Godzilla (2014)

God of Blockbuster Action or King of the Tease?

Directed by: Gareth Edwards
Released: 2014
Staring: Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Bryan Cranston, Elizabeth Olson, Ken Watanabe, David Strathairn, Sally Hawkins, & Juliette Binoche
Rated: PG-13

  No doubt exists in my mind that the marketing team behind the newest reboot of cinema's most iconic, foreign fiend deserve an award. The art of the tease can make or break a film; with all the anticipation that can develop, if a film doesn't deliver you're going to have several unsatisfied customers. Godzilla has been teasing us since it's first trailer release and continued to throughout the actual film.

  Of all the big blockbuster movies to be released in the Summer of 2014, Godzilla was the one I was most excited to see. Not because I had an preexisting attachment to the Monster, or a particular fondness for any of the talented actors in the cast; it was because of the trailer. That FIRST trailer was (still is) brilliant. The bone chilling suspense created in the ambiguity until the very end didn't only leave me wanting more, it had me talking. How could you NOT want to see that movie after a trailer like THAT? Emotional Bryan Cranston, Phillip Glass-esque music, and that roar...that trailer had everything to make the skin crawl...Goosebumps from start to finish. I just want you all to take the time and appreciate a finely constructed trailer, and the response it can generate. My response, I need to see that movie as soon as possible. All subsequent trailers followed a similar design, showing audiences just enough of The King of The Monsters but never revealing what we were truly up against. Smart marketing; it gets people excited, it gets butts in the seats. So the all-important question of the teasing and hype, did it pay off?

This Monster is a little camera-shy
Godzilla (2014)

  Yes, yes it did....and...no...

 Despite top billing, Godzilla isn't the film's focus. Overall, Godzilla was a highly entertaining, action-packed disaster movie. I say disaster movie because the movie isn't so much about the monsters causing the destruction, but the people caught in the middle and how they deal with it. If you are expecting lengthy, Pacific-Rim style fights, you're going to be slightly disappointed. The monster-on-monster action is there, BUT I was left wanting MORE. Like the movie's trailer, the audience is constantly teased, but never reward with any solid, lasting battles. I was (and still am) thrilled with the alluring mystery the trailer created, but I'm here now, in the theater, I WANT TO SEE GODZILLA KICK SOME ASS. Any monster action that takes place occurs either on screens (TVs/surveillance cameras/computers) or in short, interrupted snippets. Those snippets we did get to see were amazing, awesome...cool animation and theater rattling sound that will have audiences cowering in their seats. Stop me if I'm wrong, but I know I'm not, in a Godzilla film I'd expect to see the King of Monsters for longer than 20 minutes and earlier than 45 minutes into the picture.

Finally, a good look at the big guy
Godzilla (2014)

  The sparse time in which Godzilla is on screen however, is so reminiscent of the original films one can't help but cheer in their seat. This Godzilla is certainly the largest we've ever seen therefore the destruction he causes is beyond devastating; it's awesome. The design of this Godzilla is also a return to the classic 50's Monster design, disassociating the Island Iguana disaster that appeared on screen in the 1998 bomb. Not only is Godzilla's classic silhouette back but also (hold for applause) THE ATOMIC FIRE BREATH! Godzilla, engages in several quick romps with some fierce nuclear powered monsters and the monster-on-monster, LED attacks are everything the audiences go to action movies for. Loud, intense and cheer-worthy...I just wish these nail-biting assaults would have lasted...The journey of a nuclear bomb from city to harbor is not important to me, what's important is the brawl going on down the street and 500 feet in the air.
 

Bryan Cranston hunts for the truth
Godzilla (2014)

In truth this is the movie's only substantial flaw and my only real complaint. In any action picture (specifically those released in the summer months) the story is complied of cliche, sappy characters and predictable outcomes; Godzilla is no exception. That being said I didn't mind these done and done characters because that's not what I'm going to the theater to see. I came to see intense action, a bad-ass Dino-Monster destroying the city, and the brilliant Bryan Cranston. I got about 2 1/2 of the 3.
Speaking of Bryan Cranston he, just like the movie's title monster, makes an appearance that is brilliant but limited. Cranston's influence in pop culture and with potential audience members is huge! What did I tell my Mom to convince her to come to Godzilla? "It has WALTER WHITE" All it takes in Cranston's name on a poster and an heart-wrentching excerpt in the trailer to draw in those Breaking Bad/Cranston addicts. Again, smart market but lacking a fulfilling payoff. Cranston is there; he's brilliant, he's engaging. His undisputed talent shines through in this role, but is snuffed out far too soon. Parallel to the movie's monster, I wanted to more of Cranston's quality performance. His character the potential to lead Godzilla or least get him into the second act. Cranston not only understands how to portray human emotion but also how to connect with audiences'.

Cranston & Aaron Taylor-Johnson
Godzilla (2014)

  This Godzilla boast more than a handful of compelling characters, any one of them could have been
the movie's focal point; sadly, writers chose to focus on the weakest of the bunch. Aaron Taylor-Johnson is an adequate leading man and his lesser known status works in his favor. Taylor-Johnson has had his fair-share of leading and supporting roles, but he has yet to become a house-hold name. Had the role gone to a more well known, young hunk {Channing Tatum for example} the character could have gone even more banal than written. Casting an unknown or lesser known gives action movie, dare I say, a more prestigious feel. Taylor-Johnson feels (like this reboot is meant to be) fresh and new. The same can be said for his on screen wife, Elizabeth Olsen. Godzilla's script doesn't offer it's actors much to work with, but the cast gets the job done without reducing their performances to cheese. As I wrote before, hardly ever to I enter a summer blockbuster expecting a groundbreaking plot and oscar worthy script. These films are meant to provide exciting entertainment, which in the end, Godzilla does!

  Equally fresh director Gareth Edwards truly understands quality action, building suspense, and delivering adrenaline pumping sequences...even if the majority of them don't feature the movie's main monster. He's more understated than the likes of Michael Bay (heaven knows that's not very hard) and I can't wait to see what this relatively young director has to offer the action-movie genre.

  Nit-picking and cliches aside, Godzilla offers American audiences a solid piece of entertainment reminiscent of the 1954 classic. It's leagues beyond the Ronald Emmerich 1998 flop; bigger, badder, and smarter. The movie's base plot is nothing special nor are the characters, but when audiences are treated with God-sized smack downs, they are oh-so sweet! This Godzilla is a MUST SEE on the big screen. The high quality graphics and bone-rattling sound can only be fully appreciated at the theater. 2014's Godzilla will have you simultaneously cheering and cringing in your seats; you'll leave the cinema wanting more, and by the way the box-office is turning over, we'll have a sequel confirmation before the year is out.

Captain American: The Winter Soldier

 There is a reason people are calling this the best Marvel movie in years...it's because a director finally stopped trying to imitate Joss Whedon's crackpot style of directing; producing a distinct quality action film.

Directed by: Anthony & Jo Russo

Rated: PG-13
Staring: Chris Evans, Scarlett Johansson, Samuel L. Jackson, Anthony Mackie, Robert Redford & Sebastian Stan
Released 2014

  The Avengers Syndrome {A serious illness infecting the leagues of superhero and comic book film directors. Symptoms: Vast supporting casts, unnecessary side plots and nonsensical plot lines, poorly composed action sequences, and an excess of bad, cheeky jokes. This is the virus sweeping our nation. Enjoyable at first, but if symptom are not treated they will increase and discomfort may be experienced.}

  I do not hate Joss Whedon my fellow movie goers, I simply feel a heighten sense of annoyance that the entire cinematic world feels the need to replicate his work in order to make a "successful" Marvel movie. I liked The Avengers, I lIKE The Avengers, but I do not like what The Avengers has done for the Marvel universe not the movie making industry.
  Iron Man 3 ranked near the top of biggest disappointments of 2013 and for good reason. It was a confused, bipolar film that was neither funny, nor serious, nor a pleasant blend of the two. It was a heavy mess from a studio not even trying to fill in any of the gaping plot wholes left by it's predecessor, The Avengers. It was not entreating, it was contrived and painful to watch.
  Thor: The Dark World, which I both praised and criticized was miles ahead of Iron Man 3 but that was thanks in most to the films charismatic anti-hero Loki-as portrayed by the brilliant Tom Hiddleston. The film was entertaining but far from perfect. I will admit my friends, with it's current track record, Marvel had me dreading the arrival of Captain America's sequel.

 

All doubts were quickly distinguished this weekend as I sat down to my own viewing of The Winter Soldier. Directing duo Anthony and Jo Russo produce an exciting, modern superhero movie with all the elements of a classic espionage thriller. The Winter Soldier is a well developed piece of cinema that doesn't require pre-Marvel obsession to appreciate. This film, while still in the Marvel Universe feel separate from its predecessors. It looks like the Marvel universe, feels like a Borne thriller, and has all the smarts of a classic Bond film. There's a certain sophistication and razor edge awareness that propels it beyond the last two Marvel sequels released as well as the Godfather of this mess, The Avengers. Now don't think that this is a film specifically for a more sophisticated audience void of any witty humor and one liners; it still has all of the elements that made The Avengers such a success with the general public, just toned down and revised for the appropriate moments. The furthest extend to the running gags are finding "Fossil" Steve Rodgers a date. They knew when to joke and when to hold back, The Winter Soldier was made with an editing conscious that many in action films lack.

  It wasn't only the story and overall film that improved drastically, the fight scenes and action sequences are freshly refined. Compare Thor: the Dark World's action/fight sequences to The Winter Solder. Thor's were there more for comical relief than having an actual purpose/need for the fighting and were never resolved. The thing Captain America did was add purpose to the action and with purpose comes more dynamic, exciting scenes! All the action sequences are top notch and evident that actors and stuntmen put a considerable amount of time and effort into constructing and performing them. An impressive variation of fighting styles, gymnastics, and (appropriate) CGI result in some truly gripping battles. Battles that were, for once, IN FRAME. I'm perpetually confounded by this idea that whenever two soldiers go to hand to hand combat we the audience must want a hand held camera close up of their faces, right? Wrong. If you're going to put the energy into choreographing a fight scenes I would like to see a long shot of what the performers are actually doing...not grunting, sweating, and bloody man face. To this aspect alone I tip my hat and say thank you, thank you because I don't think I've seen such riveting hand to hand combat since The Dark Knight Rises nearly two years ago...Good Lord, it's been two years.

  Chris Evans does a nice job, I feel as thought Captain America has become a bit of a joke in the scheme of The Avengers...we haven't seen him being taken seriously yet and I feel someone finally beefed up his character so he's not such an old man who doesn't get the joke. This Capt. is smart and has a solid attitude that isn't just "'Merica" This is a man on a mission, a mission with purpose because as any acting coach with tell you PURPOSE IS EVERYTHING! Someone who's lacking a bit of purpose in this film is Scarlett Johansson's character Black Widow. Perhaps not lacking purpose but a singular one. I feel she's occasionally used as a plot device and nothing mor. She gets things done so Capt. doesn't have to do them himself. There's so much mystery surrounding this character that each writing keeps building and building I just want her to have her own film already. The character is a fascinating one and Johansson kicks major ass, let's be honest she IS Black Widow, but I want to know more! Samuel L. Jackson is Samuel L Jackson, everyone knows, not much to add on his performance or characters.

New comers Robert Redford and Anthony Mackie were perfectly cast in their roles. Mackie is funny but without being in your face annoying as may "sidekicks" can become. He understands this character and doesn't try to steal scenes that aren't his. Given his own film, he'd excel and have room to spread is wings (har har) Redford hasn't been seen in a widely released commercial film for sometime and this role exactly what an actor of his prestige and experience should be doing; like Mackie he also doesn't over act, important in a role that other actors could have mishandled and gone off the deep end. Like the film itself, Redford plays with subtly, he quietly slithers through the film, never raising his voice or turing into a hand-wringing villain.

  The one thing this film lacked, The Winter Soldier...I mean, where was he? Sebastian Stan walks away from the film with perhaps 20 minutes of total screen time. This isn't bad, I feel his character and his story could have developed into something very melodramatic very quickly, so I guess it's best to leave it to the fanfic writers. I simply find it amusing that like many classic action thrillers the billed villain is never the real villain; more often the victim.

  There was one scene in the film regarding a character from Steve Rodger's past that I would have preferred to be omitted from the theatrical cut but I understand why it was left in...emotional appeal, nostalgia, closure whatever you want to call it, I call it melodrama. I didn't fit with the timing of the film and would have been more appropriate in the extended cut or deleted scenes portion of the DVD.  The additional after credits scene that was obvious set up for The Age of Ultron basically negated everything that was said and done in The Winter Soldier (literally) which annoyed me and proves that all sequels just place holders until 2015 and the release of the next Avengers. I am excited for the sequel yes but in a very hesitant way...Surprisingly I'm more excited for Guardians of the Galaxy, yet another comical, action extravaganza from Marvel Studio who's only purpose seems to be to expand the world for the next Avengers. Despite my doubts I'll keep an open mind and hope that any up and coming superhero action films will share Captain American: The Winter Soldier's clever filmmaking and clean delivery.

Noah

Make it rain

Directed by: Darren Aronofsky
Rated: PG-13
Staring: Russel Crowe, Jennifer Connelly, Anthony Hopkins, Emma Watson, Ray Winstone, Logan Lerman, & Douglas Booth
Released: 2014

Reasons I was offended by Noah
-Skinny jeans
-Hooded sweatshirts
-Infinity scarves
-The garish font used in the title card and subsequent credits
-The unnecessary 45 minutes in the 3rd act that completely diverged from the theme and plot set forth  in the first portions of the film.

  Let's get some things out of the way, am I a Christian? Yes. Do I believe the public should avoid and our boycott a film specifically because it "offends" or "alters" Christian beliefs or Biblical events? NO.

  Here is something the Christian viewing public needs to understand, if you're going to tell someone to avoid a film because of its inaccuracies or its misconstruction of Christian beliefs I do hope you go see the film FIRST so you can explain exactly WHY. Enough of these second hand accounts. Just because Master Pastor what's his name with his own website and television show tells you not to see or read The Golden Compass does NOT mean you should avoid it at all cost...to me any controversy of this fashion generated around a film or book series simply makes it more alluring. (Say the conservatives "Oh it's Satan's temptation!") It was the reason I began reading His Dark Materials series and guess what? It's one of the best written pieces of young adult literature and one of my favorite book series.

  If you're going to campaign so heartily against a film, you better have seen it yourself so you can back up your claims of inaccuracy. Seeing a film you don't agree with also aids in explaining any questions non-Christians may ask their known Christian friends...instead of responding with "Well...Master Pastor what's his name with his own website and television show saw it and HE says..." No harm ever came from a bit of research...

Director Darren Aronosky & Russel Crowe

Now, of course if you don't find said film in your interest you have every right NOT to see that film, but please don't deter others from expanding their knowledge. I find the fact that a film can get so many people discussing the topic of religion (specifically Christianity) exciting! In this year alone there have been THREE Christian themed/Biblically rooted films released (so far) Noah, is NOT for everyone; director Darren Aronofsky shot it (as all his films) with a very specific theme in mind.
  This is what get's my goat, many strike out at this film, but it was never marketed as something it was not. Noah was never billed as a Biblically accurate account, it was never marketed specifically towards or for a Christian audience. This, I believe, is most important when considering whether Christians should take up arms and fight the religious injustice that is Noah (*cough* sarcasm *cough*) or keep a rational, open mind. I'm not going to dwell on what Noah is, or is not in accordance to religion. The source material for Noah is not THEE Bible, it's a graphic novel written by the film's director and that graphic novel does not boast a strong religious agenda. Just keep that in mind. This is all I want to say on the controversial subject because I'd love to actually REVEIW the film, and after I'm done you can decide for yourself. Will you see Noah so you have an educated stance in the heated discussion of the film, or will you avoid it out of stubborn second hand he-said, she-said accounts OR (Yes there are more than two options) is it possible the film's intriguing aspects were literally drowned by a dismal 3rd act resulting in a dower end product?

Simply put, this is Noah...

Before the flood 8 1/2 out of 10 stars; during/after the flood 3 stars

  I have no problem with how the story was handled, it's artistic license, this is NOT Heaven is For Real, it's Aronofsky (the man who gave us Requiem of a Dream, The Black Swan, The Wrestler) I actually ENJOYED many of the unique, compelling ideas Aronofsky has developed; I became emotionally upset with the three hundred and sixty degrees change the film took after the flood occurred. In the beginning (Ha. Ha.) Noah was the definite hero of the film, his passion and commitment to The Creator (God) frames him as a good man, working against those who have sinned and destroyed the beautiful land they were given. You see how revolting and lost the race of Man has become and why the Earth needs to be cleansed...you shutter and gasp at the atrocities of Man's behavior and but as soon as the Ark shuts its door Aronofsky (who penned the film as well as directing) turns Noah into a completely different character. Gone is the father figure who's dedication to God is inspiring; instead we're left with a bloodthirsty, deranged lunatic who never recovers his respected status obtained in the film's first hour and half. What happened to saving the planet and hopping for a better future? What happened to seeing the best in Noah? Themes of responsibility, hope, and trust in God are completely forgotten and abolished, ending the film in bitter contrast. A feeble attempt to recover them is made in Noah's last scene however the previous change of pace was so dramatic it proved difficult to rebound.

The first hour and half of Noah, brilliant. Gorgeously shot, intriguing and unique, I feel it didn't spit on the actual religion of Christianity at all...simply took a well known story and used it very loosely to construct a new tale of epic proportions. Noah is not a film about staying true to the story in Genesis, it's about environmentalism, saving the world from Man's destructive course (and then some garbage at the end) I found myself willing to suspend disbelief to enjoy the original take Aronofsky presents. If one was to "faithfully" adapt the story of Noah, the film would be roughly 30 minutes long. Fantastic cinematography and expert editing make Noah a pleasing film aesthetically. The images created by cinematographer Matthew Libatique varied from haunting to etherial to painfully realistic...that being said Noah does offer it's fair share of CGI.

The Animals {emit heavy sigh} I understand and agree that it was the only way but I honestly think I saw 5 Moose...the same Moose couple...dispersed throughout the massive hear 5 times...and that Armadillo-Dog.
  The Watchers, another highly contested portion of the film, dare I say it, one of the most fascinated ideas as well as top notch production on the design and creation of these creatures.

Got Moose? Deer? Elk?

  Performances are solid despite some questionable character developments. Is Noah a perfect film? No. Will it be one teachers show in the Sunday school class room? Absolutely not. But what Noah does offer is entertainment. I'm not going to lie, several times I found myself shaking my head at the absurdity of the story, it's characters developments, and comparing/contrasting Bible and Film but I thoroughly enjoyed the first part of the film, however outlandish or "inaccurate" some may call it. Ultimately, a good portion of Noah could have hit the cutting room floor. Had several of the major struggles that occurred on the Ark during the flood been cut out, the films integrity wouldn't have suffered; it actually would have improved. The film didn't need the additional conflicts that drastically tarnished the its title character.  Leaving the theater I contemplated my initial retain to the film and found the film dove so so low there was no way the finale could benefit from its rainbow-ed end. I found myself so upset and depressed at how irrational the last 30-45 had been I didn't feel much hope for a better future. It's been quite some time since I've been so emotionally split by a film; therefore, I defer to my original point, if you'd like to make claims and/or have an opinion about Noah, I suggest you see it for yourself.

I snuck into Captain America the Winter Soldier right after Noah...
    -There is a reason people are calling this the best Marvel movie in years and I can tell you why. It's because a Director FINALLY stopped trying imitate Joss Whedon's crackpot style of directing and actually produced a distinct, quality action film...void of constant jokes and absurd plot lines riddled with gaping holes.

A full review, COMING SOON!

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

Directed by: Peter Jackson
Released: 2013
Staring: Ian McKellen, Martin Freeman, Richard Armitage, Orlando Bloom, Evangeline Lilly, Lee Pace, Benedict Cumberbatch and Luke Evens.
Rated: PG-13

  At this point introducing any film from J.RR Tolkien's Middle Earth brought to you by Peter Jackson is nearly impossible. The films speak for themselves and The Desolation of Smaug is no exception.

  Rewind to 2001, a series almost forgotten by many mainstream book enthusiast regained a new life in the hands of one unknown New Zealand director. The Lord of the Rings series had been adapted from its book format before, but never in such an appropriate, epic style. Seemingly overnight names like Frodo, Gandalf, and Gollum became household names, and 'Hobbit' may be used as an endearing term to describe your hairy footed uncle who can't recall if this is his first or second breakfast. With multiple Oscars under his belt including one for Best Picture in 2003 and more than a fist full of dollars (highest grossing film of 2003), it was only a matter of time before Peter Jackson returned to Tolkien's material.  

  

  We, the anxiously awaiting (fans) public, knew we'd get the The Hobbit sooner or later, what we did not except was 3 Hobbit films, all filmed in sequence at 48 frames per second with extra material, not published in the original book, but Tolkien's none the less. There was much debate over which portions were Tolkien and which were Jackson's; an uproar sounded in the Middle Earth community, whether it was one of joy or outrage was hard to tell but in the end audiences got much more Hobbit than was expected. 

 I've spent many hours reading, watching, and rewatching the original Lord of the Rings series, and as an avid fan it is my humblest opinion that the more the better! Jackson is a director who, when it comes to STORY, does not sacrifice quality for quantity. Was/is there a whole hell of a lot going on in The Hobbit films? Yes. Does any of it take away for the driving plot line? Debatable, but when you get down to it, the answer is no. Is Peter Jackson a greedy little Dragon who is possibly suffering from James Cameron-Ka-Ching-Ka-Ching syndrome? Possibly. As an avid fan, if you present me with a Jackson quality product that remains almost unwaveringly faithful to it's source material while ADDING even more, I'm going to lap it up. The fact that Jackson can do so much while staying true to the book overshadows any doubts I had about the added material. 

  As a reviewer I see faults in The Hobbit series, An Unexpected Journey more than The Desolation of Smaug, yet as a fan I'm completely enraptured by them both. I tell you this, my dear readers, so you will know, there may be nit picking points accompanied by minor annoyances but in the end The Lord of the Rings/The Hobbit has been and will remain my favorite series of all time.

  In my end of the year review for 2012 I named The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey my favorite film of the year on the basis that I had been waiting for it for almost ten years...While this is true, the film was not without it's faults; primarily it's silly, prepubescent humor. The burp, butt and snot jokes were not only disgusting but completely misplaced in Jackson's directorial world. The Lord of the Rings films never lacked jokes and wisecracks, but it's humor never dealt on such a low, bodily level. The Desolation of Smaug regains any traction that might have been lost due to the low blows of An Unexpected Journey by keeping it's humor referential rather than immature, gross out stints. Martin Freeman is a funny actor and very funny in the role of Bilbo Baggins. His physicality and facial expressions lend themselves to the character brilliantly. The script is often quite humorous and I think produces may have read many of audiences reactions to the overall tone of An Unexpected Journey and for that reason darkened the mood of it's sequel.

  The Desolation of Smaug is considerably darker than it's predecessor and rightly so. The first act is over, introductions are finished we know our main characters; we've seen them laugh now we want to see them fight! And fight they do. The Desolation is action packed from start to finish. The fast paced action scenes are engaging and exciting, verging on ridiculous but unimaginable fight scenes are a driving force behind the success of these films. I'm not paying to watch Tom Cruise shoot a gun at a criminal mastermind, I picked this film to see 12 Dwarves and a Hobbit race down a river in wine barrels while pursed by Orcs and high-flying Elves. It's fantasy and fantasy will lend itself to fanciful chases! 

Lee Pace, Director Peter Jackson & Evangeline Lilly

  Speaking of Elves, new comer Lee Pace, beloved from Bryan Fuller's short run and under-appreciated TV series Pushing Daisies, melds perfectly into the world of Elven royalty. He's come a long was from loveably awkward pie-maker. Devilishly wicked and totally unexpected, Pace plays the role of King Thrunduil with operatic bearing. Evangeline Lilly, also new to Middle Earth, was a missed opportunity. A fine actress, Lilly's character whom adds would have audiences believe is the strong, feisty, warrior woman of the series is reduced to an object of affection in possibly the oddest love triangle ever put on screen. I supported bringing in the new, original character of Tauriel thinking she'd be portrayed as a warrior like all the rest; instead she succumbs to the emotional advances of two men...brilliant. This from the director who gave us "I am no MAN", witch king-killing Éowyn. I don't get it. 

  Odd Elven relationships aside, the remaining story line in The Desolation of Smaug stays true to the book as well as any side stories begun in An Unexpected Journey. Audiences weren't left with so much a cliff hanging in the first of the series as something to look forward to, as all good films should. We knew we'd be seeing the great dragon in this installment and the tension leading to the final revel makes it all the more scintillating.   

 

No words review can accurately describe the detail and deadly beauty in the animation of Smaug. It's brilliant, flawless, and any other adjective associated with top notch animation. Every scale and claw was considered...the lighting and coloring are pure perfection...the way he moves and please let's talk about the cutting voice behind though razor sharp teeth. Benedict Cumberbatch with the best and only choice. His voice is pure dangerous allure. Cumberbatch, with the help of visual animation studio WETA, truly became this dragon through motion capture technology. That means voice, movement, and facial expression were all generated by Caumberbatch...and quite perfectly, he gives this inhuman  creature a personality and purpose. A huge hand must be given to the animators behind Smaug, he is a sight to behold on the big screen. No images found online can do him justice.

Benedict Cumberbatch gets in touch with his scaly, fire breathing side

  Smaug's animation soars, leaving many of the other animated characters with a rushed, sloppy, even cheap feel to them. One thing The Lord of the Rings series did so well was create real, disturbing characters through the use of great prosthetics. This is a technique not used as appropriately in The Hobbit series, especially where Orcs, Goblins and other nasty folk are concerned...yes animation is cheaper but nothing draws an audience from the moment like recognizing "oh that's definitely CGI" This is a huge attributing fact as to why Smaug's animation is so incredibly impressive. Comparing the detail in his design to that of others is somewhat disappointing.  

  With a darker atmosphere, Jackson really plays up Biblo's developing obsession with his newly acquired ring and creating a strong tie between The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. The Desolation of Smaug is great fun with a couple of nice references for die hard fans and spectacular animation (for the most part) Fans will not be disappointed and new comers to the series should find it just as enjoyable. Don't expect Smaug to be popping up in any category except effects, during awards season like The Lord of the Rings films did, but the heart of this film is in the same place; as is its epic scope and action packed adventure. If there was ever a time to jump into one of the most celebrated fantasy series of all time, now would be it! 

Thor: The Dark World

While Thor: The Dark World has just as many (if not more) plot holes than it's predecessor, The Avengers, I found it equally irresistible and thrilling.

Directed by: Alan Taylor
Released: 2013
Staring: Chris Hemsworth, Natalie Portman, Tom Hiddleston, Sir Anthony Hopkins, Christopher Eccelston, Kat Dennings, & Stellan Skarsgård

I swear I don't hate Marvel sequels, I just wish everyone get their directorial butts off of the Joss Wheaton bandwagon and start creating again instead of copying. 

  2011 was a hype year for Marvel Comics, releasing Thor and Captain America within two months of each other. The hype was all building to the biggest film success of 2012, The Avengers, which beat out Christopher Nolan's Batman finale The Dark Knight Rises by more than 220 million dollars. First glances didn't do much for me, thinking both Thor and Captain America were nothing more than the dumbed down superhero movies that climb to the top of every summer box office, I didn't make an effort to see either in theaters. A year later, both films were released to Netflix and I thought I should see what all the fuss was about, surprisingly I thoroughly enjoyed both!

Sir Kenneth Branagh filming on the set of Thor (2011)

  Kenneth Branagh, the Lawrence Oliver of our generation, is the best Shakespearian Actor/Director working in film today. His adaptions of Hamlet and Much To Do About Nothing are two of my personal favorite films; however, there was a point in his career when his success had clearly gone to his head. Branagh is good, in fact he's great as both an actor and director, but his knowing that lead him to make some serious professional mistakes. Time has matured Branagh from a head strong star, into a mature, highly respectable talent.

  For many, an Oscar winning, Shakespearian trained actor would be the last to take on a comic book -action film. This is what's great about Branagh, he surprises, and his take on Thor was one brilliant surprise. The thing about Thor is the story itself is deeply Shakespearian...rival brothers, buying for their barbaric father's throne...and THAT'S why Branagh was a perfect choice to direct it. His over theatricality in acting HELPS him while directing, creating top notch productions that are visually stunning. The story is there without sub-plots or distractions. The clear cut, classic story line of Thor is perhaps why I didn't react as positively to it's sequel. 

  Now before any Marvel fans break out the pitchforks and torches, let me say this. I LIKE THE AVENGERS. I REALLY LIKE THOR: THE DARK WORLD. I enjoyed them all immensely, they're fun, action packed, and charismatic...that being said, both films are riddled with poor film making decisions and plot holes. If you want a break down of a "good" movie verses an "enjoyable" movie check out my review of The Avengers. The first installment of Thor was a magical combination of both quality and entertaining filmmaking but then came The Avengers and every Marvel film to follow has been an attempt to mirror Joss Wheaton's cheeky humor and over the top action, Thor: The Dark World is no exception.  

 Thor: The Dark World is occasionally confused and jumpy, trying desperately to make many of the same jokes that made The Avengers a success. Don't get me wrong, I was laughing the whole way through. Gags and laughs are great to break the tension, but when they're injected every 10 minutes the build to the climax is rough and almost nonexistent. I wanted to be on the edge of my seat, concerned for Thor in his battle with Malekith but I couldn't when the film was pulling jokes every other shot. The disruption of continuity honestly gets a bit annoying at times...JUST LET THEM DUKE IT OUT! It's NOT Joss Wheaton directing and we the audience KNOW this...and yet it's his STYLE...it seems like a bit of directorial plagiarism...but I don't want to get into that.  

  

  Another reason for The Dark World's confused state is due to it's plot line...there's simply too much and not enough time spent addressing it all. I'm just going to call bogus on this plot line right now because IT IS. Honestly, who wrote this film because I'm positive they just threw darts at a board to see what should happen next in the movie and to what character. But just like The Avengers, I end up not really giving a crap. I thoroughly enjoyed the film and would watch it again in a heartbeat! 

...is this a good thing? This is serious question that should be asked...there is so much going on in this film, so many sub-plots, so many inside Avengers jokes, so much MUCHNESS that it should have turn the movie into a failure right? Right, but it DOESN'T...I don't know how Marvel does it, but with all the continuity problems this film has and the contrived plot line, I can't bring myself to say The Dark World is a BAD film. I can, however, say this of Iron Man 3...sorry World, I have to get this off of my chest, Iron Man 3 was ridiculous...ugh, but still mostly enjoyable...damn it...this is turing into the most contradictory review of my career...

  The  problems in The Dark World could have been solved has the filmmakers taken a bit more time...The Dark World is NOT a long film; had it been, many of the holes could have been filled, the pacing smoothed and overall quality of the film improved.

Tom Hiddleston's Loki is dealt some serious time out in Thor: The Dark World

Tom Hiddleston and Chris Hemsworth as quarreling adopted brothers Loki and Thor.

  Thor, you know, hangs around being Thor, swinging his Hammer and stuff...beating up on the baddies, check. Honestly it's not the character development people pay to see. They pay to see Thor, his hammer, and his muscles do some serious damage to other worldly villians...and Loki.

  Oh Loki, you are such a little maniacal trickster...Tom Hiddleston again knocks it out of the park in his portrayal of The God of Mischief. In The Dark World, Hiddleston lets loose all that crazy, "I do what I want"attitude and schemes Loki has been harboring while imprisoned. It may be called "Thor", but there is no doubt that this series and The Avengers  owes much of it's popularity to Hiddleston and his devilishly handsome and infuriating Loki. Is he GOOD? Is he BAD? Who's team is he on? The answer to that is team Loki, but he never fails to drive fans and audiences crazy with guessing. Marvel has obviously recognized and monopolized on Hiddleston, having him return to set and shoot extra scenes later added to the film.

As a Doctor Who fanatic, I was ecstatic when I heard Ninth Doctor, Christopher Eccelston was cast as the main villian. Eccelston delivers with some AWESOME prosthetics in tow, but again, I desperately wish he would have been given more screen time. Malekith's battle with Thor is action packed but interrupted by so many slap stick jokes I found it difficult to become truly invested.
The design of Malekith and his army of Dark Elves is exceptionally creepy without being hokey, I was pleasantly surprised and satisfied.

  Kat Dennings and Stellan Skarsgård return as the blunt and lovable Darcy, and Doctor Erik Selvig...who may or may not be lacking pants in several scenes. These two are hilarious and Dennings especially is a scenes stealer, I would have loved to see her and Loki share some screen time. Natalie Portman is back as itty bitty Jane Foster, hottest scientist to walk the earth. She and Hemsworth have a couple nice scenes but again, much of the time needed to build a serious relationship that the audience can become invested in is lost. Performances around the board are strong included Anthony Hopkins who's Odin still resorts to growling like a bear and refusing to show Loki any love; and Rene Russo plays a Julie Christie-esque Frigga who has a nice, Bad {Ass}gardian moment half way through the film.  

  In conclusion, Thor: The Dark World is not without it's faults but the same can be said for any action film; especially one from Marvel. The company is a cash cow and audience will never be in short supply of Superheroes and Villains to watch on the big screen. The Dark World is leagues better than the slap in the face sequel that was Iron Man 3, and I hope Captain America: The Winter Soldier to be just as enjoyable...although I'm sure I'll have a bone or two to pick  concerning the Cap as well. There comes a genre of film where, as outlandish as it's story may be, I as a reviewer must sit back and enjoy the spectacle; Marvel films, and their subsequent sequels, have proved to be that genre of film.  

It's just too cool to not like...

Captain Phillips

 While Gravity may have been King of last weekends box office, Captain Phillips is packed full of just as much intensity and thrilling action; not to mention brilliant performances. 

Directed by: Paul Greengrass
Released: 2013
Staring: Tom Hanks, Barkhad Abdi, Barkhad Abdiraham, Faysal Ahmed, Mahat M. Ali, & Michael Chernus.
Rated: PG-13
Times Viewed: 1

"Based on a True Story" often leads to over-exposed and ultimate let down of many films in today's market; however, Captain Phillips lives up to the hype and offers the audience a solid and memorable action thriller.

  When Captain Phillips first crossed my radar I wasn't overly concerned with it's presence. Yes Tom Hanks is good but it was just going to be another dumbed down action-withouth action movie, nothing to get excited about. Weeks passed and the hype over the true tale of a brave cargo ship captain grew  and grew, traveling from media sites to my own parents. "That Tom Hanks is just incredible" my Dad boasted "Very good. Very intense" my Mother described via text. With their stamps of approval and the ever present accompaniment of "Oscar Buzz" I thought it was time to give Captain Phillips a chance. If all else fails, it has Tom Hanks, he's always a treat to watch!


  Captain Phillips successfully lives up to it's praise. Paul Greengrass creates a film that is not only laden with suspense, intensity, and action, but REALITY. Too often in Hollywood, action films turn into monstrous feasts of CGI, Good Guy vs. Bad Guy, and unnecessary SFX. Captain Phillips minimizes all the artificial aspects of an action film and allows the story be the source of action, not the effects. Granted, Greengrass had quite the story to work with. NOT to say I believe every event depicted in the film was what happened in real life, but how often is that what a film sets out to do?
  Based on True Event films like Captain Phillips set out to raise awareness and tell a great story. Is that always the right thing to do? No, but it's what making films is so often about, interpretation and presentation, not give an exact account. Yes, telling the real story is important but audiences must understand that this cinema and liberties will always be taken. I'm not here to tell you if Captain Phillips was an accurate presentation of the hijacking of Maersk Alabama in 2009, I'm here to review the film. If a movie like this is presented in such a way that it sparks my curiosity about the real events and compels me to do a bit of research, it's done it's job...along with entertaining of course.

  Greengrass' execution builds upon constant tension without feeling like a one note movie. Captain Phillips isn't confined to one space or vantage point, allowing the audience insight to more than just it's title character while retaining a sense of perspective. That perspective, while slightly slanted, is not singular. From beginning to end, the audience is shown both Phillips' and Pirate leader Muse's lives, motivations, and approach to their respective situations. Greengrass does this by presenting parallels in each man's life, showing the audience that the American Captain and Somali Pirate are not so different. I really loved this. Muse{pronounced "Moo-Say" I think}is , without a doubt, the antagonist; however, he's not completely unsympathetic. Audiences are shown why he's Pirating, his struggles, and his determination to prove himself. You're not necessarily rooting for the Pirates, but because of the insight into their lives and motivations, you're don't entirely want them to fail. A fresh take for the worn, one sided approach Hollywood so often takes. To quote one, Tom Hiddlestone "Every Villain is a Hero in his own mind."  Captain Phillips illustrates this beautifully.  

Director Paul Greengrass with his cast of Somali Actors on the
set of Captain Phillips (2013)

"From the Director of The Borne Supremacy & Ultimatum" had me nervous. These are the films that brought us the current action film staple...SHAKEY HAND-CAM. Yes that lovely, belligerent craft of strapping a camera to one's hand and not giving a frame as to whether the audience can acutely tell what's being filmed for not...Everyone rats on J.J. Abrams for lens flares? Shaky Cam will always be my ultimate enemy...

  So you see why I had my reserves about the film due to it's director, but Greengrass blew away all preconceived assumptions and delivered one helluva great action film. A great story helps, but the way this movie was filmed is what made it a such a success for me. "No tricks" as many characters in the movie often repeat, there were no tricks while making Captain Phillips. No ridiculous camera tricks, SFX tricks, or (most importantly) CGI tricks. This was solid thrills and action done without a single explosion or illogical car {boat} chase. In simpler terms, everything in Captain Phillips made sense. I never felt there was a time when I was apart of a sequence of action that didn't NEED to happen.

  Now action cannot be anything without actors and Captain Phillips' cast is ripe with raw, talented actors. Tom Hanks, I don't think this man has made a bad movie. And don't you dare say the Da Vinci Code because I immensely enjoy that movie! We all know Hanks can be the good guy, the nice guy, the funny guy, but we rarely see him in such a HUMAN role. It's refreshing to see him portraying a though, sometimes verging on unlikable character. Hanks doesn't milk the scene he has with his wife at the beginning, he just makes it real. The same goes for the first couple scenes as his character first takes charge of the Alabama and it's crew. Dare I say, he's kind of a hard ass. But it's truth, it's real. Hanks' final scene, after his rescue, is one of the most heart wrenching on film this year. The pure emotion that he exhibits is unbelievable and leaves not one dry eye in the theater.

  While Hanks is the obviously the big star in the film his rookie co-stars are not to be cast into his illustrious shadow. Much of the hype that's followed Captain Phillips has been surrounding the Somali actors who portray the hijacking pirates. All who, I might add, are from MINNEAPOLIS MINNESOTA! The four amateurs play it like old pros, all unforgiving and truthful as Hanks himself. Barkhad Abdi, the leader of the pirate crew, is getting a fair amount of Oscar Buzz for his performance and for good reason. Even in his silent moments we see the cogs turing in his mind, calculating and determining. Abdi holds his own against Hanks and gives a truly outstanding performance that is reason enough to check out Captain Phillips.

  If you haven't seen it yet, Captain Phillips is the one to watch this weekend. Where Gravity staggered in acting, Captain Phillips sores above. This film is everything that a GOOD action film should be complimented by top notch acting. It's bound to score at least one Academy Award nom come early next year; this is one Oscar film that can be enjoyed by any and all audiences.

Gravity

This whole problem could have been solved if you had a Time Lord...

Directed by: Alfonso Cuarón
Released: 2013
Rated: PG-13
Staring: Sandra Bullock & George Clooney
Times Viewed: 1

  But all Doctor Who jokes aside, Gravity reiterates a fact embraced by many a Whovian...Space is AWESOME. Not since Kubrick has a director translated the terrifying desolation and beauty that is Space onto the silver screen so spectacularly. Alfonso Cuarón utilizes Space like no other, continuously flirting with varying levels of depth of field as well as sound. The scope of Gravity, at first glimpse, appears vast and daunting but Cuarón brings this epic down to human reaches by interjecting immense cinematography with tight, extreme close-ups of it's leading lady. The director plays with reflections in space suit helmets, POV shots, and even drops nod to Kubrick if you're a cool enough cat to catch it. Alfonso Cuarón's variety, sharpness, and seamless blending of film and CGI creates an irrefutable Sci-Fi classic. The great this about Gravity thought is that it's hardly Sci-Fi at all..no aliens, no laser guns, just real space and real people. 

   Sandra Bullock, who wouldn't have been my (nor I believe the directors) first choice for the role, can be a bit distracting at times...a kinder word than annoying. Bullock was not the worst actress to be cast in a role such as this and did demonstrate great command over her body, hours of trainer where evident in her physical being, but when it came to a vocal presence she's not one I appreciated. She gives literal life to the phrase "Ah, Ahh, Ahhh." This being said, the Academy Award Winner brings a human "real life" presence to the role.

  Opposite Sandra Bullcock, the ever charming George Clooney does what he does best...charms his way through the film. George Clooney plays George Clooney, and the first 10 minutes of the film try so unbelievably hard to establish a (charming) character for Clooney it's somewhat painful. On the verge of cliché, his veteran Matt Kowalski (charmingly) reflects on past missions, mishaps, and memories with Huston as he takes his final walk throughout space, alluding to retirement and lamenting that he'll never surpass the record for most time spent wondering the heavens above.  

  Does anyone remember Michael Clayton? An angry, passionate George Clooney, that's what I'd love to see again...he's a talented actor but I feel he choses roles that too closely reflect him as a person. In that perspective Gravity was a perfect match, but I'd love to see him take a real, unforgiving RISK.

But perhaps I pick on the leads too much...I've yet to decide if my reservations about each actor was due to the performances or a sub-par script; my conscious tells me it's the later. 

  Unfortunately the script (mind you not the story) proved to be the film's weakest attribute. Majority of the film belongs to Bullock who, again, wouldn't have been my first choice for a role like this but my overall impression was she carried many of the scenes well enough. The attempts to build an emotional back story for her character Ryan Stone failed,  transforming from bone dry to down right cliché. Creating back story for a character is important so the audience can develop that emotional connection and, ESPECIALLY in a film like Gravity feel the character's tension, anxieties, fear ex. as they push forward to the climax and an undeterminable end. Again, this was more the writers fault than Bullock's. I do appreciate we didn't get any cheesy flash backs of Stone on earth with her beloved daughter, the accident, and Stone's sedated life afterwards. In the hands of another director, poorly plotted flash backs such as these could have ruined the entire film; thankfully Cuarón keeps us in the now, in the space, and in what's important. Any return to Earth before the finale would have broken the atmosphere and caused utter disaster. For keeping such consistency, I must say bravo Caurón on a bold decision.

  Sound, or the absence of sound surrounds Gravity but doesn't let itself become the most memorable thing about the film...although it does make a sizable impact. Explosions are witnessed in almost complete silence with nothing but Steven Price's haunting and inspiring score to accompany them.

Check it out here!

  

  While the character development and back story may be predictable, the film itself is not. Visually unique, one cannot help but return to Kubrick's game changer 2001: A Space Odyssey and remember the impact it had on audiences and film makers alike. Just consider what Gravity means for this generation? With Star Trek and Star Wars with their own come backs underway, Gravity has certainly forced the sequels to up their game. The CGI is flawless and the use of the 3D is the BEST I've ever seen. The cinematography is unbelievable . Simply unbelievable. I would attempt to describe it but in Gravity's case, the pictures really are worth a thousand words. 

    There's not much else I can or will tell you about Gravity other than GO SEE IT! Go see it in Theaters in 3D. It is without a doubt THEE film to watching this fall season. It's an experience unlike any other that you've had at the theater. Tension, anxiety, and frustration are all felt and shared by the audience. Visually impeccable and emotionally heightened, Gravity simply cannot be missed. 

Mortal Instruments: City of Bones

  Sometimes I wonder what the movie industry would become if it didn't have an endless supply of teen fantasy novels to act as screenplay material...

Directed By: Harald Zwart
Released: 2013
Staring: Lily Collins, Jamie Campbell Bower, Robert Sheehan, Adrian Turner, Kevin Zegers, Jemima West, Jonathan Rhys Meyers, & Lena Headey
Rated: PG-13,

  Vampires, werewolves, and witches; staples in Hollywood cinema are normally figureheads for Halloween themed horror flicks. From Max Sherck to Bela Lugosi, Lon Chaney Jr. and even Jack Nicholson, these actors are known for their roles within the supernatural realm. The classic era of Hollywood produced THEE images audiences associate with fantastical and horrific creatures. Looking The Wolfman and Frankenstein in particular, the monster's were terrifying yes, but sympathetic emotions were injected into the story and performances. I myself still want nothing more than to wrap my arms around poor Larry Talbot aka Lon Chaney Jr.and tell him everything will be alright.

Above: The sad and adorable Lon Chaney Jr. & the scary and irresistible Bela Lugosi
Bottom Lon Chaney Jr. & Evelyn Ankers in The Wolfman (1941) 

  March 40 some years in the future and the 80's resurrected horror and it would never be the same. The blood was redder, the girls were hotter, and the villains unforgiving. 80's horror has become it's own genre, generating  countless cult classic that today still have movie goers covering their eyes and jumping out of their seats. The image transformed from sympathetic beast to blood-lusting killer; directors and make-up artists pushed the envelope as well as the fake blood supply. 

David Naughton in American Werewolf in London (1981) 

Keifer Sutherland in The Lost Boys (1987)

  Horror, one of my favorite genres of film, has transformed medieval monsters of folk lore into house hold, revenue-generating assets. Transformation included the jump from horror to other genres; largely fantasy and even more surprisingly romance. Not to say furry monsters, scaly creatures, and charming blood-suckers haven't been the subject of their fair share of amour, just never to the extent of our modern film and more importantly modern literature. 

  New authors create their own rules within their own worlds, generating an endless flow of fresh material for Hollywood to manipulate and market.  I read both Bram Stoker's iconic vampire novel and Mary Shelley's Frankenstein before I finished 5th grade. I read the Twilight series in middle school and despised the film which lead me to question why and how I had enjoyed the books...final conclusion, I enjoyed them out of secret love I had (and still do) harbor for Bela Lugosi and Lon Chaney Jr. Despite the complete failure that was the entire franchise, I continually read fantasy, teen-romance series. While every other girl buried themselves in Nicholas Sparks, Sarah Dessen I attached myself to authors like Melisa Marr and Holly Black. Lots of fae fantasy...{note: J.K. Rowling & J.R.R Tolkien were my first a favorite as far as fantasy literature goes.} 

  But holy cats I need to get back to the movie in question

  Long story short, being a fan of fantasy/romance a friend suggested I check out The Mortal Instrument  series and I HAVE READ THE FIRST ONE, CITY OF BONES...that took much longer than it should have...apologies. The reason I wrote that 4 paragraph exposé was just to give you a little insight on the genre crossing that is so common in not only writing, but in film making. The majority, if not all of the dark fantasy romances with vampires, werewolves, witches, and now demons have come from the flood of cross genre, young adult novels that have captivated readers all over the world. Tolkien was the first, followed by Rowling to create a HUGELY successful franchise off of a fantasy series. It's only a matter of time until YOUR favorite series gets an adaption and you can love or loath how the film industry interprets it. 

FINALLY TO THE ACTUAL MOVIE REVIEW!

 I read City of Bones my junior year I believe and thought it was a solid enjoyable start to a series; I feel the same way about the film. That being said, had I not read the book (no matter how long ago it was) I think I may have been marginally confused by the film. I love vampires, werewolves, fae, and demon hunters so this series is right up my ally; however, for the average movie goer City of Bones may just be a jumbled piles of monsters, angels, demons, and young, angsty romance. 

  

 From what I remember of the book, all major plot points, action sequences, and back stories are present to provide a fun and thrilling movie going experience for audiences but that comes from someone who has read the books and understands that world in which it takes place. I don't know...I've heard mixed reactions from viewers... it IS easy to understand...it ISN'T easy to understand...As one who has read the book it's difficult to be objective. I'll do my best...

City of Bones flows nicely with well choreographed action sequences and features a relatively solid cast. 

  I say relatively solid because let's be honest, this is a young cast in an action/fantasy/romance film, I'm not expecting any Oscar worthy performances but most, save Godfrey Gao as Magnus Bane, were on character and correctly cast. For this reason I'm not going to dissect any of the main cast, just two of the supporting male characters.

  

  The first is Jared Harris as Hodge. His performance less than what I had expected primarily because there was less of his character than you'd think. Where WAS he? I honestly think the character of Hodge was present on screen for less than 10 minutes, making his character nothing more than a story telling device, leading to minimum to no audience connect and therefore reaction when something actually happens to his character. I felt a bit uncomfortable with his character, at first I attributed it to miscasting but the more I think about it that wasn't the problem. The problem was he was just NEVER in the film and was never give a strong character. Hodge is described as this great leader and he was reduced to a shivering coward...I feel screen writers could have done much more with his character, giving poor Jared Harris more to work with.

He does have a nice face...

  Next I want to discuss Jonathan Rhys Meyers...perpetually confusing as a human being, I've never come to a firm like or dislike of him as an actor. Is he fantastic? Not particularly. Is he dreadful? No. He just IS. Soulless seems the appropriate descriptive...Perhaps this is why I so enjoyed Rhys Meyers as Valentine. Soulless yet filled with emotion, is this too contradictory a statement? Well if it is you understand how I feel about him. He has these empty eyes...empty eyes filled with tears, a man totally consumed with power and passion it has destroyed him. Rhys Meyers will next be appearing as the title character in NBC's adaption of Dracula...So far I'm not necessarily thrilled about this BUT one must remember I felt the same way about Hannibal which has become one of my favorite network television series...only time will tell.

The special effects were nothing special...somewhat generic, but I thought they were used well when it came to the werewolf transformations and some of the fire demons featured near the end of the film.

As I wrote earlier, the action sequences were very well choreographed with various weapons and fighting methods used, it kept the fights interesting. I particularly enjoyed the battle with the Vampires. These are no Twilight, hopeless romantic vegetarians, they're an underground bloodsucking gang; taking prisoners and ensuring fear. In this series, the author has returned to the vampires natural core, evil and hungry. The make-up used made them appear a bit zombie-ish but I'll take ripped clothes and dirty skin over diamond sparkles any day. 

Adrian Turner sports some Sweeney Todd esque hair as alpha werewolf Luke

  The troop of werewolves are a bit generic and stereotypical...a bunch of scruffy, motorcycle driving, car fixing guys...but hey, Adrian Turner looked the part and was a good choice for the part. Also, let us rejoice that the werewolves weren't a click of young, hot, hairless teenage bros but older, rough and tough gents I can picture a hard hearted Lon Chaney Jr. joining...as long as he grew a beard. 

  The movie was not without it's corny bits but it's a teen based film so what can you expect...All in all I enjoyed watching City of Bones. It not exceptional, but I think they did quite well taking the source material and putting it on the big screen. It's no Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings and doesn't have the support like the Twilight fandom, but I feel badly that this film didn't do better. Earlier this summer I watched another fantasy teen romance series turned film franchise Beautiful Creatures. I hadn't read the books but my feeling toward that film were almost equal to City of Bones. Nice. I had a good time, I enjoyed it. Many, many critics say these films are "misfires", I disagree. They're just good enough to possibly make a sequel. I mean you have to consider the MATERIAL you're working with...

My final reaction to City of Bones, surprisingly positive.