But as I said, the last two episodes restored my faith, that above flaw aside. Season 3 premieres next month, and I will review every episode of it, warts and all. It will be fun, it will be painful. Let's just hope this season continues the tempo from the last two episodes. Don't let me down Glen Mazzara.

The Summer In Review-UPDATE

The Amazing Spider-Man

All right, I forgot this one. Not surprised, it is kind of forgettable. Don't get me wrong, I liked a lot of it. Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone were great, as was Rhys Ifan. The plot worked well and I thought it was a good alternate look at Spidey. But this movie was lazy. We never find out what Peter's father was working on (that good ol' "save it for the sequel" pet peeve again), the Lizard, one of my favourite villains was weak with bad CGI. The 3D, which was supposed great was weak, and they killed George Stacey too early in the series. They also forgot to include Spider-Man's quips. He didn't make jokes in the last series, he was supposed to here, and they didn't really do that, except for that one scene. Uncle Ben's death scene was bad. It happened too quickly and didn't really affect me emotionally. And the crane scene sucked. Overall a moderately good reboot, but left a LOT to be desired. 2.5 Stars

Planet Of The Apes (2001)

I was channel surfing this morning and noticed this turd was showing on FX. There's something about this awful movie that intrigues me, probably the fact that Tim Burton could direct something this laughably bad. I don't know why but whenever this movie is on TV, I just HAVE to watch it. The original movie, while cheesy still carried some weight. It was a social commentary first, and an action movie second. This movie is nothing  but a summer blockbuster, and a weak one at that. 

The movie stars Mark "Marky Mark" Wahlberg as Captain Leo Davidson,  an astronaut who crash lands his small pod on said Planet of the Apes after going through a wormhole in space. He sees that humans are dominated by apes on this planet, lead by a chimpanzee named General Thade (Tim Roth) Now that's all well and good, but the biggest problem is the apes themselves. They are absolute morons, and Tim Burton has them act very weird. The prosthetic makeup is excellent, but the actors are completely over the top to the point where it's laughable. They hoot and holler, bounce around, quip about absolutely nothing and overall make idiots of themselves. The worst part is that a lot of the actors playing the apes are capable of better. I'm a huge fan of Tim Roth, and truth be told he's the only one who escapes with some dignity. The rest, not so much. Michael Clarke Duncan, Helena Bonham Carter and Paul Giamatti do not demonstrate much of anything. Marky Mark really gives no effort. I used to be critical of him, but I've come to recognize that he can act when given the right script. In the movie, he realizes that his crew went through the wormhole  after him, but after crash landing the apes on board their ship revolted, which began their conquest of the planet. Through this whole explanation, Marky Mark shows no emotion. He just wears a blank Keanu Reeves style face the whole time before starting the human rebellion. Estelle Harris is his love interest. This was her first movie and she sucks in it, and sucks hard. She never had a career in acting: probably for the best. Oh, and that kid was so, so terrible. The story is also dumb.The ending is pretty infamous in the worst way. It comes out of nowhere, and makes no sense at all. It was used to set up a sequel, which is a pet peeve of mine. I understand wanting to set up a sequel, but that should not be how you end your movie. Create a satisfying, sensical conclusion to your story, and hint at future trouble. The Hunger Games did it right. Peeta and Katniss are together, and both win the Games. They go home, but there is a hint of trouble from President Snow. Done. The story is over, but there is a setup for more material. This movie doesn't have that. A sequel was never made, so we have no clue what that ending meant. Finally this movie was straight up boring. The stakes didn't work because you don't care about the characters. The direction is shoddy with random scenes just popping up and the apes making random noises and doing random things because Burton thought it was funny. Well, there is nothing funny about this mess. It's a lame and uninspired remake which isn't even good for a few thrills. Thankfully, we have 2011's excellent Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes, which proved this franchise still has fire. I took the CGI apes in that movie much more seriously than the actors playing the apes here because the filmmakers took it seriously. They didn't try to be cheesy, they told a serious dramatic story which worked very well. I have no more to say. This movie is a black stain on Tim Burton's career, but the movie is oddly watchable. It must be seen to be believed. The corniness and cheese are heaped on, making a movie that's so bad it's awesome. If you want to see it, prepare to laugh. It's a very funny movie, but for all the wrong reasons. Take it away Charlton Heston:

The Summer In Review

It's Labour Day weekend, meaning the summer of 2012 is sadly over, and the summer blockbusters are gone as well. I'm going to review every movie I've seen this summer. I didn't see quite as many as I did last year, but that was just because less movies interested me this year. Still, I some good ones. Each one I saw will get a review, and and a score out of five. I am writing them in the order I saw them.

The Hunger Games

Okay, this was not a summer movie, but I saw it in May.This was a surprise. I had no interest in seeing this movie at all. I was just expecting to be more Twilight teenage bait crap. I did see it, for no other reason than for me to hate it and be the voice of reason to anyone who liked it. How wrong I was. The Hunger Games is a brilliant movie. Katniss Everden is not Bella Swann. Katniss is tough, resourceful and smart, yet flawed in some ways. In other words, she is a believable, three dimensional character. And of course, Jennifer Lawrence's portrayal is excellent. The entire cast is great, even Josh Hutcherson. I've not been impressed with him in the past, but I liked him here, and I thought the romance actually really worked. I also liked the social satire. It's scathing in some ways, taking on our culture of reality shows. Picture American Idol with children killing each other. The movie is not perfect. The action sucks with the over emphasis on shaky camera work. It makes the fight scenes unwatchable, and actually strained my eyes at times. Nevertheless, I had a blast with this movie. It surprised me with its acting and story, and I'm excited for the next one. 4 Stars.

The Avengers 

Now we're talking! Ever heard the saying "Check your brain at the door?" It's what Michael Bay apologists say about crappy movies with big CGI and no story. Yeah, this movie represented Joss Whedon giving that statement the middle finger. Yes, this is a movie about superheroes teaming up to stop an enemy who wants to take over the world. But Whedon put effort into it, and that's all I ask. He gave us likeable characters, and he gave us a good story. I like all of the movies that led up to this movie, and I couldn't have asked for a better crossover. No complaints. Brilliant work Mr. Whedon. 5 Stars.

Battleship

I saw this piece of crap because I had too. I'd been following the trailers for ages, marvelling at how bad this movie could be. It didn't disappoint. There is no plot of which to speak of, there is no acting of which to speak of, and there is no movie of which to speak of. There is nothing but boring CGI. It's complete crap. Negative 5 Stars. 

Prometheus 

Great acting, great direction, great story, weak screenplay. I love the plot, don't get me wrong. I love the philosophical questions, especially in regards to religion. It doesn't force the questions, it just asks them, and I love that. The cast is brilliant, Michael Fassenbender especially. But the script.... dear oh dear. There are plot holes to be sure, but the problem is the character's actions. They act like complete idiots at times. Especially the guys in the caves, but I won't elaborate. There are big problems, but it's a good movie anyway. The overall plot and direction make up for the script problems. 3 Stars.

The Dark Knight Rises

I already reviewed this movie, so I'm not going to say much more. Excellent movie, if flawed. 4.5 Stars

The Expendables 2 

Again, I already reviewed this movie, so I don't have much to say. It's a stupid movie, but the references make it a blast. I know it's contrary to what I said about The Avengers and making an effort, but I don't care. This is the exception. It's a fun movie. 3 Stars.

The Expendables 2

Is this a good movie? Not really. Is it worth watching? Oh yeah. I'm not even going to talk about the plot or the acting. This is good late summer fun and great for fans of classic action movies, such as myself. Let me just give you some of my highlights.

-Jason Statham disguises himself as a priest when the bad guys (Not going to elaborate. They're just the bad guys) come in. He says "By the power invested in me, I now pronounce you... man and knife." He then starts throwing knives at the guys in a very well shot action scene.

-Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bruce Willis and Chuck Norris are actually IN the movie.

-Sylvester Stallone and his men are getting shot at in an abandoned city. The bad guys have a tank too. It's hopeless until the bad guys start getting shot at, and their tanks blow up. No no knows who did it.... and then they see Chuck Norris walking down the road, to the theme from The Good, The Bad And The Ugly.

-Schwarzengger yells "I'm back!" They then play the Terminator theme song for a couple of seconds.

-Chuck Norris tells the story of when he was bitten by a cobra. "After five days of excruciating pain.... the cobra died." Yes, this movie has an actual Chuck Norris fact in it.

-Schwarzenegger and Willis are shooting at people from behind a car. Here is the exact dialogue from the scene:
Schwarzenegger: "Stay here, I'll be back!"
Willis: "You've been back enough. I'll be back." (He leaves)
Schwarzenegger: "Yippee-ki-ay!"
(Chuck Norris approaches him)
Schwarzenegger: "Who's next, Rambo?"

-Jean-Claude Van Damne sucks hard, but tries his absolute best to be cool and threatening. Hey, that's why we love him.

-Director Simon West actually uses a tripod when filming an action scene.

-The movie is self aware. The first one was too serious. This one is fun.

The Worst NHL Jerseys/Logos Of All Time

I've been wanting to do this for a while. I love hockey, always have. I've always loved logos and jerseys. I love how they give a team their identity and spirit. I find most logos are good. Some however are not so good, and I want to look at those ones today. A bad logo with a good jersey will make my list, as will a good logo with a bad jersey. I've got 15 of them, so here we go.

(Dis)honourable Mention- St. Louis Blues Unused Third Jersey

This one is bad in so many ways I don't even know where to begin. Where is the logo here? The trumpets? Maybe, but they're way too big and not in the middle of the jersey like they should be. Why are there musical notes on the sleeves? For the arena's organist? Notice this just an honourable mention. It has to be, because it was never released. Blues Coach-GM at the time Mike Keenan personally vetoed this jersey, thankfully. Good thing too, because this would easily have been enough to win the trophy for worst of all time.

15. Edmonton Oilers Home Jersey

I never got the rhyme or reason behind these jerseys. There is way too much blue and the orange stripes look like they were slapped in on the last second. There is no real coherency. They don't look cool or threatening in any way. Thankfully the Oilers had the sense to dump these jerseys after a couple years, but they live on as Edmonton's third jersey. 

14. Carolina Hurricanes Home Jersey

I have no issues with the jersey here. It's the logo that bugs me. What is it? Does it remind you of a hurricane? Not really. It looks more like a bunch of squiggly lines drawn by a kindergardener. What is the black oval in the middle? A puck? The eye of the storm? I don't know, this logo is just too abstract for my taste.

13. Boston Bruins Third Jersey

An oldie but a baddie. I hate that colour of yellow and I hate the weird black trim. But the logo kills it here. They could have a created a threatening Vancouver Grizzlies style logo, but instead went with a bear which looks like Winnie The Pooh. Seriously isn't that the nicest, most peaceful bear you've ever seen? Aw, he's a got a little smile, isn't that cute? Sure to strike fear in the hearts of the opponent. So cute!

12. Vancouver Canucks Third Jersey

A stick on an ice rink. That forms a "C" for Canucks. Clever? No. I know it's retro, but still.

11. Dallas Stars 

Uhm, you actually need a logo for me to judge it. Shame on you Dallas.

10. Atlanta Thrashers Home Jersey

Thrashers Owner: "You know what our colour needs to be? Baby blue! That's threatening! Oh, and put 'Atlanta' on one of the arms. Just so people know where we're from.

9. Florida Panthers Third Jersey

I'd say why creating a third jersey with different team colours is a bad idea, but I think Tomas Vokoun's  pads clashing with the jersey do that for me. 

8. Ottawa Senators Third Jersey 

God I hate these jerseys. I hated them from the second I saw them  and I hate them now. Well the jersey is good enough and actually kind of unique. It's the logo. "Sens?" That was the best they could do? Yes, that's their nickname, but do you think someone in Minnesota or Columbus knows that? What's wrong with the full name, or actually a logo? The Senators should know better. Note: when I started doing this list, I had no done no research in jerseys: I was just doing what I knew. I had every intention of declaring these jerseys the worst of all time. Ottawa should be glad these abominations are worse.

7. Vancouver Canucks Third Jersey

Oh look, another Canucks jersey. Fun. This one is just an eyesore. The yellow looks like it belongs on a minor league jersey and the Halloween colours on the "V" just don't work. This franchise has not had a good run on uniforms. 

6. Nashville Predators Third Jersey

Now that is puke yellow if I ever saw it. That is such a terrible colour that it almost distracts from the terrible logo. It tries to look tough, but it so cartoony that it looks more like a Pokemon than a sabretooth tiger. It is the weakest attempt at looking badass I've ever seen. 

5. Los Angeles Kings Third Jersey 

They actually forced The Great One to wear this terrible thing? First off, logos belong in the centre, not in the top left corner. A gradient stripe down the chest like that does not work, and no king I've ever seen has a purple beard. This is so cheesy that I'm amazed it actually got on the ice.

4. Buffalo Sabres: 

This is probably one of the most hated logos in NHL history. In years past, the Sabres had blue and yellow as their colours, but they changed it to red and black in the 90's. There was much hype over a return to blue and yellow, and fans were crushed by this terrible thing. It has been dubbed "The Slug" by fans, some one whom created websites demanding  it be taken away. I always thought it looked more like a football logo, and apparently I'm not alone. I found this online:

Thankfully, this logo is gone, replaced by the Sabres' classic logo.

3. Anaheim Mighty Ducks Third Jersey

Once upon a time, Disney was awarded an NHL team to play in Anaheim, called the Mighty Ducks. The marketed the hell out of it, even creating an animated cartoon featuring humanoid ducks who play hockey and fight crime. Sounds normal to me. 

Why does this matter? Because Wild Wing, the star of the show is the subject of this jersey. That's right, a Disney character is featured on an NHL jersey. The result? A cartoony mess. No pun intended. 

2. New York Islanders

These things get mocked to this day, almost twenty years after they were retired. That is Captain Highliner on the logo. Why is Captain Highliner on the logo? Why is he holding a hockey stick? True story: whenever the Islanders visited the rival New York Rangers wearing these jerseys, Ranger fans would chant "We want fish sticks!" Good times.

1. Tampa Bay Lightning Third Jersey 

So. We have an image of waves on the ocean, Tampa's logo as an actual lightning bolt, laughably bad looking "rain," cartoonish looking lightning on the sleeves and numbers which look they're made of ocean spray. Can you see why I consider this the worst jersey of all time?