Man of Steel (Movie Review)

    

     Clearly, I was the one who needed X-ray vision after my first viewing of the latest Superman viewing back in June. Back in June, I didn't enjoy Man of Steel pretty much for the same reasons why certain critics and fans loathe it: People thought it was too dark, too violent and it had too many 'plotholes'. Some of the blame stems from the perception that the film was an exercise in nihilism for some audiences, with people feeling it resembled nothing of the older Superman movies starring Christopher Reeves with the direction from Richard Donner (and, to a lesser extent, Richard Lester, who directed parts 2 & 3). Admittedly, I went into this film with heavy expectations expecting something along the lines of a Donner-esque vision from this production; alas, I thought much of problem with Man Of Steel relied on character depth, mostly with side characters Lois Lane & Perry White. Basically, I though neither of them had much to their character, thus, giving them a feeling of worthless to their individual subplots. This isn't to say that I didn't know enough of their back stories, but, something felt a little off with that part of their screenplay. Even General Zod was a bit of a letdown, as it seemed Michael Shannon overplayed his role, compared to Terrance Stamp's “god-complex” like portrayal of the General. As for Henry Cavill's role as Superman, I felt he was fine, despite some objections (Example: he likes to scream, a lot), he was capable enough to fill the criteria. Guess I was asking for too much "meh" here, rather than the adventure. Whether, it was the sound woofer behind me of my midnight screening at Regal Sawgrass 23 in Sunrise, FL or my irrational expectations, I had a lot riding on this movie only for it to meet my potential (this was after I enjoyed the film once I left, admittedly). I wasn't letdown, necessarily; though, I was hoping for some consistency here or something old-school. Then, as recent as last week, I received a digital copy of the film via iTunes & ended up watching the movie into Wednesday morning and, just like that, my opinion completely changed. Everything changed. Before I touch on my epiphany, I'm not a comic book reader. I haven't indulged in any of the older or recent entries in the DC universe. Before this film came out, I watched a lot of the DC Animated Universe shows that gave me enough background on these characters. From Batman to Zatanna, a lot of the knowledge that I've acquired over the years, is how I've known these characters and what they do for a living. However, I do recognize that a 30 minute episode from Justice League or from Superman: The Animated Series, doesn't grant a lot of context into the mythology of a typical DC character. Man of Steel covered more ground on the origin story of Kal-El and company than any other entry, it’s just true. Given the array of Superman movies dating back to 1978, it’s a lot harder now to relate to the older movies because the Donner/Lester/Bryan Singer method is abhorrently hokey now. Their movies were these "tug at your heart strings" films, due to the character being subjected to American idealism, as we're supposed to identify with him because he's "American," even though, he's an orphan from a doomed planet. All 5 of these films felt like this: "Hey, it's Superman saving the world from another environmental calamity." How boring. Once upon a time, the first two were cinema hallmarks, now; they’re just decent films with banal special effects. What Man of Steel managed to do was flesh out Krypton in a manner that none of the originals could ever achieve (I mean, for Christ sake, Jor-El fights in this one. Who knew Russell Crowe could hit people like that). The planet is expansive, filled with plight, totalitarianism, and is sovereign. You sense the impending doom of Kal-El's home, while in the original, a few words were said by Marlon Brando’s Jor-El & Lara-Van-El, as Kal is sent on his way to earth on some terrible looking crystalized ship. In Man of Steel, Jor-El and Lara say their goodbyes to their newborn and give him the tools to be Earth's savior (The very reason he’s embedded with ‘The Codex’) as the end near for every citizen on Krypton; then, he fight's his old friend, Zod, to protect his son and wife's honor only to be impaled by him in defeat.  Now, if you think that doesn't qualify as some form of drama, then, I have no other words for you. Other apologies go out to Amy Adams's version of Lois Lane & Zod's apprentice, Faora, played by Anjte Traue. Margot Kidder's version of the character felt dumbed-down in comparison. She figured out that Clark Kent & Superman are the same person, yet, because of Deus Ex Machina, let's have Clark erase her memory by kissing her;  yeah, pretty lazy, if you ask me. Lane in MOS takes her job seriously, and doesn't make her seem like a dumb blonde. Her smart-ass behavior is wonderfully displayed in this version. As for Shannon's Zod? Simply incredible. The one from Superman II couldn’t touch his motives or purpose. One of the many problems with Stamp's Zod is that, he didn't have a reason for his transgressions only to just rule over Earth and have Superman “Kneel before Zod”. Otherwise, they just belittled the people of Earth. In this one, the goal is clear: take back the Codex and create a new Krypton on Earth. Simple, yes; but, there’s a reason, at least. Faora, to a point, is as goal driven as Zod, but cares little for the ideals that Superman learned during his 33 years on his newfound planet. You never got that immersion in the older flicks, ever. Visually, the palette is distinctive; it can be a bit drab in some sequences but not enough to deter from the action. This was also criticized by some, because some thought the color was low on contrast. Having looking at it for a second time, I’m further convinced that was the point of the cinematography was to have a more modern layout. I mean, it’s not completely dark that it distracts the viewer, but, it’s rather distinctive; and, that was the intention of the color use, I think. It also demonstrates the directorial style of Zack Snyder, which he manages to pull off well, especially in the fight scenes. Hans Zimmer has already surpassed the score used by John Williams relying on an array of guitars and electronics tempos to set up the themes. Gone are the sweeping violins, now replaced by modernized music with a dash of Junkie XL, who is credited with elaborating some of the rhythms used throughout the film. People, including myself, will have to come to grips that this is the best Superman movie ever and older movies can’t withstand the fixes made here. I learned more from this movie than I did compared to the originals. Honestly, ask yourself, if you learned anything from Glenn Ford's brief performance as Jonathan Kent in the 1978 original? Because, I didn't. Kevin Costner did that role justice than anybody else, and same goes to Diane Lane's Martha Kent. This movie has a lot of development that none of us could imagine in our minds. Man of Steel not aspires to something greater, but it shows what else lies at the hands of Snyder, Christopher Nolan and company. This film has a strong foundation for years to come.

In a World...(Film Review)

                

Lake Bell and Fred Melamed in "In a World"

          Inspired by voice legend, Don Lafontaine, who coined the phrased the term "In a World..."in various movie trailers, come a movie that is a dedication to him, of sorts. Back in the day, Lafontaine was a household name for his serious baritone vocal applied for many trailers for Movies, Video Games and TV shows. All of that vocal work spanned 46 years of doing many takes in a voice over booth belting the same repetitive lines. The business itself is pretty devoid of female talent. He died in 2008 due to complications with Pneumothorax. His impact was felt within the voice acting world because he crossed over to the mainstream and everyone took noticed of the man behind the legendary voice, literally. So, while the industry is filled with many colorful, effervescent personalities, much of the vocals in the booth for many trailers are mostly men.

Aside from a few exceptions like Melissa Disney, who narrated Gone in 60 Minutes back in 2000, women are hardly ever chosen to helm these roles. There's not a definitive reason why that is, but it's pretty glaring that in 2013, even if you've ever listened to one movie trailers that is carried by just the larynx of a voice actor.  In a World... challenges this idea by having a woman go through the hard task of being in a place where female voice overs are hard to find or aren't in high demand, even though, the movie is intended to be comedic and it works very well here. Carol Solomon, played by Lake Bell, who also wrote and directed this film, faces these problems head-on in a male dominated function and, to top it off, her selfish father won't let go of his aging legend. Fred Melamed plays Carol's father, Sam Soto, a contemporary to Lafontaine's style only with a lot more noticeable ego. Bell's script is sharp, especially when her character and Melamed's have a confrontation about the industry and why both of them are unwilling to let go of their dreams. Their rivalry is petty as it is insecure and the way it's handled here is somewhat refreshing. Same can be said for the quirky, awkward love triangle involving Carol, as she deals with another voice rival (played by Ken Marino) and her audio engineer played by Demetri Martin.

Alas, before the film reaches its highest crescendo, the movie is over. Just like that. Brevity is the movie's biggest flaw, but it's not a crippling one. There are a couple of small quibbles with In a World... (Some set-pieces look cheap; voice examples like “sexy baby” could use more explanation.) It just had me wanting more because there's a lot of detail within the comedy of the film that elevates into one exceptional package. While you won’t completely learn about how this profession is like through the entirety, but taken for what it is, you’ll certainly enjoy this brand of comedy along with the quirky cast of characters.

The World's End (film review)

Have you ever wanted to stay in the past long enough where only you remain in a state of delusions, while your best friends moved on from that past? Nostalgia is the main theme in The World's End, a clever, smart film from the people who brought you Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz. 20 years ago, five teenagers endeavored into a journey of belligerence by crossing the Golden Mile to get to twelve pubs in the town of Newton Haven in Britain. Sadly, their objective was cut, because their ego got the better of them, which, after that wild night was the last time they saw one another. 

           In the present, all but one has evolved into the adult life of parenthood, marriage and business. The other is struggling to fit in around an ever-changing world, struggling to fit in among-st the masses. Let’s just say, he loves to rebel against the present to stay in the past. But, he manages to gather his friends for one night back to Newton Haven, only to realize how much has changed in those last two decades. The pubs they once knew were replaced by corporate chains and ordinary citizens have become sterilized. Counter intuitive to real-life, The World’s End allegory of change is one we all can relate to because, once all of those good times are replaced by something that isn't organic or real, all depth is lost. These people in Haven have sacrificed themselves for a cause to be part of an entity called “The Network,” a group that brings everyone together for a cleaner, purified society that does away with the human race by turning them all into robots. 

          World’s End is right behind 2004’s Shaun of the Dead as my second favorite movie from Simon Pegg, Nick Frost and director Edgar Wright. What connected me to that film was its self-parody on zombie movies and makes the source material of these uninteresting movies into something more. It also helps that their inspiration for that movie was George Romero, the director of “The Living Dead” series. This movie has some parallels to that movie and some possible other inspirations but much of the material is pretty nuanced within the underlying themes. There’s a slight bobble in the middle portion of the movie that does drag on as the robots became privy of the humans activities and some other characters are a bit underdeveloped, but much of it is a blast, that I didn't care to take noticed of the small flaws. 

          In a year where summer films have come short of expectations because of large budget or simply bad plots, The World’s End exceeds at being  a rare property that doesn't stress the typical. See it with a friend to get a dose of how the British do comedy, these days, they seem to know how to be funny without trying too hard at forcing humor and, while you’re at it, grab a beer for the fun of it.

The message of shame: 50th anniversary of the March on Washington

          Equality or, in a sense, meritocracies usually are harder to obtain in comparison to the many that struggled within the rigors of segregated laws that did everything to keep Blacks and Whites separate from one another. John F. Kennedy was president during the early 60s and, many people of color were insulted, labeled, hosed and even killed. Much of the March on Washington in 1963 was, and will always be a referendum on race relations in America more than anything else. Much has indeed changed in fifty years, yet further progress is still in development. The conundrum of the Martin Luther King speech was a matter or proposal in the coming years, especially with equality, but often overlooked is that a good portion of the speech was a dialogue on shame. "We refuse the belief that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation," said MLK. To bring that quote the proper context it deserves, it was a depiction of how the Negro was a check with "insufficient funds." In other words: Being treated like a second-class citizen.

      The lesson of the speech was more than just a speech to bring us all together; it was a message of introspection, looking within oneself on the matters of civil rights and then coming along to be one with one another. There's not enough introspection these days, especially with a speech as profound as the one King offered in '63; but, I guess this is what happens with picking and choosing context. "The March on Washington teaches us that we are not trapped by the mistakes of history, that we are masters of our fate," says President Barack Obama who remarked on the March on Washington on August 28th.   

Whether we can escape our tumultuous past is still at odds with those who repeatedly reminds us of the ones that bring us back to the awfulness of the hate. In order for us to be the masters of our fate, a certain section of people are going to have to admit past indiscretions on racial discrimination and not just put it aside as if its not an American issue, because it is. The good news is that the loathing is fading out. It’ll be there in far background of insecurity, but with less stereotyping.

In our ever-struggling conflict for a better world, we must demand better of ourselves to rid ourselves of our past sins. We can keep wishing for that dream of abolishing racism, but those who harbor those feelings have to look themselves in the mirror and realize that hatred is overrated. Sometimes, feeling shameful isn’t a bad thing at all. In order to learn from disrespecting others, you have to feel a little guilty and learn from it; that’s where humility comes in. In order to be “Free at last,” you must purge the sins of a bad past and become one with the people. 

The Butler (Film Review)

      Despite some decisions that hold it back, The Butler makes a lasting impression on race relations in America, and it does rather well without doing the overwrought histrionics of typical films that overlook context. Inspired by the true story of Eugene Allen, who served under eight administrations from 1952 to 1986; he was profiled in a Washington Post article during the 2008 presidential election. 

      The Butler starts from the cotton fields in Macon, Georgia in 1926 with a younger Cecil Gaines witnessing the death of his father from the son of a slave owner. This is when Cecil encounters the mother of the estate, played by Vanessa Redgrave, who teaches him to be a Butler (she actually refers to him as a “House N*****”). The movie then advances to the 1950s, where Forrest Whitaker plays the grown-up Gaines and he encounters landmark decisions on race, wars, JFK’s assassination and life after the job. Sophia Gaines, played by Oprah Winfrey, wishes that her husband wasn’t devoted to his job and would be there for her and his two sons during the changing times in America. Much of the film is a gallery of flashbacks of events seen from the eyes of one man who didn’t change the world or, thus, save it; he served until it was time to leave his post.
      
      Surprising to note this movie wasn’t as heavy-handed as I thought it would be, considering, historical pieces tend to do too much grandiose material regarding America’s past history. The performances by the core cast impresses enough that it doesn’t collapse under its own weight of the material. President Lyndon Johnson’s portrayal by Liev Schreiber was pretty profound while the other ones by John Cusack (Nixon), Robin Williams (Eisenhower), Alan Rickman (Reagan) and James Marsden (JFK) aren’t as effective, but they do try their best for their scenes. David Oyelowo, who plays Cecil’s elder son Louis, is easily the best of the bunch here, and, weirdly enough, was the star of this film. Forrest, I thought, played this character straight enough that you understood his constant struggle of a man living two lives: family man & butler to his administration. 

      Now, there’s nothing wrong with that, though, after about 40 minutes into the movie, I got the point. And, at times, it does seem as if the movie is holding back on its core messages, especially on segregation. Cecil wouldn’t even discuss much politics amongst his family or friends let alone random people who ask him about integrating the schools. That was around the time of the 1954 Supreme Court case: Brown vs. Board of Education. 

      There’s enough here to hold your interest in the source material, yet, I just wasn’t that riveted, because it does get long-winded near the end. While this is a solid movie that covers a lot in our history, it doesn’t do much with improving our intricate race relations. As it stands, it’s a solid dramatization of an exceptional article fictionalized for the big screen.

Elysium (Film Review)

  Director Neill Blomkamp tackles the issues of poverty, immigration and privilege in Elysium; a solid, if, unfocused movie that starts off well, but succumbs to being an action movie in the second act. The concept of Elysium is a clever one, sort of like our current political and financial situations.

     Set in 2154, the well-off are on-board a satellite, built by the Armadyne Corporation, that is separated from the one on our weary planet. Earth is now an abandoned wasteland for the ones not so well-off. The protagonist is Max, played by Matt Damon, who used to be a criminal in his years and later reformed. His dream was to make it on-board the satellite with his friend Frey, played by Alice Braga. Unfortunately, one day on the job changed his life forever, after exposed to a dose of radiation at an Armadyne factory. With only five days to live, getting to the heavily-guarded satellite just went on Max's bucket list; but, in order to infiltrate it, he would need a lot of help underground from a group of hackers, who then equip Max with the exoskeleton to defeat the droids and people who patrol the planet.

     One of the most intriguing things about this film, is how the Immigration angle as it relates to people of earth being reduce to "earthlings" and not just people. There's one scene in the film, that shows the disconnect between the two classes, in which, wealthy people are in fear of their own opposition, while the poor are looking to heal family members or have a place for shelter. Blomkamp brilliantly captures this conflict as if this were a real-life struggle. But, in Secretary Delacourt's world, the small are nothing more than peasants on a pristine world who serve no purpose but to rot on planet Earth. Jodie Foster's Delacourt is a woman with no conscience and cares about her kind. She'll do everything to gain absolute power, especially with the help of sleeper agent "Krueger," played by District 9's Sharlto Copley. Alas, this is where the movie becomes a bit too ambitious for its own good. After a well-paced first half, the movie takes a hard turn into the absurd, with characters making last-second decisions giving the entire story a neglected feeling. And, it's too bad what starts off as a well-paced movie that is held together by the strength of its story until it’s not anymore.

     While, it was fun seeing stuff blown up, yet, it extracted some enjoyment from me. Compared to the bombastic climax of District 9, Elysium is on par with that film, but Elysium suffers more because, despite the heavy-handedness of District 9, its Apartheid allegory felt intact, while, this movie loses its momentum after act one is over. The sudden plot changes really hurt the subplot of who controls the plutocratic land. And, although, the action sequences hold your interest, they do little to advance an intriguing premise. The 99% movement needs better messaging.

The Wolverine (Film Review)

                I wasn’t looking forward to another X-men themed adventure, beside “First Class.”  The last time there was a film involving Wolverine, it was 2009’s X-Men Origins: Wolverine, and it was a sore sight to see. So, I’m happy to report that The Wolverine is significantly better than the film that was intended four years ago and is has a lot more depth than advertised.

Logan has disbanded from his teammates after the events of “The Last Stand” and is a shell of his former self. He can’t live himself after impaling Jean Grey (Dark Phoenix) to prevent further casualties all those years ago and has recurring dreams about his former love periodicity throughout the film. He meets up with a girl named Yukio, who then brings Logan to Japan to meet up with an old friend from the past who heads one of the biggest corporations in Japan: The Yashida Corporation. Back in 1945, Nagasaki was attacked by the United States during World War II by an Atomic Bomb. Logan proceeds to save Yashida from the impact of the bomb and is rewarded with the opportunity of having mortal life. His healing powers are a thing of the past, at that point. What becomes more than a simple thank you, turns into a fight against death and Yashida will stop at nothing but to live forever.

What makes The Wolverine such an engaging film is how Hugh Jackman is able to convey Logan’s conflict of not be indestructible anymore and the imbedded guilt that has traumatized this soldier. It’s a nice change of pace for a series longing for ingenuity. The fight scenes are elaborately designed with good techniques and aren't reliant on much use of CGI; easily the film’s best moment comes aboard on top of a high-speed train, which features good direction from director James Mangold throughout most of the entire film. Other parts within the film seem like filler, for example, the Viper character is given little to do here. Her act was tired right after she poisoned the 3,457^th character in the film and the last half-hour tends to fall apart with odd twist and turns, especially with The Sliver Samurai making its presence felt, and, also, while the minor sub-plot of having Logan protect the Mariko Yashida is fairly good, that love story is a bit forced. That said, The Wolverine is an enjoyable movie, which makes up for the suckage that was 2009's "Origins." 

Nonetheless, The Wolverine is a satisfying movie with enough action and story to keep you invested throughout the film and is a nice prelude to next year’s Days of Future Past. If you've managed to stick around for during the credits, there’s a nice surprised in-store for the most patient.

The "All or Nothing" Man of IMS (A NASCAR analysis)

 

6 finishes of 9th or better (top) vs. 6 finishes of 18th or worse (bottom). Take your pick.

     

Jimmie Johnson has a record-tying 4 wins alongside with his Hendrick Motorsports teammate Jeff Gordon. He has led 302 laps to go along with the 4 victories & 6 top-tens. Strangely, he can also be considered a liability there with 6 finishes of 18th or worse in those 12 starts, as well. Pretty weird for an all-out exceptional driver like Johnson, but these results DID happen. Whether it was a tire problem or an engine failure, he has been unfortunate, as well. In order to bring his results into further context, I decided to dissect the seven races that he didn't win ('02, '03, '04, '05, '07, '10, '11 & '13).

2002: (Started 37th, Finished 9th)
   
     A hard-fought 9th place finish started with a drive from the back of the field for the driver of the 48, who managed to avoid all of the incidents throughout the day and used clever pit strategy to ascend through the field.  It was a quiet top-10 finish for the rookie.

2003: (Started 9th, Finished 18th)
   
     Jimmie spent most of his day inside the top 10 until a long pit stop put him in the 13th position with little time to get back to the rest of the top cars. A restart with 16 laps saw a multi-car accident down the backstretch between turns 3 and 4. Jimmie Johnson was among those involved in the incident; and, while he did drive away unscathed, he ended the day with a disappointing 18th place finish.

2004: (Started 9th, Finished 38th)
 
      Spent the first 30 laps inside the top 10 until the 48 spun coming off of turn 3. Got as high as 22nd after the spin before the engine expired on lap 89.

2005: (Started 42nd, Finished 38th; Driver Rating: 58.8)
   
      In its inaugural year, sites like racing-reference.info implemented a driver rating system, which tabulates how a driver is running throughout a race. Sort of like how Quarterbacks are scored for interceptions, touchdowns, passing yards, etc. Drivers are scored on green flag passes, quality passes inside the top 15, laps spent in the top 15, laps led and so on. Jimmie Johnson, for example, was scored with the driver rating of 58.8. The average equivalent would be above a 70.0 driver rating.  Starting in the back because of a bad time trial speed, JJ slowly made his way towards the top-15 only to spin out off of turn 2 on lap 79 and then, proceeded to restart his march towards the front again. Jimmie's team decided later in the race to bargain for track position as he restarted 7th on lap 121 and managed to stay within the top-15, until, a hard crash off of turn 4 ended his day on lap 144.

2007: (Started 19th, Finished 39th;  Driver Rating: 66.1)

     The winner of the 2006 Brickyard 400 was caught in a multi-car accident on lap 47 after running as high as 4th early in the running. As the carnage ceased, Jimmie went to pit road to fix some of the damage from the accident and fell a lap down, due to the extensive repairs. When the race was restarted on lap 60, JJ was in a position for the "free pass" (when the first driver is a lap down, he or she receives that lap back) then, alas, the left front tire gave way,
sending him into the wall on lap 62, effectively ending his day.  

2010: (Started 2nd, Finished 22nd; Driver Rating: 75.9)

     After winning back-to-back Brickyards in 2008 & 2009, respectively, the 48 team pretty much missed the setup two-thirds of the race after racing among the leaders early on. Despite starting on the outside pole, Jimmie Johnson's crew kept adjusting the car to improve the handling throughout the event to no avail. Things got so bad that the crew opened the hood to tinker with the steering of the car. He fell a lap down because of this and needed the aid of a "wave around" (Once the leaders pit, cars laps down must stay out to regain a lap, but you can't pit until the restart) to catch up to the competition, but was mired back in traffic only pick up 22nd.

2011: (Started 3rd, Finished 19th; Driver Rating: 99.9)

     Probably the best showing by the driver despite not winning in this installment. Johnson and a lot of other contenders were mired back in traffic due to the final laps being determined by fuel mileage. Jimmie spent most of the day in the top 10 and looked to reclaim Indy supremacy until a final pit stop put him far behind the rest of the cars who could stretch their fuel load more so then guys like Jimmie. He ended the day 19th, despite an average position of 10th throughout the day.

2013: (Started 2nd, Finished 2nd; Driver Rating: 138.3)

    Looking to become the first-ever 5-time Brickyard, Jimmie was perhaps on his way towards another back-to-back feat. Leading a race-high 73 laps, the only things against JJ was Ryan Newman & lots of pit strategies for track position. With 30 laps to go, Johnson's bid for a 5-peat was slowed by a pit stop, ceding the lead to Ryan Newman, who eventually won the event.  

Film Review: Oblivion

Oblivion is set many years in the future, where the Earth was all but lost in a war that pitted Scavengers vs The Humans, in which the war was won, but left the earth and its moon literally in ruins. The Scavs own the ground, as they stake out for any suspicious activity. Jack Harper (played by Tom Cruise) is one of the few survivors left with the sole duty of tracking day-to-day operations of alien drones, ocean-borne power stations and any enemy movement. He and his partner, Victoria (Andrea Risenborough), are set on Tower 49, where they work as a team to do this on a constant basis towards being effective with one another. He handles the gruff work, while she offers assistance from that very tower. Sally (Melissa Leo) is the station commander and the head of the "Tet" a massive space station that orbits around the earth. Then, suddenly, things go awry when Harper discovers that everything isn't what it seems, even his purpose comes into question. He has these strange memories of a past before the war and memories his wife (Olga Kurylenko). And this is where the film loses it, as far as a decent story goes. The film just sits idle, failing to give the audience an idea of what is happening in its empty construct. The characters aren't any better, either; as Cruise and Risenborough have little resemblance of chemistry with one another, considering the importance of their own objectives. Morgan Freeman is seemingly out of place once we're introduced to his one-note character Malcolm Beech, who does tell Harper what exactly happened to this world but it all feels so bare, thanks to the underwhelming character development. Beech is perhaps the weakest character here because he's played straight by Freeman, which can be blamed more on the weak script rather than the execution. I say this despite the best part of the film being Kurylenko, who does enough to make the scenes her own (Yes, the bland Bond girl from Quantum of Solace was, ironically, the best character here). Yet, what gets Oblivion far is it fantastic vision set by Director Joseph Kosinski and cinematographer Claudio Miranda, who captures the war-torn Earth with shots of destroyed landmarks, like The Pentagon and the Washington Monument, for example, it's by far, the best thing about this film. Most of the filming takes place in Iceland, while the rest of it is set in parts of Louisiana and California (namely with scenes set in June Lake). But, the magnificent locales can come off as filler to compliment a movie stuck in...well, Oblivion. Pretty much, there's hardly one other thing that is redeemable of this film. It's empty, lifeless and most of all, it's underwhelming.

A Good Day to Die Hard (Movie Review)

Perplexing to think that there have been five of these films and the formula still works, bargain if you care for middling supporting characters that fail to rival the genius of Hans Gruber from the original Die Hard. A Good Day to Die Hard (yes, that’s the actual title) is the latest installment of the series that has managed to outlive its worth. While I didn't enjoy the character depth of the supporting cast nor the forgettable plot, I was able to forgive the insipid activity of the action sequences; they do have a charming place within the franchise. The setting is in Russia, where John McClain’s son, Jack, is on a mission from the CIA to prevent the prosecution of a whistle blower. Then, like in every Die Hard film, McClain Sr. has to welcome us all back into the party and witness wise cracks, one-liners and charm. Bruce Willis, to his credit does a good job of making his venerable protagonist relevant in a digital age and looks good doing it too at the spry age of 58; Pretty impressive. Though, the biggest flaw with the setting is that we never get a proper introduction to Moscow (the film’s setting); and, there’s no sense of patience as there seems to be no kind of stoppage in the action; it’s as if the writer infused no pacing. Director John Moore tries too hard at modernizing a dying genre with outplayed elements (i.e. slow-motion) to exists as a destructive playground for us to witness. There’s a chase scene that, at times, defies the laws of physics with weight distribution and collision detection. Example, say you’re chasing down a 4x4 monster truck and an SUV challenges it to a game of bumper tag. The SUV, amazingly, manages to take down the four-wheeler by trapping it into a ramp. But, yeah, that really DID happen in my verbal dramatization of the sequence that I referred to. Logic officially left my mind, from that point; and, when I didn't care for a proper introduction or a decent plot device, Die Hard 5 manages to be entertaining, regardless. That scene and its visually distracting climax are funny in their individual inanity. Jai Courtney, who plays the son of John McClain, is serviceable without being too much of a burden to the McClain legacy, so to speak. Mary Elizabeth Winstead does return from the fourth film, though in a lesser role here. German actor Sebastian Koch plays the whistle blower and does an OK job with what he has to deal with, it’s just too bad that he’s bare. Now that I've covered, exhaustively, how confusing things are in this film and how it distorted my perception of reality, I did like it, despite how ridiculous things turned out, overall. The core villain (if you can tell who is the main antagonist) underwhelmed and the same for Jack McClain. The film does pay homage to the original film in sequences, which was cool, if unnecessary; but, if all you’re looking for is something that’s big, dumb and absurd, you’ll enjoy this film. Just be sure to turn your brain off in order to enjoy the nonsense.