Breaking Hollywood

Giving cr@ppy movies a kick in the family jewels

[breakinghollywood-blog]

ARGO is one of the year's best. Period.

HOT DAMN. Those were the first two words that came out of my mouth last night from watching Argo. This is going to be one of those films where I couldn't find anything wrong with it, and I'm going to spend the next few paragraphs explaining why you should you drop what you're doing (including performing brain surgery) and go see this movie. This wonderful piece of celluloid comes to us via Ben Affleck (second best comeback story of the millennium after Robert Downey Jr.), the Iranian Hostage Crisis, and one of the ballsiest schemes in the history of international espionage.

"So you say, 'Oh Ben, you're so awesome' and then I say, 'I know'."

The year is 1979, and Iran is in turmoil. The sadistic and brutal dictatorship of the Shah has been overthrown by Islamic revolutionaries, but the Shah flees into the protection of the United States. In anger, several Iranian students storm the US Embassy in Tehran and take 52 Americans hostage for a grueling 444 days. Unknown to the rest of the world, 6 Americans escaped from the embassy during the takeover to hide out in the Canadian ambassador's house. With Canada preparing to pullout of Iran as well, the CIA is asked to come up with a way to get the six out. Thus, Tony Mendez (Ben Affleck) concocts a cover story with his friend and co-conspirator John Chambers (John Goodman) to pose himself and the others as a Canadian film crew location scouting in Iran for a Star Wars knockoff called Argo. Did I mention this was a true story?

As far as cover stories go, posing as a film crew in a hostile country would probably be the last thing any spy would even consider going with; but as the old saying goes, "it's so batshit crazy, it just might work." Argo will go down in history as one of those historical biopics that will go down in infamy the way Gandhi, Schindler's List, and Ray have. Not just because it tells an amazingly true story, but because it tells the truth well.

Not as well as that time in Tijuana 

History films always have an inherent problem to them: most people will know the ending or most of the details of said story. The less-skilled docu-drama will offer bland performances and no tension. But the master strokes come from those that never let up the tension while delivering great performances from the lead. Argo does something different, by allowing the entire cast to deliver strong performances since this true tale was not carried by a single man but by many.

At the helm, we have Affleck as CIA exfiltrator Tony Mendez (yes Affleck is not Hispanic, no it doesn't take anything away from the movie) who hatches the fake movie scheme. He and the six hostages deliver no nonsense performances, appropriate given the circumstances they find themselves in. We have a fun performance by Alan Arkin as a cynical Hollywood director delivering awesome one-liners throughout the movie, and Brian "Walter White" Cranston as Affleck's handler who also gives weight to his performance in a year that found him in an absolute dreck. And of course, John Goodman does an amazing job as John Chambers and will likely show people the man who was famous for creating Spock's ears was also a decorated civilian by the CIA. 

"I'm kind of a big deal" "In more ways than one - ZING!"

But aside from giving a solid performance, Affleck's true strength lies in his directing. I can now proudly list Affleck next to Chris Nolan, Steven Spielberg, Alfonso Cuaron, Alfred Hitchcock, and Stanley Kubrick as one of my all-time favorite directors. Yeah, that would have felt strange typing that sentence a decade ago during his...shitty years. But now I have no problem saying that with this movie, The Town, and Gone Baby Gone under his belt. 

The film moves at a crisp pace, with powerful imagery and camera work when there's no dialogue (and if you stick through the credits, you'll find they were based on truth). When there is dialogue, there's a surprising amount of laughs and dark humor to be found through the movie along with some choice dialogue that I will long remember to quote at parties (don't judge me). Even though he's in the lead role, Affleck is a humble enough director to allow the rest of his cast to shine. Particularly when it comes to the six escapees who all convey their respective frustration, fear, and paranoia in the hell they found themselves in.

"Look I already told you, we don't know Matt Damon. And we certainly don't know about this coke with his name on it"

And as I mentioned earlier, tension was key to this movie's success. Even though a few people back in the day remember that six embassy employees escaped from the hostage takeover, the film never gives you a moment to think "oh these guys are going to be ok." Several threatening guards and hostile civilians are a constant reminder that the seven's lives are in danger, with the neat addition of good old fashioned suspense from pursuing antagonists near the end of the movie. You are invested in what happens to these people, and you are along for one hell of a ride.

Oscar buzz is already surrounding this movie and it is well deserved. Argo will definitely make my top 10 of the year, and it will be an entertaining ride for you if you haven't sat in a theater in a while. Grab a ticket, kick the seat back, and enjoy. 

[breakinghollywood-blog]

SINISTER will add gasoline to the fire of your nightmares

It’s been a good long while since a horror film really got to me. Don’t get me wrong, The Cabin in the Woods was and still is an awesome movie, but it never really scared me (but it did make me laugh). So along comes the unassuming Sinister to give me night terrors since Paranormal Activity 4 sure as hell won’t. Good thing too, I really need to get some sleep without seeing a psycho killer from a movie I just watched.

Man, I'm never going back to that Red Box

Today’s screwed individual is Elison Oswalt (Ethan Hawke), a true crime novelist who has come to a small town to investigate the grisly murder of an entire family as well as the disappearance of said family’s daughter for his new book. Elison is so confident in his investigative abilities that he doesn’t mind pissing off distrusting officers and is sure he can solve the murder and uncover the location of the missing daughter. But in doing so, he comes across a collection of Super 8 films that record the family’s murder as well as the ritual killing of other families. The only connection between the films is a bizarre insignia and a creepy looking figure barely seen off various reflections. Of course tits go up when Elison finds his family stalked by the same figure.

So we’ve got a neat spin on the tired old found footage genre, where instead of solely watching someone’s home video collection, we follow the person discovering said collection and his descent into chaos for it. The videos Ellison finds are disturbing to say the least (pants-shitting terror is a more accurate description). The gruesome deaths are barely seen through the reflection of Elison’s glasses or they go out of focus when the victim is a child. All the while, an ominous figure lurks in the background...

How YOU doin'?

This people is what I call EFFECTIVE horror - you’re only given barely enough information and your mind does the rest. You see, it’s human nature to imagine the worst when presented with a terrifying situation. A mediocre horror film will try to get a reaction from you through gore and blood, but the good one will hand you a taser and encourage you to shock your own genitalia.

The encouragement for this pain comes through a creepy atmosphere. The soundtrack and lighting of the film contribute to a spectacular feeling of dread that infects your very soul. And as our proxy, Elison reacts with the right amount of disbelief, fear, and shock that anyone would face in a similar situation. Props all go to Ethan Hawke for giving such a pitch perfect performance, especially for his first scary movie.

"Awesome, can I please fucking go home now, you lunatic?"

The rest of the cast add to the film in their own ways. Juliet Rylance plays Elison's frustrated wife, who really gives a human element to the terror that grounds the film firmly in the real world even as we go into supernatural crazy town. Meanwhile, James Ransone plays a nameless deputy that initially serves as the comic relief but quickly proves himself to be much smarter than he initially lets on. Then there are the kids. Kids can be the kiss of a death to a movie if they suck at acting (See: Star Wars Episode I). But here the kids do a great job of handling the situation they are in, even when it's as mundane as eating dinner at the family table.

The characters truly sell the movie, and keep you invested in the movie. Otherwise, the horrible things that happen to them mean jack shit. So much credit must be given to C. Robert Cargill for writing such a great script with Scott Derickson, the director. While Elison isn't all that likable, you're still curious as to what happens to him because he's so interesting in his march towards oblivion. It's a hard task to write a character like that, so much so filmmakers rarely try the stunt. But Cargill and Derickson rise to the challenge and succeed.

Worst. Sleepover. Ever.

I have a few quibbles with the movie that stop it from infamy, but that mostly goes to the jump scares. I've never been a fan, because going "peek-a-boo!" isn't scary, it's just cheap and startling. That and I wanted to see more creepy shit happen to Ellison rather than having some anti-climatic moments that happen to his son.

Even with those complaints, the film is still creepy as hell and well worth your time if you're looking for a good scare for once in the theaters.

[breakinghollywood-blog]

Welcome to HOTEL TRANSYLVANIA (such a lovely place)

Well, this is a bizarre surprise...I'm updating again! Yes people, I'm back with reviewing movies again. Please excuse the long absence, but alas I had to take (and pass like a pro) my bar exam to begin a day job. But you're not here for that, you're here for my night job, my Batman job, my film critic job. So let's jump in with a two-fer this week starting with Hotel Transylvania.

This is going to end well

It's a pretty simple setup: Dracula (Adam Sandler of all people) has set up his castle as a hotel for monsters like Frankenstein (Kevin James [shutters]), the Invisible Man (David Spade [didn't know he's still alive], Wolfman (Steve Badass Buscemi) and the Mummy (Cee-Lo Green?) to give them a place for some R&R free from the EVIL humans that seek to hurt them (you may have heard this setup before, but stick with me there's more to it). Meanwhile, Drac has a daughter named Mavis (Selena Gomez) who has longed to go out to see the world but can't due to her overprotective father. Things get more complicated when Drac has to deal with a random human thrill seeker (Andy Samberg) who Mavis becomes smitten with. As they say, wackiness ensues.

So we've got a long list of stars attached to this movie, and a goodly number of them have all appeared in Sandler's crap collection Happy Madison movies. And while lately those films have been shitting a hole straight through the floor, the whole gang comes together to make something decent, and dare I say, fun. When the cast interacts with each other, you can hear the chemistry flow between everyone and you can hear how much fun they are having. So what's so different this time, that makes this film so enjoyable? Is it because it's animated?

OH GOD NOT AGAIN!!!

Not at all, credit goes to one of the creators of my childhood - Genndy Tartakovsky - who made classics like Samurai Jack, Dexter's Laboratory, Powerpuff Girls, and the first Clone Wars cartoon series. Tartakovsky has always had a knack for children's comedy, and his jokes work really well because they're cute. There's really no other word I can use to describe this movie's comedy, it's just cute. Not crass, not toilet humor, just cute. It's not perfect, but it makes parent, kid, and everyone in between laugh or chuckle just the same. 

But Tartakovsky's true mastery lies in his animation abilities. The dramatic angles and flight sequences used throughout give the film some much needed flair that helps it stand out. But the way the characters move in the film are special, mostly because the movement matches the personality/character it's meant for. Cee-Lo's Mummy is wild and zany, so he bounces around a bit, James' Frank is a lumbering oaf (much like Kevin James in real life *zing!), and Dracula glides around the floor as if his feet never move (makes sense for the control freak Sandler portrays). 

The visuals and jokes were enough to keep me entertained, but this is by no means a great film (just good). The story is pretty weak, in that it usually serves as set ups for various gags in the movie, and it wraps up kind of awkwardly since the resolution was a bit too rushed and abrupt. Can't win'em all.

Maybe the production team had to get back to their vacation

But the movie was fun enough for me to recommend to people who have an afternoon free, especially for parents who want to take their kids to movie and not watch something that resembles a lobotomy. Check it out.

[breakinghollywood-blog]

Batman Ascends in THE DARK KNIGHT RISES

Few film trilogies are considered great, despite Hollywood's repeated and embarrassing attempts to jump start new franchises every goddamn fortnight. But while there's no shortage of screw-ups, series like Back to the Future, Start Wars (original, not that prequel garbage), Toy Story, and Lord of the Rings are exceedingly rare. Those rare trilogies that told a sweeping story across multiple movies and did it amazingly well. Now you can add a new trilogy to that list: Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight Series.

The Dark Knight Rises is the satisfying conclusion to the Batman story that began in 2005 with Batman Begins and continued in 2008 with The Dark Knight. Once again, Christopher Nolan (my savior) takes the reign for a Batman movie for the final time, as he puts together a fantastic cast with a great story that ends the journey for Bruce Wayne. And seeing as how I'm running out of ways to say "end" and how the trailers keep reminding us that this is a "conclusion", you can probably surmise this is something way different than what we are used to.

"What I'm trying to say is, I WILL BREAK YOU"

Ever since Superman showed up on the movie scene, comic book films rarely seem conclusive. Much like their source material, each film is a self-contained story that leaves plot points or characters available to return in a subsequent installment. Granted this format of storytelling leads to all sort of problems, especially if you've been keeping up with comics in the past decade or so. For those of you who are not comic readers, allow me to neatly sum up superhero comics now: they never FUCKING end. It's a broad statement to be sure, but there's plenty of truth to it. Characters live on and on and on and on to infinity and beyond. There's hardly any resolution to anything that happens to comic characters and now their film counterparts are going through similar motions. And that's why Rises is so different.

This is truly a bookend to a story that featured the same core cast (well mostly) and director detailing the rise, growth and fall of a superhero. And the fall, the hero's end, is perhaps the most interesting. Without wishing to spoil anything, this is the end of the line for Bruce Wayne and the quest he began in 2005 to avenge the death of his parents. But all the themes from Batman Begins return to bring a sense of accomplishment both for the mission of Batman and the triumph of Christopher Nolan along with his cast.

"It ain't no thang"

Twelve years have passed since the events of The Dark Knight, and Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) has become a hermit from the city of Gotham and Batman has not been seen in years. Because of the dark secret both Batman and Commissioner Gordon (Gary "The Man" Oldman) carry as a result of the Two-Face's actions, the police have become well armed and several laws were passed to prevent organized crime members from getting back on the streets. But a new threat arrives with the enigmatic and intimidating Bane (Tom Hardy), who has special plans for Gotham and Bruce Wayne. And that's all you're getting from me, lest I get messaged with SPOILER WARNINGS!

The performances across the board are stunning. Christian Bale doesn't don the Batman mask as much as he used to in the other two movies (more on that later) so you follow him in his Bruce Wayne persona as you find him broken physically, emotionally, mentally, and just plain financially broke. To convey such anguish and frustration would be a daunting task for any actor, but Bale rises (sorry) to the challenge. 

Mr. Bale would like to thank the Academy before he roundhouse kicks you

Equally great are fantastic small scenes featuring Oldman as Gordon, and Michael Caine going for broke with four emotionally heavy sequences. Joining them is the rising star (I really can't help myself, somebody do something) Joseph Gordon-Lewitt, AKA the kid from 3rd Rock from the Sun. That's mean, because he's been kicking ass in several movies like Hesher, Brick, and Nolan's own Inception. He plays an entirely new character for the film that never existed in the comics, a cop named John Blake. He walks away with many a great action scenes that will surely show any action director this guy has the chops for stunts and carrying tough drama.

So what about the big bad? Bane. Oh boy. I really dug the hell out of Bane. Tom Hardy creates the unholy love child between Heath Ledger's Joker and Darth Fucking Vader. He's ingenious, a master tactician, and worse of all, he commands every scene he's in. Due to Hardy wearing a mask, Bane's dialogue is dubbed over with Hardy's voice, but it's dubbed over the soundtrack as well. This gives an impression of Bane being everywhere and anywhere at once. But his great moments shine when he calmly and effectively destroys Batman systematically, and it's practically horrifying to watch.

Michelle Pfeiffer, eat your heart out

But it's really Anne Hathaway who steals the show as Selina Kyle, AKA Catwoman. And allow me to say that this is the best version of the character that has ever been done in any medium, be it film, video game, or television. Hatheway is a clever, capable fighter who is equally brilliant in escaping from tough situations while still pushing her own agenda throughout the film. 

Cinematography is glorious. See this film in IMAX anyway you can. The loud battle sequences that sprawl across the entire city are simply glorious to behold. The final 45 minutes of this nearly 3 hour epic are the best part with a bombastic last confrontation between the heroes and villains. 

"What did you say?!" "I said you momma's so fat!" "What?!"

The story is a powerful one, but it's not without its flaws. There are two moments where characters aren't behaving the way you would think they would upon receiving certain information. And while I spent a good paragraph gushing over Bane, he still lacks the force of nature and charisma that Heath Ledger brought in The Dark Knight. But make no mistake, Bane is still the best kind of villain for Batman to have faced for his last hurrah because he's the Anti-Batman. He's the physical and intellectual equal to Batman, and sometimes superior to him. It helps raise the stakes throughout the entire movie as it draws to it's spellbinding climax.

I felt like shedding a tear at the end of the movie. Both out of sadness and joy. Sad that Christopher Nolan and his wonderful cast will no longer return to Gotham City even after they gave three go-for-broke films that have truly changed the world of cinema. Don't believe me? After The Dark Knight was snubbed by the Oscars in 2008, the Academy changed its policies the following year to admit even more movies in the Best Picture category. A policy that would have certainly brought the film into the category. I have no doubt that this film will trigger a different, but no less significant reaction from Hollywood.

I promised myself I wouldn't cry

But I am still joyful, because I saw a fantastic conclusion to a character that is very near and dear to my heart. What's more, the film carries an important theme different than the other two. Because as low as we can fall, as much as all hope would seem lost, we can still rise (no apologies there) above our weaknesses and accomplish our goals. The Dark Knight Rises is officially my favorite film of the summer. Go forth, and ascend with Batman.

[breakinghollywood-blog]

A Critic and his Dad

One of my earliest memories about movies was hearing my dad talk about Back to the Future while we played Monopoly with my mom. I think I was 4 or 5 at the time, and he talked about these time traveling adventures. As a four-year-old that was all I wanted to know about a movie so I asked my dad if I could see it. The following weekend, he bought the Back to the Future Trilogy on VHS and gave them to me. We watched the first together on that lazy Sunday afternoon; and when it was done, I wanted to see what came next. My dad showed me how to use the VCR and I saw the final two films back-to-back. It was around my bedtime when I finished, and I don't think I went to sleep that night because of all the ideas that were swimming around in my head because of that movie.

I relate this story because 20 years later, my love of films have grown only stronger and I still have sleepless nights after watching an amazing film because my mind is so filled with ideas and thoughts about the movie. And to think all of this started because my dad just nonchalantly brought a movie up in a conversation with his family while playing a board game with them. 

But the spark for my love of films wasn't the only thing my dad did. He taught me how to mature and how to pursue a dream, impossible and distant as they seemed. He provided me a great home to live in, as he took care of his wife, my two brothers, and me.

When I bombed a test in high school, he just told me to stop worrying about it and try harder next time. When I did poorly on my LSAT and believed I was never going to get into law school, my dad told me that this was only my first loss as an attorney - as attorneys lose some cases and win others. When I was brokenhearted after a breakup, my dad cheered me up. 

For this and for so much more, I'm grateful for every day that my dad is in my life. And I am more grateful that I can spend Father's Day with him. 

Happy Father's Day, Papi

And I hope you all have a great day with the dads in your life

[breakinghollywood-blog]

PROMETHEUS Brings the Fire Back to Sci-Fi Horror

It's been a good long while since Ridley Scott has made me excited in my pants. The man has made a fantastic name for himself in the past decade as the director for gritty or historical dramas, and oddly working with Russell Crowe like five times. But the man was also known for helping herald in an age of mature, pensive, and sometimes pant-shittingly terrifying science fiction movies. His crown jewels for this genre are Blade Runner (one that has SEVEN versions of the film) and of course, Alien. And after two decades of silence in this genre, Scott comes back with Prometheus, and god DAMN does it kick ass.

"This looks like a completely inviting and not at all ominous locale"

We follow the exploits of the crew of Prometheus, an intergalactic spaceship capable of interstellar travel, as they travel to a far off moon to search for the alien creators of humans. So, they're basically searching for God but they're doing it way more hardcore than any Evangelical's journey. Aboard the crew are a pair of married archaeologists (Noomi Rapace and Logan Marshall-Green), a deadpan corporate woman (Charlize Theron), a smart ass pilot (Idris Elba), and an off-putting android named David (Michael Goddamn Fassbender). But as the crew searches the moon for their creators, they stumble upon a terrifying secret...a horrible, body-invading, grotesque, and fucked-up secret.

Remember my complaints about Men in Black 3? Okay, specifically my complaint at how paper thin the science fiction was? Prometheus shows Will Smith how it's fucking done. All the technology, both human and alien, are carefully explored and explained. There's a reason behind all of it, and you can see how it would exist besides for that ONE situation the movie calls for. What's most interesting about the science fiction is what they DON'T tell you.

What I mean is that the film is telling a story within the movie without any words. You're supposed to infer the answer to these questions because it was written deliberately vague. Too often I've seen films leave gaping questions that are never addressed due to lazy writing. The characters of this film pose those questions, so we're left to work with them to figure it out. And Christ, there's some dark stuff to figure out.

Preferably with acid

See, the crew finds several of the aliens already dead. They slowly piece together what wiped them out, but it's nothing savory. This is where the all important horror elements pop up in the form of body invasions. Creatures penetrate and violate the humans in disturbing ways, serving as a twisted metaphor for sexual assault the way Alien did. Yes, Alien has VERY strong rape metaphors, but few think about it that way because the violation was happening to a man.All of this is intentional.

This next paragraph is going to get graphic and it's not-at-all humorous, but I still want to talk about it because it's such a critical part of the film. Rape is the most disgusting crime anyone can commit on another human being. It's absolutely revolting, leaving nightmares in the minds of several people (usually women). But both Prometheus and Alien subtly allude to this atrocity with it's tentacle-like monstrosities that slowly corrupt the bodies of their victims via non-consensual or forcible ways. And to take the horror to its natural conclusion in the way women fear getting pregnant as a result of a rape, both films feature a violent insemination and birth of a destructive creature.

To offset the mood, here's a picture of puppies

Consequently, this is how Prometheus shares the "DNA" of Alien as Ridley Scott so coyly alluded to in the billions of interviews he did in promoting the film. While you do see at the end of the movie that this whole movie was actually a prequel in disguise of the original Alien, I was more impressed that they took the original themes of body invasion, horror, and speculative science fiction to make something new and interesting. 

All of this is held together by an exceptional cast featuring some of my favorite actors and actresses. Much kudos to Noomi Rapace (aka the ORIGINAL Girl with the Dragon Tattoo) for carrying the lead. However, a friend and I discussed that she seemed a LOT like Ripley from the Alien series. She's athletic, intelligent, quick on her feet to get out of a shitty situation, and she suffers a similar fate that Ripley faced regarding the Aliens (fans of the series should know). Nonetheless, Rapace did a great job with the role, with Guy Pearce, Marshall-Green, Elba and Theron giving great supporting roles to complement her.

But the best performance goes to Michael Fassbender. Now Fassbender has been kicking major ass lately with awesome roles in Inglourious Basterds, X-Men: First Class, and Shame. Once again, he brings so much life into a character who's actually supposed to be an emotionless robot. What makes his performance memorable is both how smart-aleck he can be and how unnerving he is. He walks and talks like a human, but he's missing...something. A soul? An emotion? It's hard to nail down, but you can tell something's off about him, a fact that every character reacts to appropriately.

Every time he smiles, a puppy dies of fear

As icing on the cake, the script is solid and the special effects use a combination between real world locations, practical effects, and computer images to create a very realistic and very believable science fiction flick. Add in the fact that the story's tense and thought-provoking, and you have an amazing film.

Bottom line: see this movie in theaters. Is 3D necessary? Probably not. But the classic 2D format is still great looking, so definitely check it out. And get ready to squirm though some thoroughly messed up scenes. 

[breakinghollywood-blog]

MEN IN BLACK III goes back in time...to copy MEN IN BLACK I

Once upon a time, eons ago in the year of 1997, came a movie called Men in Black, which paired the Fresh Prince and the old, tough-as-nails Fugitive hunter as cops policing alien activity on Earth. It was a fun popcorn muncher when it came out, and inspired me to wear my first suit when I was only 10-years-old. Everyone cried out for a sequel and we got one: it was basically the same exact plot as the first only marketed with product placement up the whatever-aliens-call-ass. But it still made a ton of money, so another sequel was bound to come up and take the story in a fun, new direction...right?

"Sure, we did. But first, we'd like you to look into this little light" 

Oh foolish, foolish Ha-Ra. The only things they changed were just a different Agent K, a different bad guy, and a different time period. That's it. Don't believe me? When a lone alien (for the bad guy is ALWAYS alone for some reason in these movies) threatens Earth, it's up to Agent K to teach Agent J the ropes in his world of the Men in Black. And that sort of plot doesn't make any damn sense if you've already seen the first movie.

Some pretentious film snobs call this kind of a film suffering from "Sequelitis" but I prefer to give it a more appropriate name: "Ghostbusters Syndrome." See, Ghostbusters II starts the same way as Ghostbusters I: the team is down on it's luck, no one believes their ghost theories, Sigourney Weaver has a sexually tense relationship with Bill Murray even though they never fulfill it until the end, etc. And if you've seen the first movie, you start asking questions like: did the city of New York completely ignore the giant Stay Puff Marshmallow Man that stomped around Times Square? Did anybody see the ominous black sky in the middle of the day that was spewing pure evil? Was no one pissing their pants at the sights of ghosts all over the city?!

How could you miss the man with no dick?

Likewise, Men in Black III suffers from the same exact problem. They establish in the film that Agent J (Will Smith) has been with the Men in Black for 14 years, but in all that time Agent K (Tommy Lee Jones) barely talks to him and J has little idea about the more complex secrets of the agency EVEN when he's their top agent. So when K is killed in the past by his old arch nemesis, Boris the Animal (Jemaine Clement), J goes back in time to the 1960s to save K. In the process, he runs into K's younger self (Josh Brolin doing an honest-to-God amazing impression of Jones) who teaches J the ropes of working in 1960s New York to save the world.

So yes, it's Men in Black I all over again, but thankfully the film doesn't plunge to the depths that were sunk in Men in Black II mostly because they dialed the product placement down considerably. But since I've been ragging on the samey-ness of the series, let's pretend for the sake of argument that you really were hit with a neuralizer and have never seen the first two movies. How does this one stack up then? It's more of a "meh" film really.

Like watching a face made of mush...or just watching Tommy Lee Jones' face

At the film's heart, it's a sci-fi action comedy but the film only provides sparing amounts of each of those three genres. The jokes and one liners in this movie don't really entertain, only serving a chuckle or two throughout the whole film. But there's one bizarre moment (if you've seen the trailer, you know what I'm about to mention) where Will Smith says "I'd have no problem pimp smacking the shiznit out of Andy Warhol." Really, Will? Shiznit? No one hasn't used shiznit since before Facebook was even created. The Internet recorded it as a word around 2003...and...shut up, I'm at least doing more research than what the writers or Will Smith did when coming up with dialogue. 

The action's hit and miss. There's two fun fight sequence at the beginning of the film, but the film runs out of steam and switches to all jokes until they hit the obligatory chase scene and final fight with a time limit to it. And while these four scenes were fine, I couldn't take my eyes off the BAD special effects. Maybe because I wasn't having too much fun, but I could really see the computer artists' handiwork all over the movie and it didn't blend in with the scenery too well.

As for the sci-fi, it's nonexistent. The reason the first Men in Black psyched me up so much was because it was a fun new world to get lost in much like Harry Potter, Avengers, or Star Wars. It would explain the methods of the agents, all their tools, the relationships between aliens and humans, etc. And they did it all in 2 hours flat. In this movie, you see some aliens and some space guns but they're kinda...there. They don't serve any purpose but to advance the plot, so the world seems uninteresting to get into. So if the world's not interesting, it's hard to want to save this world at all.

How do you make a film with jetpacks boring?

Even with these weaknesses, I'll give credit where credit is due and say that all the actors really act their asses off (unlike certain "professionals" in Hollywood). Will Smith still has chemistry with Tommy Lee Jones, and he develops an equally strong bond with Josh Brolin in this movie. And holy shit, does Brolin nail an impression of Tommy Lee Jones with posture, walking, voice and all. Jemaine Clement has some fun with the bad guy, but he's really not in the movie all that much to care a lot. Though he does look and sound an awful like an ultra-wrinkled Tim Curry.

One more gripe about the plot before I wrap this shit up and neuralize this movie from memory (won't be too hard). The ending features a "twist" that's just plain cheap and baffling at the same time. Cheap because it tries to get an emotional rise out of you, and baffling because it makes the events of the first two movies make less sense when you stack them up against each other. The rules of time travel in this movie also aren't too much fun, but then again time-travel rules in movies are always a dicey proposition. 

My brain suddenly started hurting when I tried remembering this

You might be better off skipping this installment in theaters and wait for a rental. The lower cost will let you appreciate the film a bit more, and it's nice to kill an afternoon or weekday night. At least until they make Men in Black IV where they'll feature K teaching J how to tell a more contemporary joke.

[breakinghollywood-blog]

what are the three worst american movies of all time?

The three worst American films I have ever seen:

1) The Last Airbender - Never before have I been driven to such a frothing, homicidal rage that I needed to be committed to a straight jacket and mask - Hannibal Lecter style

2) Disaster Movie - Aaron Friedberg and Jason Seltzer have earned themselves a special place in hell for their so called "comedies" which are nothing more than a collection of shitty pop culture references. Of all their spats of diarrhea, this one is the worst of them all. Yes, worse than Vampires Suck or Meet the Spartans

3)  After Last Season - some people refuse to call this a movie. It was released in 4 theaters, so it counts. The film was so atrocious that people actually thought it was some sort of gag. It's no joke. This film defies reason. It involves a group of scientists trying to capture thoughts in the brain to predict the future using a machine, but it turns out one of the scientists can predict the future without the machine, and there's a murder...and...something, something, doop doop doop.GAH! Sorry, trying to recount this film puts me into some insane trance where I lose all conscious and wake up with blood all over my shirt. This film is a lobotomy to the brain. It's out there, somewhere in the world. Though I don't know many download sites that would carry this...this...thing.

[breakinghollywood-blog]

your review sounds really dumb.

Holy shit, you can listen to the sound of my voice over the Internet by reading my words? That's incredible! I always knew I had this power...

[breakinghollywood-blog]

SNOW WHITE AND THE HUNTSMAN both needed to take the poison apple

And at long last the saga of Snow White Films comes to an anti-climatic close. We first started the year off with Mirror, Mirror; a piss-poor and embarrassing part-kiddie, part-RomCom; that failed in every conceivable way besides looking really nice. And now we have Snow White and the Huntsman, which fails in many ways and looks really nice. So I guess we can call this one the "winner" of the Snow White films; but asking which is better of the two is like asking someone whether they would like to be jabbed in the eye with a needle or piece of broken glass.

As with Mirror, Mirror, I'm not recounting the damn plot because you know how the story goes. I will say this version of Snow White is told through the filter of Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings Trilogy and Game of Thrones on HBO. And it's not too much of a stretch, as the director worked on Peter Jackson's opus. Which sounds awesome, but sadly the execution is very lacking with baffling plot points, stilted dialogue, and horrible acting from one person. Guess which one?

Go on, guess

Since Kristen Stewart is an easy target, let's pick on her first. It astounds me how much vitriol and hate one actress has attracted because of her success in a popular, if not godawful, series of films. However, in watching the Twilight films and this movie, I can't deny that Stewart is a terrible actress anymore. I'm counting her successes in Adventureland and Zarthura as flukes (I didn't see The Runaways so don't ask me). 

But people who aren't madly in love with the Twilight films, have argued that Stewart is only bad in those movies because the material is terrible. And while that may be true, it's still not an excuse to have one single expression of angsy constipation on your face throughout an entire film. And lo and behold, she pulls the same crap here as Snow White, one of the title characters. But what's most baffling about her lead role is the fact she barely has any dialogue in her movie. Chris Hemsworth as the Huntsman and Charlize Theron as Queen Raveena both have way more screen time and lines than her. And while the lines aren't great at all (more on that later), they still try to act the shit out of what they were given.

Stewart doesn't even try. In many scenes, she looks bored and annoyed to be there; and when she's not doing that, she's lying on her back knocked out as all the men do all the work (so yeah, basically she's doing the EXACT same thing as the Twilight movies). I started laughing out loud in my theater when she delivers a battle speech at the end of the movie that was so out of place, so unnecessary, and so out of her previously-defined-as-weak-inept-prisoner character that I can't help but hoping for a YouTube clip and scroll through the comments as people take turns making fun of her.

Way to be a role model for young women

I'm sounding harsh, but when you are in a big-budget film and everyone around you is trying their hardest to make some box office gold, you better show up and do your job better than anybody else. But she doesn't and she gets out classed by Chris Hemsworth doing an amusing Scottish accent and Charlize Theron indulging in over-the-top villany that makes all her scenes stand out as memorable. But what was surprisingly interesting were the dwarves.

The dwarves aren't introduced until the latter half of the film, and I now wish they were introduced much earlier. They added some much needed levity to the angsty, dark fantasy that only a Hot Topic customer could love; and they were portrayed by some top notch actors like Ian McShane (Blackbeard in the lastPirates of the Caribbean) and Nick Frost (motherfucking Hot Fuzz). And even they pull of some fun performances. So that's 99% of the cast working hard, but the actress portraying the lead character can be arsed to emote? Seriously, I hate this chick.

But even Stewart's acting can't compare to gaping plot holes that infect this movie. At the beginning of the film, we have the magic mirror tell the queen that she is not longer the fairest in the land for Snow White is way more hot than her (let's agree to disagree, shall we?). However, the Queen stops herself from killing her after the mirror informs that by eating Snow's heart she will be immortal. Umm...why?

"Because...we need a plot to this movie?"

What makes Snow White so special that eating her heart would grant the Queen, or ANYONE, immortality? The film is silent on this question. Later on, we are told that only SNOW WHITE can defeat the evil queen. We are told that she has a DESTINY to free the people from the queen's reign. Again, the film is hush hush and gives us no reason besides "trust us, she's Snow White, she's the title character and...uh, she's the Chosen One?" Yeah, that only worked with the Harry Potter books and movies and we only bought that because we happened to like Harry so much. Here I couldn't give a dwarf's ass about Snow, her kingdom, or anything else in this movie.

There are also some odd scenes like the one where Charlize Theron bathes in milk (no not kidding) while her albino brother watches (not kidding again, though you now see where I was going with the Game of Thrones reference). Snow White is shown to have some sort of connection with animals, but no one explains and again it's a plot point that goes no where fast.

Then there's the Prince Charming of the piece, who's so awkwardly shoehorned in here to set up a love triangle between him, Snow, and the Huntsman. Apparently, having a love triangle is now required by law if you plan on making a fantasy movie supposedly geared towards women. But he has even less lines than Snow White does, and we're given very little time to understand his relationship with Snow which only amounts to their play time as 8-year-olds and their brief reunion a decade later. And it goes nowhere, since Snow surprisingly doesn't end up with either the Prince or the Huntsman. 

Sorry Prince Whatever, no kissing a young girl while she sleeps for you

I may have been able to forgive the odd collection of scenes, but the script is just so damn bad, that I can't help but flag as yet another problem with this movie. For those wondering if you really need a good script for a big-budget action movie, my answer is yes for the sole reason that people just sound weird and justwrong when they're not fighting in the big set pieces. And trust me, there's not a whole lot of fighting in this movie, just a whole lot of walking around dark forests and magical creatures. The dialogue doesn't flow naturally, and you start to notice that this isn't how two people would speak to each other. It becomes painfully off-putting and drags the film down another notch.

Which is a crime shame because the special effects are really well made. Fight scenes have that rough, Braveheart close-up like quality with some smart use of the camera. On a technical and visual level it's the clear winner over Mirror, Mirror in my book, even if the film as a whole suffers from the aforementioned problems. However, the film was directed by first-timer Rupert Sanders, a well talented special effects guru that worked with Peter Jackson on The Lord of the Rings movies. Not a terrible first try, but he needs to really be more selective of his scripts if he's going to be a big shot in Hollywood.

So should you see it? In theaters, hell no. It's a waste of your precious money. You may get some enjoyment out of it through a rental; but for me, that's the most positive thing I could say about it. It's just leaves you with a big old "meh" and you might forget about it soon after turning it off. 

[breakinghollywood-blog]

Sink this BATTLESHIP Movie

If there was ever a trial that was accusing Hollywood of sinking to unbelievably bad levels of mining for brand recognition, then Battleship would be Exhibit A for Atrocity. As I mentioned a few weeks back, Hollywood executives have been trying more than ever to release films with titles that people recognize, even if said recognition makes no goddamn sense. Hence, we have Hasbro trying once again to create a new film based on one of its properties. The troubles is, the property they chose didn't have a story to begin with and the people they got to make the film couldn't fashion anything fun to make a movie out of.

Our future, ladies and gentlemen...

So, we start the movie off with Alex Hopper (played by Taylor Kitsch, who is SLUMMING it this year with this film and John Carter) as a broke loser who is forced into the Navy with and by his brother (played by Alexander Skarsgård). Somehow, this loser manages to score a hot girlfriend (Brooklyn Decker), is incredibly intelligent and athletic, and manages to be a Lieutenant in the Navy after maybe two years. But he's reckless, arrogant, hot-headed and incurs the wrath of his girlfriend's father and Admiral in the Navy (played by Liam Motherfucking Neeson). In the middle of RIMPAC taking place in the waters off of Hawaii, an alien force lands a few miles from the coast of the islands encasing the land, air, and sea with an invisible force field. This leaves only three Naval ships, one of which commanded by (all together now) Alex, and a confrontation between the humans and aliens ensues. A very boring, stupid, not-fun-until-the-last-10-minutes battle ensues.

Now, before I hear: "Oh it's a big, stupid action movie, what did you expect?" I EXPECT not to be insulted. I EXPECT to be entertained. As for calling all action movies stupid, may I direct your attention to Iron Man, Die Hard, The Avengers, or freaking The Dark Knight?! No, action movies don't have to be stupid to be considered entertaining, and I'm seriously not asking a lot to get some thrills out of an action movie. But when a film has boring ass dialogue, stilted acting, and unimpressive special effects; then I start to notice all these things and I stop enjoying myself. And boy, did I notice some things...

Problems for this film begin right off the bat with your main character, Hopper. Personally, I'm not sure how many years does it take to become a Lieutenant in the United States Navy, but I'm pretty sure it's not less than two years as this film implies. Even more importantly, I highly doubt someone who is universally hated by his superiors and comrades for being arrogant, thick-headed, and all around reckless would even be promoted to Lieutenant. But you know what? Let's accept for the sake of argument, that he somehow made Lieutenant after a few short years, the fact doesn't make him at all likable. He acts like a goddamn frat boy and he's still on top of the world. He's got intelligence, he's got the physique, and lo and behold he also has a supermodel girlfriend. Why should anyone like Hopper? The film gives us no reason to, so we don't give a shit what happens to him in the movie.

Making your hero a frat boy is NEVER a good idea

The rest of the cast doesn't fare any better, but I have less to say about them since most of them have barely anything to do. Much fuss was made about Rihanna of all people being in the movie. She's not terrible actually, she reminds me more of Michelle Rodriguez playing the "tough-girl" type in The Fast and the Furious and Avatar, but Rihanna has only a few one-liners and presses some buttons in the whole movie. I can't really criticize someone for acting that was barely even there. Speaking of which, you noticed how Liam Neeson was all over Battleship's trailers? Well, he's in the movie for all of ten minutes. Seriously. I very much wished there was more of him cause he's infinitely watchable compared to Taylor Kitsch's Hopper.

But what about the aliens that are so core to the movie? Here's a sad truth: they only appear after 30 minutes into the damn film. And when you see them, they are so generic-looking with their Halo-like suits and amphibious eyes, that they don't look all that interesting. Even their ships look boring and dull, kind of like from a 1950s sci-fi flick only glossed up with High-Definition special effects. Their weapons just seem like futuristic copies of the Navy's main cannons, so you don't even get to see cool looking blasters.

The aliens look exactly like this...no, not kidding

As for the board game this film is loosely (more than your mother) based on, the film finds the most arbitrary way to shoehorn in the original premise of the game. The force field I mentioned a few paragraphs back has knocked out all communication with the outside world as well as the ship's radar. However, the aliens are also blind to the humans' presence (somehow, even though they possessed the ability to receive a radio frequency and travels lightyears from their home planet to Earth). Thus, a guessing game commences with the human's ship developing a grid (just like the game!) to determine where the alien ships are moving to (just like the game!) and blast them away with a few rockets (just like the crappy board game!). It's all so shoddily done that you wonder after leaving the theater why did they even bother coming up with a plot point like that? To make the explosions make sense? Yeah, nice try but explosions happen as randomly as a Michael Bay movie.

Which brings us to the most glaring issue this movie has: it is trying to mimic a Michael Bay-style special effect, explosion-fest without Michael Bay. But take note that Michael Bay also throws in sleek cars, hot supermodels, frenetic camerawork, and offensive dialogue or characters (like the Step-N'-Fetch Bots from Transformers 2). Granted, these things are not always good or even desired, but they distract you from paying attention to the stupid plot of his movies. This film has none of those things, and the special effects it does come with remind me more of a video game (flashbacks to Wrath of the Titans abounded for me).

It's a sad day when I think a movie could have used something as terrible as this

Is there anything good about this movie? No. It actually pisses you off even more with a sub-plot they introduce in the final moments of the film that would actually make for a fun movie. With all the modern battleships destroyed, the heroes join forces with retired Navy veterans to make the USS Missouri functional once more to do battle with the alien forces. THAT would have made for a more interesting movie than the schlock we got instead. The thought that potential for a fun time even existed in this movie but the creators refused to do anything more with it, infuriates me.

I wish my initial thoughts about the movie were wrong. I don't like watching bad movies. But damn, this film could have at least tried to make an effort. After watching movies all my life, I've learned you could make anything out of movie. Hell, Pirates of the Caribbean was based on a damn theme park ride, and it still managed to be intensely entertaining even though the script itself made no references to anything in the damn ride. But alas, lazy filmmaking begets a bad movie. Avoid this one, and do something more interesting with your time. Playing the original board game, would be a more worthwhile use of your time than this.

[breakinghollywood-blog]

You'll be THE LUCKY ONE if you avoid this movie

I know I'm not the target audience for Nicholas Sparks movies like this. But you know what? There are plenty of romantic films that I like (Love Actually) and some that I rank as my all-time favorite films (Casablanca, Love and Other Drugs and Midnight in Paris). That sentence is meant to karmatically balance all the horrible shit I'm going to dump on this movie for the next few paragraphs. After watching three adaptions of Nicholas Sparks' "diverse" library of novels, the man has proven he has found a formula for writing romances and he sticks to it harder than an Evangelical Christian sticks to the Bible. But to his folly and the folly of the Evangelicals, such a philosophy is so bat-shit stupid, that God himself will come down from Heaven to smack some common sense into these people.

So if you've seen a Nicholas Sparks movie, let's all sing along with this nifty plot summary to every one of his movies (with parenthesis meant to fill in the topic for The Lucky One). Loner, handsome, White, young man (played by Zac Efron) falls in love with headstrong, quirky, White, young woman (played by Taylor Schilling) but the two cannot and should not be together because of too-stupid-even-for-Hollywood reason (picture of girl was good luck charm to boy while fighting in Iraq/girl is hounded by her dickbag ex-husband played by Jay R. Ferguson). They fall in love anyways (usually with surprisingly and amusingly awkward sex) before an out-of-left-field tragedy occurs (girl discovers boy's good luck charm, gets angry with him because...reasons), but they find the strength to be together at some point in the film. Also, someone dies because of an exploitative disaster meant to tug heartstrings but only serves to piss the audience off. Rinse, lather, repeat.

If you've never seen a Nicholas Sparks opus before, Congratulations! You have now read the plot to every, single, fucking one. This romantic plot's ground has been tread by Sparks before, but by now he's purged this ground with fire and salt. With such a strict adherence to this grand plan leaves several gaping questions in the minds of audiences. 

The movie begins with Zac Efron picking up this small photo of Taylor Schilling while fighting in Iraq. This photo brings nothing but good luck in allowing him to survive several near-death experiences for several months (told in the span of the first five minutes of the movie). Grateful to whoever this girl is, he walks from his home in Colorado to Louisiana. That's not a typo, he literally walks from Colorado to Louisiana. (Question #1: Why the hell would you walk 950 miles instead of, you know, taking a fucking train?)

When Efron meets Schilling, he does not immediately thank her for being a good luck charm to him and perhaps returning the photograph, but instead stutters around as Schilling assumes he is at her home to take a job as a dog caretaker. He never voluntarily reveals the photo to her until the end of the movie when she gets her hands on it and confronts him with it. (Question #2: Why the hell would you take a long commitment rather than just stating your reason for being there? Answer: because there wouldn't be a movie otherwise).

Everything just described is the first ten minutes of the movie, many more questions are present, but I could sum them all around Jay R. Ferguson's character. See, he's the asshole ex-husband of Schilling and baby's daddy of her adorable-for-white-audiences son. He's an abusive dickbag, he's an alcoholic, he's self-centered, he stalks his ex-wife and has others stalk her. Hell, he's so violent he threatens someone at gunpoint, in public, in broad daylight. Oh yeah, and he berates and harasses a goddamn Marine veteran, because apparently NO ONE in the South respects the U.S. Armed Forces. Apparently he can do all this because he's a cop for the small town this film takes place in.  

His actions are just so cartoonishly evil that they are laughable. The film tries to explain Ferguson can get away with anything since his daddy's a judge who will soon be a mayor, and he constantly threaten Shilling with taking custody of the kid away from her if she doesn't do as he says. But Shilling could just as easily resolve her problem by hiring a simple lawyer. One who could move any case Schilling wants to another judge (on account of obvious bias) to issue a restraining order against Ferguson or fight him any time he challenges custody of the kid. 

Then the film tries to give Ferguson some sort of redemption-angle at the end with his son, thus becoming the finishing touch to Sparks' master plan with the aforementioned unnecessary and exploitative death scene. That's not a spoiler, since you should damn well know that someone dies a "tragic" death in every one of these movies. To Sparks' credit, what kills the person at the end of this movie is, surprisingly, not cancer. No, it's a far more easily avoidable and painfully stupid. 

Now that my vitrol for the plot is done; I can go into what's left in this dreck, which isn't much. The main leads have little chemistry with each other and I kind of find it odd that I found Zac Efron more attractive than Taylor Schilling. Maybe it's cause Efron has more feminine features than Schilling, but I just couldn't find Schilling all that attractive. I still think Efron has potential to be a great actor, but he has GOT to stop making these cheap romantic melodramas or else no one is going to recognize any talent he may have.

But even if the leads had a little more chemistry, that still wouldn't change the fact that they barely have any dialogue throughout the movie. So what you're treated with are several four-minute music videos featuring the music every romantic drama plays with passing shots of the Louisiana country-side.

If you've already seen anyone of Nicholas Sparks' other works (The Last Song, The Notebook, A Walk to Remember, Nights in Rodanthe, and Dear John), then you've seen this movie and it's not even worth a look to see the new leads dumped into these roles, to listen to the painfully boring soundtrack, or to yell at the screen for a brain dead tragic twist at the end. If you haven't seen any of these films, I guess The Notebook is the best of the lot, but that's not saying much. 

[breakinghollywood-blog]

THE CABIN IN THE WOODS is funny, gory, and brilliant all at once

Disclaimer: this will be a spoiler-free review for people who are still on the fence about this. Short answer: run to the fucking theater right now. Long answer...

I feel sorry for any person that does not watch this movie. I pity you even more if you are an avid lover of horror films. This is simply because The Cabin in the Woods is one of the most brilliant movies to come out in a while. It's a movie that appears in the trailers and title to be a mere horror flick, but it's actually about cracking a big idea. The big idea is to take the conventional horror tropes and cliches of old, then break their spines with sickening gore and plenty of laugh out loud moments. You may think I'm insane for believing gore and comedy work well together in anything, but trust me when I say, that this film succeeds with flying colors.

Plot details will be scarce here, since that's all part of the fun in watching this movie. All you need to know is that we have five good friends heading off to spend a weekend in an isolated cabin in some creepy woods. "Blah blah," I hear you cry over the world wide web, "I've heard this story a billion times before." I reply, "You've heard this set-up a billion times before, this movie goes into a completely different direction." You see, the cabin and surrounding areas are being monitored 24-7 by a mysterious organization. Two men manipulate the environment and each member of the group into becoming classic bait for a deadly monster. For what purpose? Not telling, you'll have to watch the movie yourself to find out. 

But here's what I can say to assure you that you will love the hell out of this movie. First off, this movie is funny as hell. This is where I get down on my knees and kiss Joss Whedon's feet, because the man knows how to write a damn script. The five teens are all likable (a rarity in horror films in general) since they all have complex personalities and amazing chemistry with each other, as good friends normally would. But the script really shines when the mystery organization is in focus.

You see, the organization is run like some ordinary data entry company, where everyone wears bland office outfits (white shirt, black tie, slacks) and a few others are in scientist garb. We mostly focus on two of these "office men" and their dialogue is frequently funny as hell. They crack jokes at others' expense, and make clever quips to the fate of the teens.

Speaking of which, we have the great teens, the most notable of which is Chris Hemsworth (aka Thor). The rest are played by Kristen Connolly (who is funny/sexy), Anna Hutchison (who is hot), Jesse Williams (sexy/quirky), and the excellent Fran Kranz. This last one has become one of my new favorite actors who I hope will continue on to do bigger and greater things. He's irresistibly funny, and he plays the only character who is aware of what is happening to him and his friends. On the weird office side, we have Richard Jenkins and Bradley Whitford (the asshole villain from Billy Madison) who are both fantastic as these orchestrators of death for the above mentioned group.

All of this is put together by Drew Goddard, one of the writers of Cloverfield. He makes great use of the camera and he was really able to get the performances he needed out of each actor. That alone deserves commendation, but he gets brownie points for featuring an amazing final act in the final 20 minutes of the movie. I have never seen so much blood spewed everywhere while delivering me such a massive nostalgic trip through all of sorts of terrifying films and even video games.

But the fantastic writing, acting, direction are simply frosting to the delicious cake that is the film's premise. Again, I refuse to give much away because the surprises revealed towards the end really are worth it.  What I can tell you, is that the mystery organization function similarly to the film crew of a horror movie, where the victims slowly become aware that a mysterious force is controlling the supernatural and scary threat they are forced to confront. But the deaths aren't only what these guys are about.

No, they are actually influencing the teens, through drugs and pheromones, to become the common archetypes you've seen a billion times before: the jock, the slut, the nerd, the slacker, and the virgin (who always lives). They even influence them to make the commonly stupid decisions every victim makes in these movies, like having sex in a creepy area or choosing to split up rather than stay together. 

Comparisons to Wes Craven's Scream are inevitable. Both films tackle and toy with the cliches and conventions of a horror film, while having their tongues firmly in cheek of the genre. But Scream reminds me more of a hipster doing a common activity (like drinking shitty beer) while loudly proclaiming they're doing the action "ironically." Such an attitude makes me want to go back in time and pimp-smack the filmmakers until their eyeballs switch places. You see, the characters in Scream are self-aware of their existence in a slasher flick while vocally pointing out the ridiculousness of their situation and thinking it's so "ironic" that they are conforming to these conventions.

Cabin is not that. Whereas Scream was about tearing apart a clock and pointing out the different gears in it, Cabin is about crafting a story about how those gears came to be in the first place and why they exist. To speak in more concrete terms, Cabin is about taking the common cliches you see in a horror flick and providing a reason for their existence through a kick ass story. And the story is told by a stellar cast all packing witty lines.

I loved this movie. This film is guaranteed a spot on my top 10 of 2012 because of how it plays with the horror genre in such a clever way. Add in a tight script, an amazing cast, and solid direction, and you have a film that will be remembered for years to come. I've never walked out of a horror movie so happy, and it's because I was having so much fun. Don't miss this movie. Run. Right now to the theater. You can post your discussions of the plot in the comments section.

-Ha-Ra

[breakinghollywood-blog]

Wrath of the Titans sounds so EPIC, when it's really so MEH

I hate to review films like this. Films that have no fucking right to exist because they are simply not fun to write since there's not enough to ridicule or to lavish with praise. Wrath of Titans is not a terrible film, but it's not a good movie. It falls into that lazy pit of forgettable mediocrity that NO ONE will remember years from now. Hell, I seriously doubt if any one will remember this movie by the end of April 2012. But this is made all the more frustrating by the film's premise and marketing, which promised a balls-to-the-wall mythological slam fest, but the creators only succeeded in making a poorly written video game cutscene. 

So, here we have the sequel to the remake of the classic Clash of the Titans of 1981 with Laurence Oliver (Christ, writing that sentence reminded me of Inception all of a sudden). We follow Sam Worthington playing as Perseus, son of Zeus, and apparently badass warrior who slayed the Kraken in the last movie. He's decided to move away from his former monster-killing and God defying ways to be a fisherman with his son. The whole film is about the bond between father and son as they come to terms with the fall of religion in ancient Greece...oh wait, sorry, wrong movie.

Course, shit goes down when the Titan Kronos, father of Zeus (Liam Motherfucking Neeson), is trying to break free from his prison since people no longer believe in the Gods. Of course they don't, that was the entire point I could surmise from the equally poor first movie: to defy the Greek Gods for being such massive assholes. But for some reason, Perseus is called on by his daddy (who is a god I remind you) to help defeat Kronos. Meanwhile, Hades (played by Voldermort, I mean Ralph Fiennes) betrays Zeus to Kronos so that he can keep his immortality, which is being drained...because...people aren't praying to the gods anymore. Holy shit, I can't believe I just typed that sentence, none of this makes any goddamn sense.

Here's why nothing in this film makes any damn sense: in the first movie, Perseus challenges and stands up to the Gods by slaying their pet. He does this because the Gods were trying to punish Perseus' people for rejecting the deities. In this movie, Perseus is tasked by Zeus (his father and one of these gods who also managed to fuck him over countless times) to help the Gods by killing the father of the Gods. Seeing the breakdown in this convoluted mess? The sequel's plot keeps tripping over itself with these inconsistencies in motivation so much, that it boggles the damn mind. I could go on and on about the plot issues (like why Zeus would trust Hades again after Hades clearly tried to overthrow him in the last movie), but that will take all fucking day. Let's move on.

Now I've heard many times before (mostly because of the Transformers movies), that "story doesn't matter as long as there's cool action". But that's the problem with the latter two films in that series and Wrath of the Titans, the action isn't cool. It's a convoluted mess that usually employs my arch nemesis, shaky cam, to frame action scenes were actors have to pantomime and pretend they are dodging attacks from obviously computer generated monsters. You can tell they don't know how to react to certain situations involving creatures because the actors can't see what the hell is going on. Only the programmers and directors can only imagine what is going on as they craft the film with their computers. With so much computer work, the film cannot help itself from being a cutscene in a video game you can't play. So, with such poorly filmed scenes, I'm left with little to like in this movie besides how pretty it can be when you see a giant monster burst out of a mountain (that scene should be in a way cooler movie than what we got).

The actors do a piss poor job all around. I've never grasped how some directors like Sam Worthington or imagine him to be the next great action hero because he doesn't have a memorable physique, personality, or well...anything. He just looks utterly bland in everything he is in from Terminator Salvation to Avatar. And in this movie, he doesn't do any better as Perseus. His dialogue is flat and boring, his fight scenes are not intense, and he's just not personable or likable at all. His companions are simply the equally as bland love interest / warrior queen who has even less personality than Perseus since she has fewer lines; and the "comic" relief sidekick who spouts a clever quip to everything around him while getting into trouble and being all around useless.

The only two actors who I can forgive are Neeson and Voldermort because they will act the shit out of anything they are given. Fiennes can pump menacing out of anything, including this trite; while Neeson's soothing and authoritative voices makes me truly believe he is Zeus. But that's the only positive I can say about the movie besides the good effects.

While Wrath didn't piss me off, it just feels like a waste. It really is the useless cash grab it's executives were hoping to make by crapping out any film with Greek Gods and monsters then calling it a day. Greek Mythology deserves something more epic than this, so far fans and those interested in such tales I recommend playing the God of War series on Playstation 3. As for this movie, diehard fans of mythology might get a kick out of it with a rental. For all else, avoid.

-Ha-Ra

[breakinghollywood-blog]

American Reunion was like watching your dad imitate scenes from a 90's sex comedy...only worse

No one asked for an American Pie sequel. The first movie told it's fucking story of a group of teenagers on a mission to lose their virginity and did nothing else. It's a tale as old as time itself; but this was in 1999, and people getting the chance to see naked boobs on screen was a sort of big deal back in the day. At least it was for me, when I was at the young ripe age of 12. Then a sequel came out about the gang, now in college, on summer vacation. But that movie did everything that was done in a movie about college kids on summer vacation. Then another goddamn sequel came out about young adults getting married which did everything that a movie about young adults getting married did only poorly. So does the fourth movie (discounting that direct-to-DVD bullshit) try something new? Two things: fuck and all.

The plot of American Reunion is the same generic old comedy about a once close group of friends getting back together for a high school. You will see NOTHING new in this movie about adults trying to reclaim their youth with a new generation of kids. What you will see, will be a bunch of actors who were once famous for being in American Pie trying to re-enact their old roles in a new setting. And it just comes off across as just plain sad, and may lead you to want to watch a crucifixion instead.

And by the old actors, I do not simply mean Jason Biggs, Sean William Scott Stifler (he has always been Stifler, he will always be Stifler), Chris Klein, Eddie Kay Thomas, and Thomas Ian Nicholas, I mean the whole fucking cast of the original. Shannon Elizabeth, Mena Suvari, Tara Reid, Natasha Lyonne, even fucking Chris Owen who was only in five minutes of the original. But I list the original cast for a reason. Tell me, do you recognize any of those names? Vaguely remember them? No? That's what I thought. As you can see, none of the above mentioned actors and actresses have really been able to do anything else besides that one teen sex comedy they filmed 13 years ago. It now makes perfect sense that they were able to assemble the whole cast.

But I also listed the names of the cast to give you an idea of the seven plotlines that are all going on at the same fucking time. The film becomes schizophrenic, constantly switching perspective between the cast members, giving no time for setting up jokes and only belting out some profanity for the sake of comedy before the scene changes after two minutes. 

You could say that the main plotlines are that of Jason Biggs' character and of Stifler's since they are the ones with marginally more screen time than the others. For Biggs' story, we have the ol' dad who hasn't had as much sex with his wife as he once did and his efforts to relight the old flame in their relationship. It's boring as all fuck, since you never get to feel any sympathy for Bigg's character (I don't remember his name and I'm not looking it up because he's that forgettable) and he's just not funny. His scenes felt like an eternity whenever they came on, and it felt more like being crucified than anything else. Well, that maybe more of Biggs' fault of an actor, since he's just bland and can't deliver a joke to save his life. His scenes only become tolerable when he's with Eugene Levy, who's actually a good comedian and is still doing decent work. 

Which leaves Stifler's tale as the most interesting tale by default of the others being so boring, lame, and generally shit. Stifler has one chuckle-worthy bit when he craps into a cooler filled with beers while destroying some jet skis, but that's about it. He still commands the screen, and you start thanking Christ every time he shows up to save you from the monotony. But that's because he's always been the one with the most personality in all these things and being the most memorable thing about the films, hell there's a damn Wikipedia page about the character!

As for the rest of the cast, they're all frustrated with how their lives how turned out, even though their frustrations are nothing to bitch or even write about. The worst part is that all of the characters get "conflict" in their respective stories by being caught in compromising positions while doing a piss-poor job of explaining the situation to others. This is the lowest common denominator of creating a plot in any comedy. As a matter of fact, I'm writing this trope at the top of my Comedy Deadly Sins (to be released later this year). 

Then there are the incessant cameos from every, single, fucking, cast member that has ever been in any of these movies. But they're not done in any clever way, they're just sort of jammed in there like peppering a column with crucifixion jokes on Good Friday (sorry about that God). But this tactic only adds another car to the pile-up of bad decisions that all started with poor writing and copying reunion-style comedies.

I didn't realize it when I first saw the first three American Pie movies, but each movie was just hitting off the same beats that every sex comedy before it had done and done better. Fast Times at Ridgemont High, Animal House, and Bachelor Party, all got their movies out first and are still fucking funny, poignant, and memorable to me to this very day. The only thing I remember about the first American Pie was watching Shannon Elizabeth get naked, and nothing else. Don't even ask what I remember about the other two. And now for the fourth entry they pull the ol' reunion gimmick you've seen a billion times before.

I'm not saying a reunion of a film franchise could not work. The last two The Fast and the Furious movies were pretty much that and they were actually better than the first film from over a decade ago. They've become such huge successes that a sixth one is now in production, and deservedly so. But American Reunion pulls the bullshit of claiming "we should come back doing this every year!" No, you guys really shouldn't.

A few asked for a sequel to American Pie, and we got it. Less asked for a second sequel, but we still got it. And no one fucking asked for a third sequel, but guess what? We fucking got it. So now please ask Hollywood of something: can you stop making American Pie movies for fuck's sake? Especially that goddamn direct-to-DVD bullshit!

The only way to ask for such a thing is to pay this film no attention. American Reunion is not the last great hurrah these actors were hoping for, and it really isn't worth your time or money. Avoid this film and maybe we can't let this thing finally die. But I can never count out Hollywood for anything. After all, they've resurrected far worse properties than this. 

-Ha-Ra

[breakinghollywood-blog]

Resurrecting the Dead (for Profit!)

"There's no creativity in Hollywood anymore!" I'm 110% sure you've either heard that phrase somewhere or you have said it perhaps within the last month. Maybe you've seen the phrase on Facebook, Twitter, or hell even here on Tumblr. People are frequently voicing their frustration over a seemingly endless stream of sequels, reboots, remakes, etc. at an increasing rate and yet, these re-hashes of old properties just keep on coming. What gives? And where are all the creative ideas instead? 

Why is the sky blue?

The film industry is in a weird place. Movie theater ticket sales are in decline, as last year saw the least number of tickets sold since 1995. This fact is terrifying film executives. If they can't get asses in seats, then investors will look elsewhere or their shareholders will vote to fire them from their positions of power. But the worst part about this revelation is that no one can give an accurate reason (or more preferably, a scapegoat) for the trouble in theaters. But I, your enlightened, wise, and devilishly, sexy writer, have a few reasons, but they all relate to one thing...

WE LIVE IN A NEW WORLD

The world of 2012 is a vastly different place than what it was back in the "simple" time of 1995. There are several new cultural movements that have penetrated our collective conscience, and all of it is adversely affecting Hollywood. The most influential of these movements is the digital age.

Finding furry S&M porn is easier than before!

Think about it, with a mouse click and a half-decent Internet connection, you can access any piece of information of the World Wide Web; be it for business, education, or entertainment. Actually, you don't need to click a mouse anymore, as the prevalence of smart phones have made accessing the Internet even easier than ever with the tap of a screen. With this power, you can download a new song off iTunes in seconds, stream a movie from Netflix, watch last night's episode of Community off Hulu, play the latest video game off your iPhone or Steam, the list goes on and on. You, and everyone else with an Internet connection for that matter, can find ways to entertain yourself for hours on end, usually for little to no money. So with all your games, television, and movies on your laptop; why would you go out to the theaters? 

Better question: why would you subject yourself to the current theater experience? And by experience, I mean costly and sometimes annoying two-hour torture time. Across the United States, the average price for a movie is $7.93 (as of last year). Now, some of you living a large, metropolitan cities are crying "bullshit" since you claim you pay way more than that...and you're not wrong. But consider this: in 1995, the average price of a movie ticket in the United States was $4.35.

Hmm, delicious Cuban sandwich or shitty Keanu Reeves film? Decisions, decisions

Movie tickets have been increasing to a price that have made the theater-going experience more of a luxury than a cheap way to pass the time. Especially after the economic downturn in 2008, people are becoming more wary on what they spend their entertainment money on, especially if there are less expensive alternatives. So when friends or families are hitting the town for the weekend, these groups of people are starting to seriously weigh a fancy dinner over a trip to the theaters. But why head out to the theaters, when said groups can enjoy a movie from the comfort of their home?

Home entertainment has a wide variety of advantages over its theater counterpart. For one, there won't be annoying texters piercing the darkness and there won't be annoying patrons loudly narrating the fucking movie to said texters after the former group are done bitching about the theater they are in. And hell, anyone can buy some easy-made popcorn for a pretty reasonable price rather than cough out the equivalent of a lung for a bucket of popcorn that you and your friends may not even finish. And of course, you can pause the movie whenever you or a friend need to take a leak, rather than skip out a few scenes in the movie and come back to ask your bird-dick friend on "what you missed."

Preparing to fire popcorn in 3, 2, 1...

Fewer and fewer people are willing to lay down the money for a night at the theaters, especially if they don't know anything about the movie. Sure, a trailer may look cool; but many times, trailers are filthy, fucking, liars. And even though resources like IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes have made it easy for people to see how critics and audiences reacted to a movie; these opinions are still very subjective, and they may not resonate with everybody. Hell, how many times have you claimed: "THE CRITICS ARE WRONG!" (PS: I'm never wrong). So after being jaded so many times, audiences are increasingly wary on what movies they'll go see every year. 

This is the dilemma facing film executives. This is the world they now face. But why all the rehashes? Well...

THESE REHASHES ALMOST ALWAYS MAKE A PROFIT

People are constantly complaining about the endless spree of sequels, but these films are frequently making a profit. By profit, I do not simply mean a movie "made a lot of money," I really mean that a film "made a lot of money after it's budget was paid. It costs a shitload of money to make a movie these days, even if you are making a boring, uninteresting romantic comedy.

Remember Valentine's Day? That movie cost $52 million. Why? Take a good look at the cast: Jessica Alba, Ashton Kutcher, Anne Hatheway, Bradley Cooper, Taylor Swift, Jamie Foxx, the list goes on and on. Depending on the amount of screen time each actor or actress got, they were paid an embarrassing amount of cash for it. I'll bet it was close to a million a piece. By the way, paying an actor a million dollars is nothing in Hollywood. Look at Leonardo DiCaprio, he is normally paid $20 million for a single movie, but he took a pay cut for Inception in exchange for a percentage of ticket sales for the movie. 

Each dreamy eye is worth $5 million 

The numbers I just spouted are for actors alone. Now, think about all the cameramen, lighting technicians, makeup artists, costume designers, art directors, stuntmen, special effects artists, fight/dance choreographers, and assorted clerks that make a movie happen. And of course, let's not forget the fees for directors, writers, and producers; after all, these guys have the biggest investment in a film's success than even the actors. All of those salaries go into making a single two-hour piece of entertainment.

Putting into perspective the large amount of capital needed to make a movie, it becomes unsurprising for film executives to be extremely picky and selective as to what gets turned into a movie. So what is lucky enough to make it to the big screen? Shit that is guaranteed to sell by the boatloads, even when popular opinion claims otherwise. Many people loudly said they hated the Clash of the Titans remake from 2010, but it still made $493 million around the world. That's not a number to scoff at, so the executives behind the film probably said to themselves, "fuck it, someone likes this crap, let's make another one!" And lo, they did with Wrath of the Titans. This line of reasoning can also explain the Transformers and G.I. Joe sequels.

This is what people want to see in Transformers movies! More soldiers!

Speaking of which, Transformers and G.I. Joe were the hottest properties for kids growing up in the 1980s. Now that the people who loved those toys and cartoon shows have grown up, they also have some disposable income as well. This fact is also why we're seeing an adaptation of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Thundercats, He-Man and God knows what the fuck else. If any television or toy line had a wiff of fan recognition, you better bet your Autobot that some executive will ask their staff, "Has someone made a movie of Street Sharks? No? Let's fix that."

And that's what it really comes down to: recognition. If someone saw a film and really, really liked it, they'll have no problem in laying the money down for another one. At least, that's the thinking film executives are counting on. And so far, they haven't been proven wrong. Consider this: the top 5 grossing movies last year were all sequels. In 2010, the top 5 grossing movies of the year were also sequels. The point is people around the world trust their money with things they know. There's just no escaping it. And Hollywood has a nasty history of exploiting that desire.

Some films used to start off as their own ideas, before a film executive saw it and said "This reminds me a lot about (fill in the blank), we'll make use this as the idea for the sequel!" Don't believe me? There was a sci-fi script called Hardwired that was passed around for a few years before Fox Studios acquired the rights to Isaac Asimov's I,Robot (a collection of short stories about robots). The studio then changed the names of the characters and threw in a few references to Asimov's works before they spat out that abortion onto the silver screen. A similar story occurred to the script for Live Free or Die Hard that started off as having nothing to do with Detective John McClane, until the studio picked it up and had the writers change the names and add in a few characters. 

This was a stage play at first, way FUCKING different from what we got

So no, don't expect this parade of rehashes to end any time soon, but don't expect this is all caused by a lack of creativity. There are plenty of creative ideas out there, but many of them are being put through an assembly line of rebranding to fart out something that is supposedly guaranteed to sell. It doesn't always work, as films like Green Lantern and the Arthur remake proved. But it works more often than it doesn't, so this has become the new normal. Will it ever change? If audiences took bigger risks with their wallets on films that Hollywood would not believe in, then maybe. For now, all we can hope is the rehash is decent and not garbage. 

-Ha-Ra

[breakinghollywood-blog]

Mirror, Mirror shatters into a thousand pieces

It's truly amazing that the mirrors in this film didn't crack a smirk with Julia Roberts' so-called "acting."

Once upon a time, there lived two Hollywood executives who both loved wiping money with their ass. They found the best way to get said money was to make movies based on stories and names everyone will recognize. So they both picked Snow White and the Seven Dwarves since Disney did the work for them with that movie they did a while ago (read: more than half a century ago). But when both executives found out the other was making a Snow White movie, they went into a panic and competed with each other to shit out a movie first. The action movie with big name actors and heavy special effects couldn't get out in time with the kids movie dressed up as a romantic comedy, and so it came to be that Mirror, Mirror was released first. Too bad, it should have never seen the light of day.

This second paragraph is where I usually spit out a spoiler-free plot summary, but why should I fucking bother? You know the damn story, don't play that game. I guess I should mention how this Snow White differs from the other versions, or more accurately: the only version you know, which is the Disney classic from 1937. But all of the differences I can list between the two films I can all start with the word "shitty."

So let's start with the shitty cast. Julia Roberts was the first to be cast in this mess, and she was chosen to be the evil queen. Right off the bat, this was a fatal mistake, Roberts has never and will never be able to play the role of an antagonist. She works more as the "America's sweetheart" role she plays in every movie from Notting Hill to, well, America's Sweethearts. But she's way out of her element here and it shows when she tries, and I mean tries, to be a bitch to several characters in the movie. It all comes across as fake and insincere; but when she attempts to seduce a man literally half her age, we delve into the deep realms of earth shattering stupidity.

Said man is the prince, played by Arnie Hammer. Now, Hammer's star-making turn as the Winklevoss twins in The Social Network (yes, that was a special effect, and he really was one guy playing two roles) promised a proud and extremely talented young man. Sadly, that talent is pissed away here since the prince is a sometimes bumbling and sometimes competent fighter who blunders his way into this crappy movie. Seriously, his stated purpose for being in the same area as the Queen is that "he is looking for adventure." Which on the list of dumb cliches that no one fucking uses anymore ranks pretty, goddamn high. He might as well as said he was looking for the plot, but was failing to do so just like the movie. Instead, he finds the bland and completely uninteresting Snow White.

Now, Snow White has never been an interesting character from a film or literary standpoint. When you think about, she's a dated sexist idea rather than a character. She cooks for the seven dwarves when they stumble upon her, relies on them to save her dumb ass, and is extremely passive throughout the plot of her own story (especially when she falls asleep towards the end and can only wake up when she's sexually assaulted). The filmmakers are seriously trying to jazz up the character for a new age by converting her into a Robin Hood-esque rebel who stands up to the Queen's tyranny. To their folly, they completely fail to deliver on this idea.

For the part of Snow White, they hired Lily Collins, an unknown actress who's in the business because daddy is Phil Collins (yes, that Phil Collins). She's had only a few roles in Hollywood, but none of them have been good or even make anyone interested in finding out who she is. A trend that will continue in this movie, I can promise you that. She starts the film off (seeming to me, at least) as naive and sheltered, but she's given barely any dialogue to communicate this. Later in the film, she's suppose to become more assertive and independent, but her actions come off as practically moronic. 

In one bizarre scene, she and and the dwarves are situated in a safe space from a bloodthirsty creature that the audience has not seen the entire movie but everyone coils in fear of this monster. She realizes that the creature is here for her and begins an inspiring speech for her comrades, which she abruptly ends to go fight the creature by herself and leave her friends and allies behind. There's a very clear difference between independence and sheer stupidity my friends, and this girl clearly falls into the latter category when she can't have a good sense of mind to bring her clever and battle-ready dwarf friends.

Oh, the dwarves, how could this film forget you? I bet it was kind of embarrasing for the Hollywood executive at the beginning of my review when he realized he couldn't use the names of the Disney dwarves since those were created by the made man himself while also being protected by several copyrights. So, the film said "fuck it" and gave them the weakest ass names on the planet: Half-Pint, Grimm, Butcher, Napoleon (he has a Napoleon hat!), Chuckles, and oh, who gives a shit? These dwarves were never going to upstage their Disney counterparts, so the film doesn't even bother to give them interesting to do besides engage in slapstick. Admittedly, these moments are the only bright spots in the whole goddamn movie.

But this shitty acting is only compounded by some phenomenally shitty writing. Jokes fall flat throughout the entire production, while verbal diarrhea is spouted for an interminably lengthy amount of time that adds fuck all to the story or to the plot. You can hear through the script that some characters are aware of classic fairy tale ideals while other characters are treating this like straight fantasy. It thus creates a feeling of incongruity, or rather the film doesn't know what it wants to be. It fumbles between being a kid's movie with plenty of physical humor or a romantic comedy featuring adults that in any sane world would not behave this way.

The fecal waterslide could not be saved by its weak ass director Tarsem Singh. Singh has never made a movie that I liked, though I am kind to his debut of The Cell with Jennifer Lopez back in the day. But that's mostly because the visuals were just so trippy that rest of the movie could be sort of forgiven. While Singh does lend some beautiful scenery and set design for his movie, it's all for naught because his camera is so focused on his actors mugging the camera with their awful dialogue. The film's scenes are all pieced together with wide shots depicting the landscapes Singh's artists created on their computers. While some people may find this art work enthralling, if it's not a central piece of a film, then I don't give a dwarf's ass.

The film is a mess, plain and simple. It's one of those movies that I look at now and say, "When I'm making my worst of 2012 list, I'm gonna remember your stupid ass." This movie is not fun, it is not exciting, it is not interesting. It adds nothing to what you have seen about Snow White, and will quickly be forgotten in the ass of film history. Seriously, the history of this movie and it's rivalry with Snow White & the Hunstman are the only interesting discussion points about it. This is simply grade-A garbage.

-Ha-Ra

PS: Sean Bean, why are you in this movie?!