2012: Mid-Year Review

As we reach the halfway point of 2012, it's a good time to look back on the year so far and if there's anything I could say about this year at the moment, it would be that 2012 has been a great year for movies. Compare this to 2011, where it wasn't until May when the films that year started to get really good. By the end of June last year, the only films I would've heavily recommended at that point were Thor, Fast Five, X-Men: First Class, Transformers 3 (Yes, I'm serious), and Super 8. In terms of the films that have come out this year, they have been much better in terms of overall quality. So far, we have seen Marvel's ultimate team-up movie fully realized with 'The Avengers', the next 'Harry Potter' franchise in 'The Hunger Games', and a smart, if not thought provoking, sci-fi film in 'Prometheus'. Of course, there have been some stinkers this year but so far, the good has outweighed the bad.

The first truly great film of 2012 really came out as early as February, which is pretty rare considering that most of the films that come out during the first quarter of the year aren't really that good. That film in question was director Josh Trank's sci-fi found footage film 'Chronicle'. It is a film that managed to overcome the cliches that plague most found footage films, mostly in part due to its writing. Its three main characters were very likable, and even though one of them became the villain at the end, it was due in part to all of the trauma that he was experiencing in his life. The filmmakers did not just make him some kid who became evil just for fun, but someone we sympathize with. For a found-footage film, it is shot very well, it doesn't do the shaky-cam when it comes to the action sequences, and the effects are pretty good for a movie filmed on a $15 Million budget.

In March, Lionsgate brought the first part of author Suzanne Collins' popular book series to the big screen with 'The Hunger Games'. While many deemed it as 'the next Twilight', it's better if we call it 'the next Harry Potter' because unlike Twilight, The Hunger Games is very well-written with a strong female lead who isn't dependent on a boyfriend. Director Gary Ross did a very good job at adapting the book to film. Aside from the ending playing out rather differently than in the book, it is not like 'Percy Jackson and the Olympians: The Lightning Thief' which barely followed the book at all. Jennifer Lawrence is perfect as Katniss Everdeen and the rest of the cast, from Josh Hutcherson as Peeta Mallark to Lenny Kravitz as Cinna, do fantastic jobs as well.

But the best was yet to come when on May 4^th, Marvel brought out its big guns with director Joss Whedon's 'The Avengers'. Ever since the first Iron Man film back in 2008, we have been teased constantly about this film with all the references throughout Marvel's films and I think it's safe to say that we were unprepared for how amazing the film really was. In other words, 'The Avengers' very much lived up to the hype. For a film this big with as many characters as it has, Whedon made it all work as each character was given enough to do and characters like Loki, Black Widow, and Hawkeye were given much more character development following their previous appearances in other Marvel movies. Really, there isn't a single problem in this movie whatsoever. How Marvel will now move forward with these characters is currently a mystery, but they have done a tremendous job at handling all of these characters so I feel there won't really be any problems. However, 'The Avengers' has certainly raised the bar for superhero films (I'm looking at you, 'Dark Knight Rises').

In June, Ridley Scott released the much anticipated sci-fi flick 'Prometheus', a film that had people questioning if it was a prequel to Scott's sci-fi classic 'Alien'. In hindsight, Prometheus is actually its own story that is only set in the Alien universe. However, most people have deemed this film as being a disappointment mostly due in part to its screenplay that was rewritten by Lost's Damon Lindelof in order to separate the film from 'Alien'. It is true that the writing for the film isn't perfect. Some of the plot lines don't really go anywhere and some characters' motivations aren't very clear. But the film is backed up by amazing visuals, a strong cast (particularly Michael Fassbender as the android David), and a great sense of scale and tension. It shows that Ridley Scott is at his best when he does sci-fi, and even with all the plot holes, the film does leave you wanting more.

SOME OTHER NOTABLE MENTIONS

Men in Black 3 was a surprise because not only did it not fall to the same problem that Men in Black 2 had, but its story also delved deeper into both the backgrounds of both Agent J and Agent K, allowing them to bond more as partners. Also, Josh Brolin kills it as a young Tommy Lee Jones.

Snow White and the Huntsman may seem very similar in style and tone to 'Lord of the Rings', but it is a nice new take on the usual 'Snow White' story that we are used to knowing. Charlize Theron is very entertaining as the evil Witch, Chris Hemsworth continues to be one of the most charming actors in Hollywood as the Huntsman, and Kristen Stewart does do a good job here outside of 'Twilight'.

We may have looked at the trailer for 'The Three Stooges' with disdain, but the film surprisingly worked because the Farrelly brothers did not mess around with this classic comedy act. The three actors they got to play the Stooges were all terrific and the story was also very touching, serving as a nice tribute to Moe and Curly Howard and their friend Larry Fine.

'Brave' isn't exactly a full redemption for Pixar after the disappointment of Cars 2. While it certainly represented a step in the right direction, the story falls flat halfway through becoming much more traditional and pretty predictable as well. That being said though, the characters and the setup for this land that Pixar creates is well-handled and like 'The Hunger Games' has a very strong female lead leading the way.

John Carter may have bombed at the box office, but it was actually pretty good for what it is. Whatever the reason for this film's performance is up in the air, but for the movie itself, really its own problem is the writing, which makes the movie very uneven in terms of pacing. Not really the best choice for a live-action debut, but Andrew Stanton does do an overall good job here.

DISAPPOINTMENTS

I'll admit that I think that 'Red Tails', the film that took George Lucas two decades to make, was okay as a film but it does fall victim to the same problem that plagued the Star Wars prequels... cheesy dialogue and a story that doesn't fully respect the Tuskegee Airmen.

Like with 'Red Tails', the latest Dr. Seuss animated film 'The Lorax' is okay, but I quickly forgot about it after I saw it. It's rather generic actually with a very generic protagonist and a very generic villain and while it does get the message that the original book promoted across all right, it's nothing special.

WORST FILM OF THE YEAR SO FAR

THIS MEANS WAR

I was hoping that this film would be good, but the first half effectively kills it by being unfunny and unrealistic in terms of the romance. The second half is better, but it doesn't save the film.

Aside from 'This Means War', I've stayed away from the more critically bashed movies that have come out this year, including 'The Devil Inside' and 'Battleship'. It seems like things are only going to get better as the year continues. We are only just three weeks away from director Christopher Nolan's highly anticipated conclusion to his Batman trilogy with 'The Dark Knight Rises'. We will also be seeing Jeremy Renner take over for Matt Damon with 'The Bourne Legacy', sequels to both 'Taken' and 'The Expendables', and Quentin Tarantino's next big film, 'Django Unchained'. It just goes to show that this year has certainly a great time for movie-goers.

Spider-Man 3 (2007) review

(Warning: There may be Spoilers)

I wish I could come out and say that Spider-Man 3 was another great film just like the two that came before it, effectively capping a great trilogy of films. Unfortunately, I cannot say that because Spider-Man 3 just isn't as good as its predecessors, falling victim to the dreaded 'third film' curse that has plagued many franchises from Star Wars to X-Men. The main issue with this film comes in its writing, as it juggles way too many plot lines, characters, and villains, making it very uneven compared to the first two films. Not only that, but some of these plot lines are either underdeveloped or just handled the wrong way. But is this truly that bad of a film? Quite frankly, it isn't because what does work in this film does work, from the cast to the action sequences. It's a shame they're let down by a mess of a script that hurts what should have been a great end to this great franchise.

A lot has changed for Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) ever since he was bitten by that genetically-altered super-spider, becoming the webslinger superhero Spider-Man. He has become an icon in the city of New York and plans to propose to the love of his life, Mary Jane (Kirsten Dunst). However, things start to go haywire for Peter when an alien symbiote crashes down into New York and fuses itself to Peter, turning his suit black and also changing his personality. It also doesn't help that Flint Marko (Thomas Haden Church), the man who Peter learns had actually killed his Uncle Ben, has broken out of prison having recently become the shape-shifting criminal 'Sandman' and his old friend Harry (James Franco), who now knows who Peter really is, has taken up his father's mantle as the 'New Goblin' to exact his revenge on Peter for supposedly murdering his father.

There certainly are many problems with this film, but the biggest has to be that the film has too many villains to fit into just a single movie. As if Sandman and New Goblin weren't enough, then the film adds in Eddie Brock (played by Topher Grace), who later becomes fused with the symbiote becoming Venom. Obviously, Venom is a major character in the Spider-Man universe... and yet he's only on screen as Venom for like ten minutes. The truth is, Sam Raimi didn't even wanted to use Venom but was pressured into doing so. If anything, we should at least be glad that we did see Venom especially now that this version of Spider-Man is done.

But if Raimi did have the chance to do a fourth film, he should have just had Venom be the villain in that film and just go with Sandman and New Goblin as the villains because both Church and Franco were actually given very good development overall. With Sandman, we're able to sympathize with him because he's not entirely a bad guy. It's the same situation as with Doc Ock in Spider-Man 2 because he's just a guy who “has just had back luck” as the movie puts it. With this film, Harry Osborn is given a proper character arc as a man who is burdened not only by his father's legacy but now has a vendetta against his best friend because he's the one that Harry believes murdered his father.

Venom isn't the only underdeveloped addition to the cast though. The film also doesn't do much with the Stacys, Police Captain George (James Cromwell) and his daughter Gwen (Bryce Dallas Howard). It would make sense to give them good material because in the comics, Gwen Stacy just so happens to be Peter's first girlfriend even before Mary Jane and while the film does play her as somewhat of a 'rival' to Mary Jane for Peter's affections, she isn't given much else to do once that plot line is over. As for her father, he's really just there to tell Peter the truth about who really killed his uncle. Gwen, her father, and Venom may be important characters in the comics but here, they're just side characters by the end of it all.

In terms of the many plot lines of this movie, a lot of them come from the previously mentioned 'side characters' but there is one that isn't handled very well and that just so happens to be the main conflict that Spider-Man faces in the movie as this symbiote starts to change more than just his suit. At first, it is handled very well as we see how Peter is becoming more separate from Mary Jane and also vengeful against Sandman for killing his uncle. But once Peter starts going emo, it all starts to go downhill. What should be a really serious conflict in Peter's life is instead played up for laughs and when he is being threatening to someone, it's not that believable and makes him look more like a jerk. Things do get serious again later on in the film, but it doesn't help after we had just seen Peter do a dance a la Jerry Lewis in 'The Nutty Professor' because the tone is incredibly inconsistent, conflicted between both goofy and serious moments.

Even with all of these problems, the film itself isn't that bad of a film. Like before, the cast does still do a good job. However, this time Maguire comes off a bit more goofier than before and that whole emo turn doesn't help much either. Still, when he has to be serious, he still does a good job as Peter Parker. The same goes for the rest of the returning cast and the new members of the cast as well, even with the little material that some of them are given. The effects are still great and the action sequences in this film particularly are some of the best in any recent comic book movie. If this script wasn't as messy as it was, then this would've been one heck of a final film but that just isn't the case here. However, the film does end on somewhat of a high note.

Really when you get down to it, Spider-Man 3 isn't really as bad as most people have put it. However, there still are problems mainly with the script. Too many villains, some characters and plot lines that either go nowhere or aren't handled very well, etc. But this isn't a total mess of a film. The acting is still very good and it is still a very entertaining film from beginning to end. It's a shame that what started out with a great first film and was then followed by an even better sequel ends with a less than stellar 'threequel'. But now Marvel has moved on with a new reboot, even though it is only five years after this film. How will director Marc Webb and new leads Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone do in 'The Amazing Spider-Man'? Well, we're just going to have to stay tuned and find out when the film comes out on July 3^rd.

Rating: 3/5

Spider-Man 2 (2004) review

It is extremely rare when a sequel is not only as good as its predecessor, but actually better. When it comes to these kinds of movies, most people would probably say 'Terminator 2', 'Aliens', or 'The Godfather Part II', and in terms of comic book movies, the obvious answer would be Spider-Man 2. While its predecessor can be regarded as one of the landmark movies of the superhero genre, Spider-Man 2 sets the standard for how great a comic book movie can really be. Pretty much every problem that the first movie had is fixed here, and the story delves deeper into the conflicts that the main character faces both physically and emotionally. Add in a great cast and a even greater villain and you have one of the best superhero movies of all time.

Two years after the events of the first film, Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) has struggled to balance life as both himself and as the webslinger crime-fighter Spider-Man. Unable to handle both identities, he has distanced himself from everyone he cares about. The love of his life, Mary Jane (Kirsten Dunst), is about to marry an astronaut, and his friend Harry (James Franco) holds a personal vendetta against Spider-Man who he believes murdered his father. As Peter's life starts to become more stressful, his powers start to become unreliable, and he considers a life away from being Spider-Man. Meanwhile, renowned scientist Dr. Otto Octavius (Alfred Molina), after a failed experiment which results in the death of his wife, turns to a life of crime, endangering the whole world in the process.

Where Spider-Man succeeding in telling an origin story, Spider-Man 2 succeeds in diving even deeper into the character of Peter Parker and the many problems he has dealing with his two identities as he tries to balance everything in his life. He is losing the people he cares for because of his responsibilities to both them and to New York as Spider-Man and because he can't handle both lives at the same time, he even gives up being Spider-Man at one point to live his own life. The writers not only did an amazing job with Spider-Man but also with the film's villain, Doc Ock. Instead of making him a guy who just became evil for the fun of it, the writers made him a character we can sympathize with, having turned evil because of the terrible things that happened to him.

Any problem that the first film had (or in this case, now has) is non-existent here. The effects are very much improved on and the dialogue isn't as cheesy as it was before. This time, Raimi perfectly blends humor with drama compared to the first film where looking at it now, some of it is really hard to take seriously because of the dialogue. Maguire yet again does a fantastic job as Peter Parker and the returning cast of Dunst, Franco, and Rosemary Harris do great as well. Franco is also given a much more substantial role this time as Harry, now burdened by the legacy his father left for him and also angry at Spider-Man for taking his father away from him, even though he didn't. Alfred Molina is also brilliant as Octavius, giving much depth to the role like any great villain.

The first Spider-Man movie may still be a great movie, but Spider-Man 2 is nothing less than brilliant. Every problem that the first film had is fixed and the writers did an amazing job at delving into the many conflicts of Peter Parker. The character of Dr. Octavius is also one of the best villains ever in a comic book movie, which is also thanks in part to the writing. Like with any good sequel, the stakes are raised even higher than they were before and the film does not disappoint in any way. Very rarely has a comic book movie gone this far in developing its characters and Spider-Man 2 stands strong as one of the best comic book movies ever made. Heck, I'd go as far and say one of the best movies ever.

Rating: 5/5!

Next up: Spider-Man 3, which obviously is a different story compared to the first two films

Spider-Man (2002) review

As we are on the heels of the release of 'The Amazing Spider-Man', it's rather odd how Columbia and Marvel are intent on going along with this new reboot just half a decade after the final film in director Sam Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy was released in 2007. It was only a decade ago in 2002 when Raimi's first Spider-Man film hit theaters. It is a film that is now recognized along with the original X-Men film and Blade as one of the landmark films of the superhero genre. Admittedly, looking back on it now in 2012, the film is a bit dated and the dialogue is really cheesy which makes it hard to take this film seriously. But there's no denying that it is still a really good superhero movie with a superb lead, an entertainingly over-the-top villain, and a overall solid origin story.

Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) was just an average high-school student until one day, while on a field trip, he is bitten by a radioactive 'super-spider' and as a result, gains spider-like abilities because of the bite. Taking advice from his late Uncle Ben (Cliff Robertson) that 'with great power comes great responsibility', Peter uses his new found powers to fight crime as 'Spider-Man'. As he tries to adapt to these new found powers and his feelings towards his lifetime crush Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst), Peter must also deal with the rising threat of the Green Goblin, who is secretly Norman Osborn (Willem Dafoe), the father of Peter's friend Harry (James Franco), who tests his company's new performance-enhancing chemical on himself with dangerous side effects.

Unlike other superhero films like 'X-Men' or 'Thor', Spider-Man is not an example of a film that is only a set-up for sequels. Screenwriter David Koepp and Raimi do a fine job handling the origins of the character without pulling anything that would be too stupid. While I never read any of the Spider-Man comics before seeing the film, it seems like they were very faithful to the comics which is always a good thing when it comes to these kinds of movies. The story itself doesn't really pull any punches, but still works very well overall. However, Koepp's screenplay isn't perfect, which is where the outdated nature of the movie starts to kick in. The majority of the dialogue is incredibly cheesy and really can't be taken seriously sometimes. Really, that's the biggest problem with this film today is that not a lot of it can be taken very seriously. Not only is the dialogue cheesy, but some of the effects are kind of dated now and Green Goblin's costume is also rather cheesy-looking too.

In terms of casting, Tobey Maguire is perfectly cast as Peter Parker, displaying the right emotions for the character at this point (emphasis on 'this point'), although it would've been better if he was cracking more jokes, which is something that Spider-Man is known for as a character. As the Green Goblin, Willem Dafoe goes quite over-the-top many times and his costume and the cheesy dialogue don't help much either. Even so, it is very entertaining nonetheless because like with Maguire, he was perfectly cast in the role. Kirsten Dunst does a pretty good job as Mary Jane, and she does have good chemistry with Maguire. While he isn't given much to do at this point in the story, James Franco does a fine job as Harry Osborn. The rest of the supporting cast do a fine job as well, from the strong performances by Robertson and Rosemary Harris as Uncle Ben and Aunt May, respectively, to JK Simmons' hilarious and scene-stealing performance as Jonah Jameson, the publisher of the Daily Bugle who believes that Spider-Man is a criminal.

Overall, the first Spider-Man film is one that unfortunately hasn't aged very well compared to some of the more recent comic book films. The reason for this is because looking at it now, the dialogue is very cheesy and because of other random problems, it's a hard film to take seriously, especially when looking at what would come next for the webslinger. Even so, this is still a really good comic book film backed up by the solid, though traditional, story and the great cast led by Maguire as Spider-Man and Dafoe as the Green Goblin. Where this film ranks amongst anybody in terms of the greatest comic book movies of all time is debatable, but there is no denying the impact that this film had in terms to comic book movies in general.

Rating: 4/5

NEXT UP: Spider-Man 2

Box Office Results: 6/22/12-6/24/12

Pixar dominated the box office for the 13th straight film in a row as 'Brave' took the top spot at the box office with 66.7 Million, as Dreamworks' 'Madagascar 3' moved to second place. 'Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter' took third place with $16.5 million and the other new release of the week, 'Seeking a Friend for the End of the World', barely cracked the Top 10 with $3.8 Million. In other news, 'The Avengers', which finishes at number eight this week, is only 1.2 million away from grossing 600 million domestically.

1. Brave: $66.7 Million

2. Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted: $20.2 Million

3. Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter: $16.5 Million

4. Prometheus: $10 Million

5. Snow White and the Huntsman: $8 Million

6. Rock of Ages: $8 Million

7. That's My Boy: $7.9 Million

8. The Avengers: $7 Million (TOTAL U.S. gross after 8 weeks: $598.2 MILLION)

9. Men in Black 3: $5.6 Million

10. Seeking a Friend for the End of the World: $3.8 Million

The art of Post-Credit Stingers

(WARNING: There might be some spoilers if you haven't seen 'The Avengers')

Odds are whenever you watch a movie, whether in the theater or at home, you're done watching it as soon as the credits start rolling. But recently, a new trend has occurred where many films include what we call a 'post-credit stinger' at the end of the credits, usually to leave things open for a possible sequel or to add in one last joke. Whether or not a sequel is made pretty much depends if audiences liked the film or not, so these 'stingers' aren't guarantees that a film will get a sequel. Even so, doing a 'post-credit stinger' is very tricky because not many people will be willing to sit through the entire credits just to watch one quick scene.

Post-credit stingers have been around for quite a while but before they became popular, films usually ended with lines of text that would state the plans for a sequel, one example being the 1963 film 'From Russia With Love' which ended with the line 'James Bond will return'. The first major use of a post-credits stinger was in 1979's 'The Muppet Movie' and after that, these scenes became popular in the 80's. They were usually used in comedy films to break the fourth wall in films such as 'Ferris Bueller's Day Off' and 'Spice World'. More recently, post-credit stingers have become common in the Marvel movies that led up to 'The Avengers', starting with the first Iron Man film in 2008 when SHIELD director Nick Fury appeared in Tony Stark's house to talk to him about 'The Avenger Initiative'.

Since then, every other pre-Avenger Marvel film included a scene at the end of the credits that continued to build up anticipation for 'The Avengers', ending when the post-credit scene at the end of 'Captain America: The First Avenger' gave audiences a first look at director Joss Whedon's ultimate superhero team up. Marvel wasn't done yet, as 'The Avengers' had not one, but two end-credit scenes. The first was the scene to set up a sequel, introducing the villain Thanos. The second scene where the Avengers eat in silence at a shwarma restaurant was played more for laughs, but I have the feeling that when the film first came out, not many people knew about it for a few reasons. First of all, that scene was filmed not when they were actually filming the movie, but after the movie was already completed. But the bigger reason is because most people probably thought the scene with Thanos was the only post-credit stinger, so they did not stay to the end of the credits to watch the other scene. The first time I saw 'The Avengers' in theaters, me and my friend Zach were the only people left in the theater when that second scene played. The second time I saw the film, a few more people stayed but by then the majority of the crowd that night had left.

You see, when it comes to a film's credits, there are usually two parts to it. There is what I refer to as the 'visual credits' which are the first credits that pop up listing the director, writer, actors, etc. After that are the traditional 'scrolling credits' that list everyone else. Except for the Thanos scene, every Marvel post-credit stinger, with one exception, was placed at the end of the scrolling credits, meaning that in order to see them, you would have to stay through the credits and not many people do that anyway. They just leave as soon as the movie's over. If you have seen all of the other post-credit stingers in the Iron Man movies, Thor, and Captain America, then you knew that there would be a scene after 'The Avengers'. After all, when a film earns one billion at the box office and is as amazing as it is, it's clear they'll make a sequel. But the scene with Thanos was placed right after the visual credits so people must have thought that that was all they were going to do.

What Marvel should have done for all of the 'pre-Avenger movies' was to have the post-credits stingers put after the visual credits. One of the pre-Avenger movies, The Incredible Hulk, actually had its post-credit stinger even before the visual credits. That is where they should have put that scene with Thanos in 'The Avengers' and then have the scene in the shwarma restaurant after the visual credits. In terms of other movies, films like 'Green Lantern' and 'Fast Five' did the smart thing and had their post-credit stingers placed after the visual credits. But films like the Pirates of the Caribbean movies put their end-credit scenes after the scrolling credits. Most people aren't going to stay through the whole credits because let's face it, it's boring. If the filmmakers do it that way, then they should do it the way John Hughes did it in 'Ferris Bueller's Day Off'. What Hughes did was put another scene that he couldn't find a place for in the movie over the credits so that way people would stay to watch the post-credits stinger.

It is also risky to do a post-credits stinger if you're leaving things open for a sequel. Of course, Marvel could get away with that in terms of their movies because it was certain after Iron Man that an Avengers movie was possible. I'm not so sure though that a film like 'Green Lantern' or 'Battleship' is going to get away with it because not only were both of these films poorly received, but they barely earned their budgets back at the box office. Just because you include these scenes does not mean that Hollywood will call you back to make another film if your first film doesn't make any money. But then again, look to the year 2011 where there literally 28 sequels released that year so a film does technically always have a chance of getting a sequel but it doesn't mean that everyone will see it.

Including post-credits stingers to any movie is tricky. What filmmakers should do if to put their end-credit scenes after the first half of the credits so that no one will have to stay through the whole credits just to watch a single scene. If a filmmaker does decide to put the end-credit scene after the scrolling credits, do something so that audiences won't be bored. This is the age where people don't even watch commercials anymore because they Tivo everything and when these movies come out on DVD, odds are people are just going to skip through the credits to get to that stinger. Now that 'The Avengers' is completed, Marvel will probably do more post-credits stingers after their next few movies but they'll probably make us wait for the credits just to see them.

...

What, you're still here? It's over! Go home. Go!

Brave (2012) review

Like with any film from Pixar, anticipation is high for their latest film 'Brave' but it is not just because of Pixar's well-established track record or the fact that this is the first film from them to feature a female lead. A lot of this anticipation also comes because Pixar is on the road to redemption after their first misstep in Cars 2, which was obviously not received well by critics. So the big question is whether or not Pixar managed to deliver another masterpiece here or not. Well, the answer is both yes and no. On one hand, the set-up is great, the characters are memorable, and the message the film gets across is very heartfelt, which is something Pixar always does a great job at doing. However, the writing prevents this film from being as great as Pixar's previous work as it goes a more traditional and predictable route halfway through.

Princess Merida (Kelly Macdonald) of the Scottish kingdom of DunBroch is more interested in adventure than being a princess, as she is constantly pressured by her mother Elinor (Emma Thompson) to follow tradition and to be a proper lady. On the day she is set to be married to one of the sons of the neighboring Kingdoms, Merida defies tradition, causing problems between her and her mother. Wanting to change her destiny, Merida acquires a potion from a witch that will apparently change her mother's mind about the matter of marriage. However, in reality, it turns her mother into a bear, forcing Merida to find a way to change her back before the spell becomes permanent.

Brave opens up the way any great Pixar film would, with breathtaking visuals and memorable characters. The set-up for this land they create is very intriguing and the overall message of mother and daughter bonding is very sincere and touching, as in any Pixar film. The film also does a good job at establishing Merida as a strong female character. She does try to avoid the fact that it's because of her that everything goes wrong by blaming someone else which kind of makes her a brat in that sense, but she's a strong young woman who can fend for herself and is very likable, a lot of this coming from Macdonald's performance. The film also has a terrific supporting voice cast, including Billy Connolly as Merida's tough but fun-loving father Fergus and Kevin McKidd, Craig Ferguson, and Robbie Coltrane as the three lords whose sons vie for Merida's hand in marriage who each have their own funny moments throughout the film.

But once the movie reaches the halfway point, things start to go downhill. The story ends up being very traditional and rather predictable in terms of what Merida must do to save her mother. It's not really about Merida trying to change her own fate, but more of her trying to save her mother from a terrible curse that she put on her. This is the same problem that Cars 2 had, as the story is more oriented at kids than adults unlike the other films in the Pixar canon. The only difference between Cars 2 and Brave is that in Brave, that's only for about half of the film. It's a shame really because Pixar did such a good job setting up these characters and this land to let them down with a typical 'save your mother' plot line, which doesn't match up with the more serious events that take place in this movie.

Brave isn't quite at the same level as the Pixar films that came before it, but it is still a well-made movie in regards to its characters, particularly its female lead, its visuals, and the land that it creates. However, the film's story hurts it once it reaches the halfway point, becoming much more traditional and predictable. Pixar still has a long way to go before it gets back to making the masterpiece films that they are known for, and as these last two films have shown, the writing has been the issue. Then again it seems that today's films always have problems when it comes to writing. Hopefully the next few films that Pixar is working on will reestablish them as the great animation company that they are, but for the time being, Brave is a step in the right direction.

7.5/10

Box Office Results: 6/15/12-6/17/12

Newcomers 'Rock of Ages' and 'That's My Boy' fail to impress audiences as 'Madagascar 3' stays on top of the box office for the second week in a row and 'Prometheus' retains the number two spot. 'Madagascar 3' even earned more than both new releases combined. The star-studded 'Rock of Ages' only finishes in third with 15 million while the latest Adam Sandler flick finishes fifth with 13 million.

1. Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted: $35.5 Million

2. Prometheus: $20.2 Million

3. Rock of Ages: $15 Million

4. Snow White and the Huntsman: $13.8 Million

5. That's My Boy: $13 Million

6. Men in Black 3: $10 Million

7. The Avengers: $8.8 Million

8. The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel: $2.2 Million

9. Moonrise Kingdom: $2.1 Million

10. What to Expect When You're Expecting: $1.3 Million

Box Office Results: 6/8/12-6/10/12

In a battle between a computer-animated family film and an R-rated sci-fi flick, Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted came out on top with $60.4 million. In second was director Ridley Scott's highly anticipated 'Prometheus', which stll performed strongly with $50 million.

1. Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted: $60.4 Million

2. Prometheus: $50 Million

3. Snow White and the Huntsman: $23 Million

4. Men in Black 3: $13.5 Million

5. The Avengers: $10.8 Million

6. The Best Exotic Marigold hotel: $3.2 Million

7. What to Expect When You're Expecting: $2.7 Million

8. Battleship: $2.3 Million

9. The Dictator: $2.2 Million

10. Dark Shadows: $1.4 Million

Prometheus (2012) review

In 1979, Ridley Scott helmed 'Alien', a sci-fi horror classic starring Sigourney Weaver as a member of a spaceship crew that is sent to investigate a mysterious ship but ends up bringing a terrifying creature on board their own ship. While the film itself received rather mixed reviews when it first came out, it has since been regarded as one of the best sci-fi films ever made. Now, more than three decades after 'Alien', Scott returns to the Alien franchise with Prometheus... sort of. Actually, despite what we have seen from the trailers, Prometheus is not a direct prequel to 'Alien', even though it does take place in the same universe. It's its own story, and shouldn't be compared to Alien because of it. That, and this is one of the better sci-fi films I've seen in a long time. Granted, the film doesn't answer all of its questions but it is backed up by a rock-solid cast and breathtaking visuals, and is very thrilling from beginning to end.

In the year 2089, archaeologists Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) and Charlie Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green) discover a star map found amongst the remains of many unrelated ancient cultures and the two deduce that this is an invitation from their 'creators' to come find them. With financial help from Peter Weyland (Guy Pearce), the CEO of Weyland Industries, the two join the crew of the ship Prometheus as it heads off to the moon LV-223, where the star map lead to. Joined by the android David (Michael Fassbender) and Weyland employee Meredith Vickers (Charlize Theron), Shaw and Holloway look to find the answers to mankind's origins, but instead discover what could threaten the entire human race.

Prometheus is one very ambitious film, but it really doesn't answer all of the questions it puts out there. It never fully delves into the possibilities of how mankind came to be, instead going a more predictable route when it comes to the story. However, that's not really a bad thing because at the end of the whole thing, it does leave you wanting more and it is still a very smart sci-fi film, never doing anything too absurd or stupid. The film's amazing visuals and grand scale leaves the viewer in suspense from beginning to end and the questions that are left unanswered will most likely be answered in a sequel. In fact, writer Damon Lindelof directly stated that they did leave some elements of the plot unresolved 'deliberately' and yet they did answer enough questions in case a sequel wasn't going to happen. But unlike other recent films (Wrath of the Titans and Men in Black 3 to name a few), there is enough material here to warrant one.

Character development is also a bit lacking in some areas, but I attest that more to the fact that there's too many characters. After all, every film like this will of course have some characters who are just there to be killed off but the writers did a good job developing the main characters enough to make them interesting. It also helps that this film has a excellent cast because there is not a bad performance from anyone. The standout is Michael Fassbender, who gives a chilling performance as David, who is easily the most interesting character in the film. But the rest of the cast does a fantastic job too, including Rapace, Marshall-Green, Idris Elba as the ship's pilot Janek, and Theron.

Prometheus may be one of the most anticipated films of the year, but so far many are saying that it is rather disappointing. I would have to disagree with them for the most part because this is a great sci-fi film that should not be compared to Alien in any way. It's its own film and while it doesn't answer every question, it is still very compelling, well-acted, and visually stimulating. It's a film that will be one worth talking about for a long time, even if they don't do a sequel. Easily Ridley Scott's best film in a long time, it continues to cement his legacy as one of the best directors in the history of film. Prometheus may not end up as big of a classic as Alien, but it is certainly one of the best sci-fi films in recent years.

Rating: 4.5/5

Snow White and the Huntsman (2012) review

It is very rare when two movies come out the same year and both are based off of the same material. Such is the case with the two films this year based off of Snow White, the 1812 German fairy tale from the Brothers Grimm. Earlier this year in March, Relativity Media released 'Mirror, Mirror' directed by Tarsem Singh, a more family-friendly take on the story. Meanwhile, over at Universal, first-time director Rupert Sanders takes a different approach with 'Snow White and the Huntsman', which is considerably much darker and more action-oriented than Singh's version. How does this adaptation of 'Snow White' hold up? Well overall,the film actually does work pretty well because not only does the film look amazing visually, but the writers did a really solid job with the story, staying close to the original tale while still doing enough to offer a new take on it as well.

For years, England has been under the sadistic rule of Queen Ravenna (Charlize Theron), a powerful sorceress who drains other women of their youth in order to stay beautiful. She soon learns that Snow White (Kristen Stewart), the daughter of the King she murdered to take the throne and whom she imprisoned when she was very young, is set to surpass her as 'fairest of them all' but that if she consumes her heart, she will become immortal. When Snow White escapes, Ravenna enlists help of Eric the Huntsman (Chris Hemsworth), to whom she promises to resurrect his dead wife if he finds Snow White. However, once the Huntsman locates Snow White, she warns him that Ravenna will betray him and together the two join forces with Snow White's childhood friend Prince William (Sam Claflin) in order to take on the evil queen.

What makes the whole film work is the way it goes telling the story because this is a tale that has been done countless times already. While the cliché is very overused, this is truly not the same Snow White you grew up with. This is not the Disney version and it certainly isn't like 'Mirror, Mirror'. It's dark, gritty, and violent; almost like if Snow White mixed with Lord of the Rings while also adding a bit of Pan's Labyrinth in there with all of the mystical creatures Snow White encounters during her journey. Don't expect the dwarfs in this movie to be singing a merry tune. These dwarfs are fierce warriors, and yet they do still bring some humor into a film that is very serious in tone. It does also help that the dwarves here are played by a great group of actors, including Bob Hoskins, Ian McShane, and Nick Frost.

While going very over-the-top at times, Charlize Theron superbly nails the role of the Evil Witch. On the other side of the spectrum, we have more serious performances from Chris Hemsworth and Sam Claflin, and both do a rock-solid job in their roles as the Huntsman and Prince William, who I can best describe as a 'medieval Hawkeye' here. Even Kristen Stewart does a good job as Snow White, and a lot of that comes from the fact that the writing for her character is far superior to Bella from Twilight by not making her male-dependent and a strong female character like Katniss from 'The Hunger Games'. However, I am rather worried that if a sequel is made, the writers will hopefully not make her choose between Eric and William and the reason I say this is because without me spoiling anything, they kind of make it a bit obvious who she is going to go with.

Snow White and the Huntsman is a fresh new take on the classic tale of Snow White and as a result, it is a really entertaining film. It is backed up by a solid cast and the visuals are second to none. I'm not entirely supportive of the idea to give every major fantasy story a dark twist like Hollywood is apparently all about now, but the writers did a good job of handling it here, even if it draws many similarities to Lord of the Rings and Pan's Labyrinth. It will be interesting to see how they would do a sequel without Charlize Theron as the Queen, but all I'm hoping for is that they won't pull a 'Twilight' and make it painstakingly obvious who Snow White is going to end up with. Kristen Stewart is doing a far better job here than in Twilight so going that path would just ruin it.

Rating: 4/5 

Box Office Results: 6/1/12-6/3/12

The only major new release of the week, 'Snow White and the Huntsman' took the crown for the first week of June with an total weekend gross of 56.3 million. Meanwhile, 'The Avengers' and 'Men in Black 3' continue to perform well as both films closed out the top three this week, with Men in Black 3 taking second with 29.3 million (passing 100 million dollars domesticallly) and 'The Avengers' finishing in 3rd with 20.3 million.

1. Snow White and the Huntsman: $56.3 million

2. Men in Black 3: $29.3 million

3. The Avengers: $20.2 million

4. Battleship: $4.8 million

5. The Dictator: $4.7 million

6. Best Exotic Marigold Hotel: $4.6 million

7. What to Expect when you're Expecting: $4.4 million

8. Dark Shadows: $3.8 million

9. Chernobyl Diaries: $3 million

10. For Greater Glory: $1.8 million