The Fantastic Phantom (1996 version)

The Phantom

By: Katie Miller

There is nothing like a good old 1996, superhero VHS to warm and cheer the spirits. Its fun to laugh at the car stunts, fight scenes, and imaginary happenings of the movie. But, that’s what films are all about. Some things that are done in cinema are not possible, very unlikely, and almost unbelievable. The only difference in films from the “early” film years (60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s) and current films is they are better at tricking our minds with the help of the supernatural computer. But, things are done in film to amaze and entertain. The Phantom was created to do just that.

We are first placed into the story of the Phantom’s background and basic history. Basically, he loses his father to a band of pirates and, after being rescued, discovers his lot in life: find and destroy his father’s murderers and protect the lesser of mankind. He also disguises himself as Kit Walker, when not in his purple suite and black mask.

The Phantom (Billy Zane) is of course a “loner”. He lives in a skull-shaped cave with a friend, who is like Alfred Pennyworth, Batman’s butler. He also has a horse and a wolf who are awesome and are so well trained that they are able to obey any and every command of their master.

The Phantom is said to immortal. Many men have killed him in the past but, he is often seen by the natives, even after his murder is reported. That is why he is called the ghost that walks. This is very strange because he is a young man but has been around for around three hundred years. It is very confusing until you discover ‘the secrete’ behind the mask.

The Phantom is thrust into an important mission that has the potential to threaten the fate of the world. Three majestic skulls could plunge the world under the power and control of one man. When all three sculls are together, they hold a power unknown to mankind. At one time in the past, the scull’s power was controllable. No one knows the secret to control their power. If they are placed into the wrong hands, the world and everyone in it would be under one person’s control.

After one scull is discovered and taken by a man named Xander Drax (Treat Williams), the Phantom makes it his mission to prevent Drax from accomplishing his evil scheme of taking over the world. Unfortunately, all three sculls end up in the hands of Mr. Drax along with Phantom’s girlfriend. By the way, she doesn’t know he is the Phantom. Drax doesn’t know what power he holds with all three sculls in his possession and there is a fight to the finish between Drax and the Phantom.

Phantom’s girlfriend from college is named Diana Palmer (Kristy Swanson). She hasn’t seen him since he took off and never returned or wrote or told anyone where he was. Diana knows him as Kit Walker, she has never heard of the Phantom. He is then stuck with the decision of telling her his secret and revealing his identity or being separated from the one he truly loves forever.

The cinematography of this film was great too. The jungle scenes, the shots of the ocean, and the rocks and cliffs were absolutely majestic. But, some of the scenes looked staged, particularly the first. It’s hard to watch a movie from then and compare it to films made now. The technology improvement has made such a huge difference in the way movies are made. Scenes that would be near impossible during the time of The Phantom’s creation are made so naturally and realistic that it seems possible when watched. As a matter of fact, we don’t even think of it as impossible. But, for the technology of its time, this film will blow your socks off.

The Phantom is a very good movie that I would recommend to anyone. The storyline is good, fun, and exciting. I would like to see the movie remade with today’s improvements and technology. It has the potential to be as good or even better than Captain America: The First Avenger. Strong words, I know, but it is really that good.

Sherlock Holmes

Sherlock Holmes
Review by Courtney Baker

Based on the series of novels and short stories by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle the 2009 film Sherlock Holmes puts a new twist on an old favorite in. Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey Jr.), ace detective, and his trusty companion Dr. Watson (Jude Law) are on an adventure- their last, because Watson is to be wed. The wellbeing of England is on their shoulders as Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong) terrorizes London with supposed sorcery, while Holmes’ fate may rest on the shoulders of the only woman able to outwit him, Irene Adler (Rachael McAdams).

The film is a brilliant look into the mind of a genius, and of course, there’s a fine line between genius and insanity. Some may call this Holmes mad. He does indeed seem to be portrayed as erratic, a bit scatterbrained at times, and more than a little bit unorthodox in his methods. But when you get down to it, he really is a genius. Some may look at this Holmes and say that they ruined what Holmes was, they portrayed him all wrong. When people think Sherlock Holmes, they often think of a polished, straight edged, simply highly intelligent character who is very posh and high class. But Sherlock Holmes was a boxer, a smoker, used cocaine and morphine (both of which were legal at the time, though) and was unconventional to get the information he needed. He didn’t just go through places picking out tiny details and using his impressive deductive skills to solve the case. He went through big adventures too. This film re-imagined him by taking him back to his roots and making him as gritty and insane as he really could have been.

Holmes wasn’t the only character that was re-imagined. In the original short story “A Scandal in Bohemia,” Irene Adler was once only an opera star from New Jersey who had evidence of her relationship with a king once. Even then she was the woman; she could outsmart Holmes, arguably one of the cleverest minds in his world, as she does in the movie. Now she’s a world class thief forced into a deal with who could soon be Holmes’ main enemy.

And look at Watson. Dr. John Watson is often portrayed or thought to be an insistent super-fan of Sherlock’s. In this version, it’s the exact opposite. It’s a look on the friendship that is a bit unusual. Holmes seems to be the type of person who works, and only speaks to people involved in his work- as many highly intelligent people are. Even if Watson simply ceased working with him as a detective, obviously in some aspects Holmes would be lacking, and they would see each other little. It’s fairly obvious in one scene, when Holmes hasn’t had a case in a while, that he’s bored and he needs Watson’s help getting back into things (and facing the sunlight).

The chemistry between Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law is fantastic in the leading roles. They work with each other like a true pair of bickering and sarcastic friends. Watson seems quite fed up with Holmes and his eccentric behavior, but it’s clear that they are close friends. If they weren’t close friends, I expect that Holmes would have been run through with his bow for practicing the violin at three AM, and likewise Holmes would have murdered Watson for letting the flies go- the ones that Holmes had been catching for six hours due to his boredom and probable high. But no matter how much they aggravate each other, they’ll always be there, whether they’re in an explosion, being chased by thugs, or Holmes has simply forgotten his revolver again. The way that Downey and Law act tells you this.

The same can’t be said for the chemistry between the trio- Adler, Holmes, and Watson. They don’t work as well together as just Holmes and Watson, and it’s always more fun to see Adler against Holmes than with him. She thoroughly bewilders Holmes. Luckily, they don’t work together for very long before Adler’s against Holmes again. Still, between Holmes and Adler, there’s still a sense of a very witty yet on edge love. After all, at the beginning of the movie, Watson points out that Holmes should probably avoid her, considering she’s tricked him before… twice.

All of our heroic takedowns are reasoned out and thought through before they happen, offering the audience a different look on our mystery. Yet, where some things are reasoned out before hand, when the characters start solving things or hashing out what needs to be or has been learned, the audience is taken back and walked through it again after they’ve seen it happen once, like when Holmes follows Irene from his home after she lets herself in to present him with a case. The audience isn’t even aware of the fact that Holmes followed Irene, not until he explains what happened to Watson afterwards.

The message of the entire thing could be that friendship holds strong, even through change. Just because Watson is moving out and getting married, doesn’t mean he’s any less Holmes’ friend. He can hardly resist being his friend really. No matter how much Holmes frustrates him, he still loves the adventure and mystery involved in being Sherlock Holmes’ right hand man. Or maybe the message is that there’s always something bigger waiting for you, as Professor Moriarty waits for Holmes.

This film gives you the clues, and you can follow along and solve the mystery with Holmes, if you care to. The camera hovers on this, a character says something else, and it’s a puzzle for the solving, but offers enough twists to not be a predictable and boring story. The wit and joking between Holmes and the other characters makes you laugh. It’s an action film, thrilling and fast paced. You’re drawn into the late 19th century, pulled into London, and you enjoy every minute of the ride.

Hugs Not Drugs: A Review of Charlie Bartlett

Hugs not Drugs

Love and Communication in Charlie Bartlett

The tricky thing about Charlie Bartlett is that it sneaks up on you. It's a slow building piece of work, content to touch upon small story elements here and there before finally coalescing into a very emotional ending sequence. You're given the story of a typical rebellious youth, that merges into a fish out of water tale, then adds an undertone of budding romance, then with montages that make it seem like this is about successful enterprise, then the moment where fame becomes too real, then regret, then heartache—it's all very dizzying. And for roughly the first hour of this movie, I wasn’ t all to big a fan of it. It wasn’t bad, per se: It's well-acted, has an interesting premise, and is very competently shot. But what I thought was going to be a sly stab at what one could perceive as the over medication of today's youth—a premise that it just decides to flirt with rather than ask out on a date—turned out to be about the ultimate power in this universe: communication.

Comparisons, of course, can be made. The entire film is very evocative of other modern classic youth films, most starkly Wes Anderson's Rushmore. Opening with an dream sequence, the prep school attire, the prevalence of Cat Stevens—at first I was more than prepared to think that director Jon Poll was being a blatant thief. But thievery is okay in art, because almost all art is theft. You then of course realize, as the film goes on, that Poll is not a thief, but merely a man fond of homage—not entirely surprising, considering his primary work has been in the field of editing films for the last 20 years. With such a steady diet of what people watch, it's not shocking that Charlie Bartlett at points reminded me of all of my favorite high school films.

But the story is unique, even if it does share many of the tropes of the genre. Charlie Bartlett( Anton Yelchin ), recently expelled from a private school, tries his hand at public school. In typical fish out of water fashion he gets beaten up by a rough element, all while flirting with and crushing on Susan Gardner( the inimitable Kat Dennings ). The catch of course being that Susan's father is the Principal of the high school, Nathan Gardner( Robert Downey Jr. ). over a series of adventures that include selling drugs and attempting to enact real change within the school's drama departments and general faculty, Charlie comes of age, or figures out who he is, or whatever these movies are about. Does it really matter? Most teenage life types of films are less about the destination and more about the journey, and Charlie Bartlett is no different.

That the film opens with Charlie addressing an adoring crowd is not coincidental. The nod to Rushmore is there, but it also lets us know exactly what the movie will ultimately prove itself to be about. In the world of Charlie Bartlett, lack of communication causes all of the problems—providing a means for that communication solves it. Parents don’t communicate with children, authority doesn’ t communicate with the proletariat, girls don’t communicate with boys and vice versa. Charlie being the conduit for all of these silently frustrated forces to finally talk with one another affords him a godlike status, almost on the level of a force of nature—he dynamically changes not only any scenario he's thrown into, but the very fabric of the reality around him.

The question that one has to ask while viewing this is, is this film in fact anti-psychiatry? This is the stickiest of the issues raised, and the answer isn’t easy. The film does take it's fair share of jabs at the idea of medicating your problems away—not once did a single one of the therapists Charlie sees for his faked problems request an amount of time to further discern the root of his problems. Instead, they were content to write him prescriptions, which of course fueled his burgeoning drug trade. But notice what happens when he doles these prescriptions out—the students must talk to him, in the manner of a therapist. What makes Charlie here a more effective counselor for the problems of his fellow students? One almost feels like the film wants to blame this on generational divide—a fact made all the more explicit by the film's finale.

Charlie, having so radically shifted the agreed upon order of things in the life of Nathan Gardner, finds himself at the mercy of Gardner drunkenly waving a loaded pistol. What becomes troubling about this scene isn’t the acting, which is superb, but the ay that it appears to reinforce the order of the world. After being threatened and yelled at, Charlie finally breaks down: “I'm just a kid!” he yells. And, as if by some magic, Gardner finally eases up. Is all finally correct in the jungle now that Charlie realizes he is a subordinate to the adult order? This is what troubles me about all of this—for a film that so gleefully embraces the down with the man, anarchic joy of being a teenager, why does it immediately want to revert to the set ways of the world?

The trick is that it doesn’t. It's not only Charlie's admission that he has no clue, but also Principal Gardner's that turn this finale into something truly affecting. None of us truly feel like we have a real 100% grip on the lives we lead. But letting go of our tenuous grasp on it, the lie that we tell ourselves that we are truly in control of this roller coaster, that's the tough part. What happens in the end of this is a truly transcendent moment between two human beings. A grown alcoholic and a seventeen year drug dealer, at odds since they first laid eyes on one another, finally get to a place where they feel comfortable with letting not only their confrontational guard down, but also their regular every day guard down. And once those guards have been dropped, they communicate in a deep fashion, with real words, short and succinct, words that everyone can understand. Because this is a film about communication. And in being a film about that, about the rift that age can cause, it is the most honest and authentic look at the teenage experience that cinema has seen in quite some time.

Contagion

Contagion
Review by Courtney Baker

Contagion starts with day two of an epidemic. You're left sitting there wondering what happened to day one. The film focuses on a small group of people operating during an epidemic of an unknown virus. A woman named Beth Emhoff (Gwyneth Paltrow) is the source of the epidemic. She spreads the disease to a few people, who spread it to a few more people, who spread it to a few more people, and so on and so forth. She spreads it to her son, and both die shortly after her return to the states from Hong Kong. Her husband Mitch (Matt Damon) seems immune somehow, and with the rest of his family dead, he’s left with only his daughter, who we follow as he tries his damndest to protect her at all costs as we follow him.

We then meet Dr. Ellis Cheever (Laurence Fishburne), a doctor who is investigating and trying to solve the mystery of the unknown illness. We are introduced to Allen (Jude Law), a blogger who makes it his mission to get to the bottom of the strange sickness that is plaguing the world. Dr. Lenoara Orantes (Marion Cotillard) investigates in Hong Kong when her trip takes an unexpected turn. Dr. Erin Mears (Kate Winslet) investigates and prepares people for what’s to come before she gets a surprise too. Dr. Ian Sussman (Elliott Gould) receives samples in his lab, and even when he was ordered to stopworking with the samples, he continues research.

Directed by Steven Soderbergh and written by Scott Z. Burns, this movie starred a great cast. This included among others Marion Cotillard, Matt Damon, Laurence Fishburne, Elliott Gould, John Hawkes, Jude Law, Gwyneth Paltrow, and Kate Winslet, all of which have been nominated or have won Academy Awards. The acting wasn’t the problem with this movie.

So many characters were hard to follow. This movie could have been better executed with less. This wasn’t the film’s only problem. Contagion was tedious. It took effort to watch it, even though one doesn’t really have to think about it. We’ve seen the story a thousand times on the news and television. Countless movies have been made about epidemics (no, don’t worry, this isn’t the zombie apocalypse like many epidemic disaster movies… okay, zombies would have been way better). We knew what would happen. The epidemic would spread. People would be afraid, and fear drives men mad. People would be trampled for necessities, any place that could be looted would be, and people would die. It happens in every disaster- alien, zombie, flu, hurricane, you name it. But one could guess that everything would eventually turn out fine. It was predictable.

I saw this movie in an empty theater with only one companion viewing it with me. The movie bored me to the point that I took the liberty of lifting the cup holders and making myself a couch to at least be comfortable as I suffered. I lost count of how many times I asked what time it was. I think it was somewhere around five or six, if I had to guess. Contagion seemed to last for an eternity- at least three hours long it seemed. The run time is 106 minutes. It got to the point where one wished the epidemic would win and everyone would die so you could go home. Just when you think it would end, they slap on another fifteen minutes with a prom scene that was totally out of place and finally the interesting aspect of the film: the movie ends with day one.

The camera work was fine, the acting was good, and the story would have been okay if it
had been done a little differently. There were interesting scientific facts and little historical bits to be learned from it. It was just boring and predictable. The credits roll and you run from the theater, happy to go home and take a nap after that tiresome movie. So just skip Contagion.

Drive Angry; A Top Ten Film Of 2011 By Donald Price

“Since the birth of time humanity has endeavored to restrain evil men in prisons. But since Cain fled the murder of his brother, evil men have fled the walls of punishment. So it doesn’t matter if you’re a badass motherfucker on the run because you think you’re better than everyone else and somehow entitled to do what you got to do. No… because you see, badass motherfuckers are never fast enough. In the end they will all be accounted for”. These are the opening lines for the film Drive Angry.

The film begins with John Milton (Nicholas Cage) busting out of prison gates in a 1964 Buick Rivera. What we don’t notice right away is that Milton is escaping from the ultimate prison; Hell. Milton has escaped from his imprisonment to set out on a mission of revenge and is after the man who killed his daughter and kidnapped his granddaughter, Jonah King (Billy Burke). Milton begins his quest for vengeance in the town of Laughter, Colorado and conducts his manhunt clear to Stillwater, Louisiana. Along his way, Milton meets up with a lost soul Piper (Amber Heard), looking to be set on the right path. On Milton’s trail is The Accountant (William Fichtner), who does everything he can to stop Milton and to take him back to Hell. Milton is for the most part a lone man on a mission. Since he is pretty much an escaped soul reborn; he cannot be killed by normal weapons, making him nearly unstoppable in his quest. This film is one part The Crow and one part Smokey and the Bandit for its car chases, and back from the grave protagonist.

Religion plays a huge role in this film. I’m glad to see a movie that can entertain us with different takes on aspects of region and not get everyone up in arms. Milton plays the role of the sheep that has lost his way, trying to make up for all the mistakes he had made in life by doing everything he can to save his granddaughter. In a conversation between Piper and The Accountant, The Account shares his experience with dealing with the misconceptions of the devil by telling her “The dark lord, Satan, Beelzebub, Lucifer; Simply the warden of a very large prison…quiet man actually quite thoughtful and very well read. And I happen to know that the idea of sacrificing children in his honor annoys him greatly”. The Account is a take on the Greek gatekeeper Charon, who would ferry souls to Hades. The name of Cage’s character John Milton is the name of the author of Paradise Lost, the story about Satan’s expulsion from Heaven.

This film has some of the best car stunts since Quentin Tarantino’s Death Proof. Every car that Milton Drives is a mean sounding muscle car or a classic show car of some sort. This is great because it makes sense that his character would only be interested in older cars, being that the last time he was alive it was the early 1980’s. He escapes in the Rivera; He drives Piper’s 1969 Dodge Charger, is given a 1970 Chevrolet Chevelle, and winds up with a 1956 Chevrolet Bell Air. A lot of the scenes have a good deal to do with driving, so having an awesome fleet of cars in the film helps keep my attention.

The film overall is something different. It is a fresh idea that was unleashed on a crowd who had been conditioned for remakes and the same old garbage. This film takes a good deal of risks and I think they pay off. For instance, showing a gunfight during a sex scene is something that hasn’t been touched since Shoot ‘Em Up. I enjoy Cage’s performance as Milton mainly because he plays Milton like a dead man. He is often keeping to himself, calm, and lets his guns do the talking. It’s a different Cage than the crazed one that screams out outrageous statements like “I’m Castor Troy”. Meanwhile, it is almost everyone else’s performances that are over the top. Burke’s portrayal of Johan King is really enthralling. He plays the antagonist character as if Elvis and Neil Diamond had a son that was the leader of a satanic cult. Fichtner’s role as The Accountant is also pretty overblown in a good way. In one scene he walks out of a hydrogen tanker truck right before it collides with a road block as its stereo is blaring That’s The Way I Like It by K.C. and the Sunshine Band, and steps onto the roof of a cop car as a giant explosion engulfs the area.

How could nobody have seen or liked this movie? Rodger Ebert gave it one of the few reviews that weren’t total crap (two stars). Rotten Tomatoes.com has it at 45%, which is better than The Blindside at least. The film was budgeted for around$ 50,000,000 but only made around $10,000,000 worldwide. To see something that has something neat, fun and original just to be pandered by critics and audiences in favor of another Big Mama movie pisses me off to no end. I would easily put this film into my top ten movies of 2011, hopefully you will give it a viewing and enjoy it as much as a did as well.

Tangled Up In Blue – A Review by Donald Price

Up to bat today is the film randomly drawn from the fez of a colleague, the 2010 Disney film Tangled. It continues the long Disney tradition of transforming storybook fairy tales into full length animated features by basing the movie on the tale of Rapunzel. The film stars the voices of Mandy Moore as Rapunzel and Zach Levi (Chuck from TV’s Chuck) as Flynn Rider. Both Moore and Levi have great voices that I had never really taken notice of that before having seen the film.

The film for the most part is the classic fairy tale of Rapunzel’s quest to escape her tower imprisonment to seek life outside the high walls of seclusion. Also it’s about her hair…can’t forget that. Rapunzel has the ability to use her hair in a variety of different ways. From using it as an Indiana Jones style whip, to a means to bind people like Wonder Woman’s lasso of truth. She must also use Mane ‘N Tail shampoo because her hair has some super strength. She has the ability to not only swing from it back and forth by herself but also with a party of adventurers. Seriously, I haven’t seen this much swinging from place to place since I played the Spiderman 2 game on PlayStation 2.

Tangled is the fourth fully computer animated film in the Disney Animation Studio’s line. You can really track the studios visual improvements since their first fully computer generated film Chicken Little, to Meet the Robinsons, to Bolt, and finally with Tangled. Each film has its own different style but they still retain certain signatures. Today most modern film crowds can tell the difference in something that’s produced by DreamWorks, Pixar or Disney. The process used in the animation overlays and textures make the film almost look panted at times, which is a nice throwback to the classic hand animated styles of animation. The overall look of the film is great, from the water to the character’s hair, real top notch work.

The film is comparable to Disney’s 2009 film The Princess and the Frog with a few differences behind the scenes. First off the biggest difference is that The Princess and the Frog was traditionally hand animated and had a semi-limited theatrical release whereas Tangled was computer animated with a wide release. Another key difference is that The Princess and the Frog was targeted to little girls with princess Tiana being the main focal character, with Tangled having both Rapunzel and Flynn sharing the screen. Having now seen both films, they are both entertaining in their own ways. Watching this film was better than having to sit through another Shrek movie.

One of the best characters in the film doesn’t even have a voice. I am referring to Rapunzel’s closest thing to a best friend, Pascal the color changing chameleon. The animations of his movements are truly well executed. I haven’t been amused by a non-speaking character in a long time, and this movie is great for having one (especially with it being a strongly voiced cast).

Tangled is proudly touted as being Disney’s 50^th animated feature. Being put in the same league as The Sword in the Stone, The Lion King, and The Black Cauldron is not easy to live up to, and in this aspect, the film comes up short. As I said the film looks great, but it’s like marrying a supermodel in some instance; a great looking trophy of modern technological achievement…but lacking personality and intelligence. The Taylor Swift-esq songs feel tacked on to the film as if someone had glued handlebars onto a horse. Animated films use songs as a means to help drive the story along, but some of the songs in the film really leave me scratching my head saying thing like “did she really break out an modern acoustic guitar?”.

Overall Tangled is a good movie for children, but the parents may not be too wrapped up in it. See what I did there? But seriously, the animation is great, the voice acting is executed well, the story is pretty good, but the music is pretty awful and the characters don’t really get the chance to be as fleshed out as classic Disney characters. I would suggest seeing this film if you have children or love animated films.

Cars 2 is the Most Pointless Movie!

Cars 2 is the most pointless movie… By John Faltaous

The Cars movie series is definitely unique. This movie also has some famous background when considering the director (John Lasseter) who directed Toy Story, Toy Story 2, and A Bug’s Life. The film series by the studio Pixar and distributed by Walt Disney Pictures is very unentertaining and almost childish type of way. Let’s look at Cars 2 for example is just not a meaningful film whatsoever. Sure it may be entertaining to the kids who have their toy muscle cars , but that doesn’t cut it.

Lets start with the little good the movie had. Cars 2 does have some impressive qualities to the movie. The graphics and details put into the movie are spectacular. The reflections of lights from the stadium as the car races around the track are what hook the eyes the most. The reflections bend and curve so lifelike on the frame of the car, it’s really great. Also, the explosions and fire look very vibrant. When the cars are in Tokyo, the building and lights really show their brilliance.

The sound in the film is pretty incredible too. Not just the soundtrack for the movie, but the raspy exhausts and the engine revs from the engine are amazing. The way you can slowly hear the growling of the car as it approaches and becomes loader as it finally passes you is spot on. As for the soundtrack, some well-known songs are present during the film. “You Might Think” by the famous Weezer, covers the movie. Some songs by Brad Paisley, Robbie Williams, Benabar, and Perfume also appear in the movie. So the soundtrack is pretty enjoyable.

So now it’s time for the grit. First off, the cars in the film are all based off of real cars. Whether this is a type of advertisement or not, no one can know for sure. The idea of talking cars seems to just be a load of shenanigans, absurd, and almost repulsive! Of course you could make the argument that animals talk in many popular films. But, at least we are scientifically speaking an “animal. Cars are not animals. Wonder why you see kids running down the hallway while revving their “engine” with the mouth? We’ve all seen it before, don’t lie. I think cars talking just ads insult to injury. Why would a car even need to talk? Is this REALLY the entertainment that our kids should be watching? Can’t you just flip the ole TV on and let the watch some Barney or something? Not to mention they name the ONLY airplane in the whole movie “Prince Wheeliam”. That makes pretty perfect sense.

The storyline of the movie is almost as ridiculous and pointless as the talking cars. In a nutshell, Lightning McQueen (a race car) returns to his hometown of Radiator Springs and reunites with his friend Mater (a towing truck) and he also has a girlfriend (yes, cars have girlfriends too) Sally Carrera. Not to mention Carrera is a type of Porsche. So, Lighting McQueen has this “fantastic” trip across the world, which includes Tokyo, Italy, and his hometown. It is just really boring and it seems like nothing knew is happening. There’s only so much a car can do… drive, and in this case talk too.

With all of this being said, yea this movie has some nice animations but it’s not worth it. It was simply made because Disney had a pre-sequel, which sold very well, so hell, why not make another one? If you like the cartoonish movies with some nice animations or cars, it may not be so bad after all.

Tranformers: Dark of the Moon

Transformers is a franchise purely driven by merchandise and profit. Whether it's toys, cartoons, or movies the dollar is the bottom line. There have been good and even great Transformers media, however the Michael Bay film series I believe is not an example of said good media, and the latest installment Dark of the Moon is my candidate for worst film of 2011. Even when a series exists for the sake of making money, at the end of the day it should earn our money and entertain. This is something Dark of the Moon fails to do.

Transformers: Dark of the Moon is the third in the Michael Bay trilogy about the Autobots and Decepticons (aliens from a planet called Cybertron) civil war that spills over to earth. At least, that's what the supposed plot in a nutshell is. In reality, our main attraction takes a back seat to Sam Witwicky (Shia Labeouf) and the rest of the human ensemble. Something that in theory could have worked, but Transformers 1 and 2 showed us that when humans are involved in the Cybertronian war, it becomes less about the fate of Cybertron and earth and more about Sam trying to score with hot chicks.

The Human cast as a whole in this film isn't bad. The characters are mostly one dimensional but they are fun to watch. The characters in the military while stock, feel like they belong in the story. Shia Lebouf's....not so much. Sam Witwicky was a main character in the first two films but in Dark of the Moon his story is over. It’s even mentioned in the film by several characters that he isn’t needed but he’s dragged into the story just so there so the audience has an average Joe to relate to while the robots fight. The main problem being that the robots in this film is not only sentient, but they come off more relatable and human than the human cast.

Going through the entire roster of the Cybertronians would take up the entire review. One of the few things this film does right is have a large group of Autobots and Decepticons. Now, while this is purely for fans of previous Transformers installments, it’s a welcome change to the mostly human driven series. So let’s look at the leading sides of the Autobots and Decepticons. The previous two films did a great job of showing Optimus Prime as a hesitant warrior, but great leader that cares not only for his comrades but also just the innocents that may be caught in the crossfire of the war. In this film it’s explored, but not much by introducing his mentor Sentinel Prime. What should have come off as a mentor/mentee passing of the torch sub plot, we get one or two scenes where both bots argue about who will be leader before a later plot twist changes the established relationship.

The Decepticons are even more disappointing. For three films they were built up as this threat and yet they’re almost entirely in shadow in this film. Their leader Megatron maybe has a whopping 3 scenes before the credits role. The film tried to rely more heavily on that the audience knew who these characters were, instead of establishing any new motive or character development. This is a problem as Megatron shows up in the middle of the film with a new look in Africa in hiding. There’s a running subplot of Megatron recovering from his loss at the end of Revenge of the Fallen that like the Optimus and Sentinel subplot goes nowhere. We see glimpses of things that would make for a great movie but in the end disappoints. This is sad not only because the potential plot aspects, but the Decepticons are very interesting antagonists. Several new Decepticons are introduced in this film and all have great designs, and look menacing but they either get killed off with no real fan –fare or just forgotten about.

Of course we can’t talk about our Cybertronian characters without talking about special effects. Michael Bay brings his usual to the table. The explosions and action scenes are good and fun to watch. The CGI for the Autobots and Decepticons look good however, the robots seem more like set pieces and even when they’re tearing up city blocks they don’t seem to have weight. This is odd considering the robots have more character and better storylines than the humans. You know you’re doing something wrong when the CGI characters in your film can be better than your human characters and at the same time worse.

This leads to Dark of the Moon’s main problem. There are good ideas in this film, but they never lead anywhere. Watching Sentinel and Optimus Prime converse about leadership and their own philosophies should have been a poignant and emotional moment that leads to better things in the film. Instead, the movie introduces interesting concepts and ideas but pushes them aside to focus on the weak Sam Witwicky story. I didn’t watch Transformers: Dark of the Moon with hating it in mind, but when the credits rolled I felt disappointed and bored. Have I seen worse films? Yes, but no film, especially this year made me want my money back more.

Kiss Kiss Bang Bang with a name like that, you'd be under appreciated too

Kiss Kiss Bang Bang

by

Lucas Harbolt

Is a movie underappreciated if the critics love it but the audience is only warm to it? Or is it the other way around? This is a question I've ben asking myself since being given the assignment of reviewing an underappreciated film. This has lead to reviewing the 2005 film Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. Directed by Shane Black of Lethal Weapon fame, and boasting the talents of Robert Downey Jr. and Val Kilmer, this tongue-in-cheek noir film gained early critical success but just didn't seem to make the impact that it should have. Actually wasn't until this assignment came along that I actually talked to other people whom have actually heard of the film.

The film begins with a flashback to a magic show and we're given opening narration by our protagonist Harry Lockheart (Downey Jr.). Harry not only narrates, but he back pedals and leaves out important bits of information making for an interesting and enjoyable storytelling device. Harry than robs a toy store with an accomplice. Things take a turn when they get spotted by the police and Harry makes a getaway to what he thinks is an empty building but tuns out to be a casting audition for a film. Naturally he just waltzes in and impresses the crew enough to get him the part.

From here Harry is put together with the character of Perry Van Shrike (Val Kilmer), or "Gay" Perry for short. Perry is a private investigator who is supposed to take Harry on and teach him a few things for his big role. Val Kilmer and Robert Downey Jr. have great chemistry together and both seem to be having fun with their roles which makes the relationship between Harry and Perry very fun to watch and even believable as two "unlikely friends".

Of course while on an investigation things take a turn and that's where the summary ends as I'd like not spoil several twists and turns in the plot. Now, I've been prattling on about the two leads, and not without good reason. The writing, the editing, the shot direction all is great but what really pulls the film together to being special is the interaction between the characters. Not just Harry and Perry but the female lead Harmony (Michelle Monaghan). Harmony, who I left out of my initial summary much like Harry leaves out of his initial narration is Harry's childhood friend and love interest. It's her story that really pushes the plot. Harmony thrusts herself into Perry's case and joins the duo of Perry and Harry to form a nice trio.

One of the great things about the film is how it plays with the detective and noir genre. Harry himself is completely aware that he's in a film in his narration and he plays with the audience expectations. Then again the film as a whole plays with the genre and is very tongue-in-cheek. Director Shane Black gets the best out of every actor and every scene. He tells a great story that in the end isn't just "worth your time", but is just really fun. You'll expect one twist, and get a different one and often times with a smile on your face. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang is one of those rare films that just does everything right but just never really took off as it should. Next time you find yourself wanting to watch something good, check for it. You won't be disappointed.

The Producers

The Producers
Review by Courtney Baker

Today we watch comedies that are different somehow. Back in the day, you could make fun of just about anything. Mel Brooks is proof of that. He’s written Spaceballs (making fun of Star Wars, mostly), History of the World: Part I (making fun of history), Blazing Saddles (westerns), and Robin Hood: Men in Tights (Robin Hood, obviously). But Mel Brooks parodies things while still making a watchable movie with a great story.

A vast majority of the recent comedies I’ve seen have focused on a group of buddies trying to have some fun and things end up going a way that they didn’t expect at all (oh, but I did). For example: The Hangover, The Hangover Part II, Hot Tub Time Machine, and Bridesmaids (not all of them necessarily GOOD comedies) all feature a group of friends in some unexpected situations. I find it interesting that 3/4 of the movies I named focus on a wedding party. I can’t name how many vampire parodies I’ve seen recently. If not those, then it’s probably a romantic comedy of some sort with the same plot as the romantic comedy before it. But I have, and always will, love any Mel Brooks film more than these. Mel Brooks is one of my favorites.

The Producers is a hilarious piece that starts off with a middle aged man courting more than one little old lady. He needs the money. The little old ladies are his investors. He’s Broadway producer Max Bialystock. In stumbles meek little accountant Leo Bloom, amusingly interrupting Max’s session with the old lady. Leo is brought back later to do Max’s books, and discovers that a producer could make more money with a Broadway flop than with a success. The two men team up trying to become rich with what they think will be the biggest flop ever- Springtime for Hitler.

It’s a play written by a former German who still loves Hitler and thinks him a genius. To make sure it’s a flop Leo and Max go out and find a horrible director who turns it into a musical (just when you think you couldn’t make Springtime for Hitler more ridiculous). To top it off, they recruit the worst cast in history, headed by the actor playing Hitler, Lorenzo St. DuBois (Dick Shawn)… L.S.D. for short. He’s a hippy who actually was looking for a the auditions for Boomerang when he stumbled into the Hitler tryouts, impressing Max with a very long song that involved throwing flowers in a very hippy fashion and was about “love, and hate. Psychedelically speaking, [he is] talking about ‘The Power.’” Who could be a worse Hitler?

The look on the faces of audience members when the play starts is priceless to say the least. Max and Leo, sure they have a flop, head across the street to celebrate with drinks. They should know that anything that can go wrong will, though.

Not only is it a great story with an appeal to our bad side, but the acting is great too. There’s good chemistry between Zero Mostel (Max Bialystock) and Gene Wilder (Leo Bloom) which makes for great comedy. I’ve always loved Gene Wilder. He played quite the meek and amusing accountant in this film, very childish, and interacts well with Zero Mostel’s more fatherly figure. It’s a very dominant/submissive relationship. This is easily demonstrated when they’re in the park. Max shepherds Leo along, buying him a hot dog, riding with him on the carousel, and taking him out on a boat, teaching him all this underhanded ways. All the while he’s reassuring him that he won’t get in trouble at work for not being there. Even if someone sees him, Max says “Then you’d see them, and why aren’t they at the office?” And with that, Leo announces with delight that he’s happy (after at first being unable to place the feeling).

People today can get this film. They relate to all the crazy in it, to the want for money and success, and maybe even the desperation of getting out of a situation that’s going to get you in major trouble (everyone’s had to have done something at some point!). You see the film’s title characters, the producers, and the little old ladies of the beginning and you think you can’t get any crazier. Oh, but you can. Everyone knows someone who’s a little bit crazy, and this movie
got all of them together for a laugh. We have an insane play write, a crazy director, and a cast that’s obviously more than a little bit off coming together to make what should be a sure-fire flop. Everyone wants to be successful, and even if we won’t do it, we know how to get what we want
underhandedly. As Bialystock points out when proposing their plan “Worlds are turned on such thoughts.” We’d all like to come into a lot of money and kick back in Rio. Whether we do it honestly or not is our decision.

Max and Leo choose to do it dishonestly, maybe appealing a more to the audience. Humans seem fascinated by wrongdoing. Would Leo have ever offered up that interesting tidbit that you could make more money with a flop than with a success if they weren’t? As they skip through the park together, would Leo get the thrill out of not being in work if he knew it was okay? Would people have even come to a play with Hitler’s name in it if they weren’t at all interested in the wrong that he had done? No. And I’m sure that even if it was just when we were children, we’ve all tried to finagle our way out of trouble as Max and Leo do.

The Best of Twenty Eleven

Captain America: The First Avenger

By: Katie Miller

A great movie should have an interesting plot and surprising storyline. There should be plenty of action, a romantic story, a blood-curdling villain, a super hero, some tragic events, some comedy, and a good ending that leaves you wanting more or satisfies all of your questions to the point of wanting to see it again. Now, this doesn’t mean that movies should all end with a “happily ever after”, for this is not how life really goes. There is the ability to get tired of the typical, unrealistic, endings, but, when things don’t end as such, we are almost disappointed. There should also be some good effects that intrigue your mind without you knowing it. Captain America: The First Avenger satisfies such standards to the point of being the best movie of 2011, so far.

In the beginning, we are immediately drawn into the story of Steve Rogers, a boy from Brooklyn. The movie is set during WWII when every good man is going to fight for their country. Rogers, played by Chris Evans, is a small, weak, underdog, who has tried to enlist several times but, has been rejected each time. He has a strong passion for defending his country. He doesn’t like bullies and isn’t afraid to stand up for what he believes, even if he knows he will get beat up for it. We feel sorry for him and want to see him succeed. To satisfy the audience’s desire, Rogers is selected by Dr. Abraham Erskine for a special experiment to create a new breed of super soldiers. With this new serum created by Dr. Erskine, everything in the person’s body is increased. “Good becomes great, bad becomes worse” Dr. Erskine tells Rogers. Rogers is chosen because of the true humility, honor, and promising qualities he has.

We are also introduced into a romantic relationship between Rogers and Agent Cater a lovely lady in the service. At first, Carter is impressed with Rogers’ kindness and humility. After his “transformation” if you will, she not only impressed with his attributes but also his new triceps and biceps.

After the experiment’s success, Dr. Erskine, who is seen as a threat to the Nazis, is killed and his murderer is chased down by the new and improved Rogers. This scene, along with many others, is very intense and shows foreshadowing. The murder proceeds to escape in a cab. The cab service he took advantage of was associated with a star. The emblem on the door is a star right in the middle. The car is wreaked and the door is used as a shield to protect Rogers from the gunfire of the murderer. This hints at Rogers’ future life as Captain America, the avenger who will wear the star of his country on a shield. The death of the doctor causes Rogers to want to get revenge on Johann Schmidt who hired Dr. Erskine because of his intelligence and serum. Schmidt previously took the serum and because of his true inner being he became full of hate and very evil. Johann Schmidt, also known as Rogers’ Red Skull, is the antagonist, a power hungry villain who work for the Nazis but only to further his own plans of conquest.

Along with its amazing storyline and exciting plot, Captain America: The First Avenger, is the best movie of 2011 because of the cool effects blended into the film. Many times, Captain America, while in combat, throws his shield and it, like a boomerang, returns to him. Now this may seem a bit farfetched but, not once was it thought about as being impossible because of the perfect effects put into the film. There are many scenes in which Captain America performs acts that are impossible for any real human. Things like long jumps, fist fights where his opponents are defenseless, and he cannot get drunk on alcohol. Captain America will not stop until either he or Schmidt is dead. Also, the effects used to make Chris Evans the small and weak Rogers at the beginning of the film are fantastic. There is nothing about him that looks fake.

This movie seemed to be appreciated by other reviewers and critiques. Roger Ebert said that he “enjoyed the movie”. He liked the “period setting and costumes.” The New York Daily News reported that the movie was good but, they were ready for the “cool finale” where the missing “last battle” will be shown. The film received 7 out of 10 stars on IMDb.com.

Captain America: The First Avenger is so far the best movie of 2011. It was not gory and it didn’t have any sexual situations, just a good scene of Chris Evans’ upper body after he receives the serum. There is some language and some freaky sci-fi characters, so, this may not be for young children. The best part is that this movie is “made in America”. It is patriotic and helps Americans think about their past and their heritage of freedom. I urge you to get the movie on DVD or Blue-Ray today.