Pain and Gain

There are a ton of avid movie goers and movie critics that hate Michael Bay. 

He hardly ever tells a coherent story, his characters are often one-dimensional and sometimes flat-out racist, his cinematography is atrocious, and his movies are often thought of as 3 hour-long, un-compelling action scenes. And you know what? All of the above are pretty true. But at this point, these facts have been true for so long that if you are still hating on Michael Bay for the way he makes his movies, you need a new hobby.

In my honest opinion, I don't mind his movies. In fact, I even enjoy most of them. I hated Revenge of the Fallen, but the first Transformers is still a really fun, entertaining movie, and other than the 3 hour run time, I enjoyed Dark of the Moon as well. Bad Boys I and II are fun for one time, but again, they are overly long...the same thing can be said for Armageddon. 

I recognize why people hate Michael Bay's films, but I often find that if I just go to them with my mind turned off I end up having an enjoyable experience. And once again, if you claim you are a movie buff and you still go to his movies expecting anything less, well then...I really don't know what to tell you. The day Michael Bay makes an Oscar worthy movie (other than special effects) is the day that hell freezes over. 

Our "villain" surrounded by a staple of Michael Bay movies:
super hot women

Pain and Gain tells the true story about a series of crimes performed by a group of bodybuilders in Miami in the mid 90's. I did a little bit of research before the movie and to make a long tale short...this series of events is f**ked up. You will watch the movie thinking that the "true" aspect flew out the window a long time ago, but it really didnt. These guys really did some  atrocious things. Now of course there are probably some parts that were elaborated for action scene purposes and for comedy purposes, but all in all, the story here is pretty damn close to how it happened. The only thing I am slightly doubtful about is Dwayne Johnson's character. I've heard he didnt play as big a role as the movie suggests, but Bay might have just wanted to embellish into that character because it fit better for the movie. Also, while this may come across as a comedy at times, it enters some pretty dark territory and the movie/writers do a good job of reminding us that these bodybuilders are the ones who turned into the villains and they shouldn't be idolized in the slightest. 

I'm about 99% sure that all three of these actors took heavy steroids to bulk up the way they did. Seriously
just look at Johnson's shoulders...so emasculating. 

Just because this movie doesnt have explosion after explosion and transforming robots doesn't mean Bay has changed his style. He often tries too hard to get the laughs, although there are sincerely quite a few to be had here. His cinematography and editing is still ADD-esque and more often than not pretty poor. The color is over saturated, the soundtrack is loud, and the movie had plenty of unnecessary scenes. 

Seriously though...his neck is like a tree trunk.
A redwood tree trunk.

But I'll be damned if I didnt have fun time in the theater. The story is a very compelling one despite the fact that I already knew what happened and it's told in a logical manner. There are voice overs by almost every single character throughout the film which takes a while to get used to (and was really not necessary for many of the smaller characters) but they help to explain some background details rather than taking the time to show it. And this may surprise you, but the best part about this Michael Bay film is the characters! Wahlberg plays the ringleader, Daniel Lugo, Dwayne Johnson plays Paul Doyle, and Anthony Mackie plays Adrian Doorbal. Those three are the bodybuilders-turned-kidnappers. The kidnappee, Victor Kershaw is played excellently by Tony Shalhoub and he eventually enlists the help of Ed Harris who plays the investigator, Ed DuBois. There are several other small players, but these guys are the main ones. 

I mean it's a Michael Bay movie. Did you really think
there wouldn't be at least ONE explosion?
Even if he was telling the story about the history of
Kleenex, he would find a way to incorporate
an explosion.

Not surprising is that all of the performances stand out as great. Wahlberg is an amazing actor as well as Mackie. They do their jobs and they do them well. On a similar note, Shalhoub and Harris are always good and they also turn in great runs. But the star of the show, at least in my opinion, is Johnson. His character is one that has a very dark part of himself. He found God in prison and after one thing leads to another his character ends up being a coked-out insane man. You know what's scarier than The Rock? The Rock on coke 24/7! Johnson has steadily been becoming a much better actor over the years, and I was impressed with him in Pain and Gain. He delivers much of the comedic timing and one-liners, is believable (and also funny) as a "Praise Jesus" man, and pretty terrifying (and still funny) as a drug addict who has shoulders the size of the Great Wall of China. I would have liked to see his character's dark side explored a bit more, but that's more Bay's fault than Johnson's. 

This is a pretty short review because there isn't much to say about a Michael Bay movie. If you hated him before, you'll most likely not change your mind after seeing Pain and Gain. If you go to his movies with your brain off like I do, you will enjoy this and might even be surprised that the characters are the best part. 

It's pretty funny, tells an interesting story, has fun characters, and is basically like a two hour long PSA about the side effects of steroid and cocaine use. What's not to love?

Pros:

• When it's funny, it's pretty damn funny. I was laughing pretty hard on several occasions
• The story is preposterous, but the fact that the true story was basically as crazy as this one is nuts. I really wanted to know how everything ended up
• All of the characters are fairly one-dimensional, but they are all done really well. This is a kudos to both the writers and the actors themselves
• Johnson does fantastic here and really shows his acting chops. He goes to dark places, light places, and crazy places, but he is consistently funny. I wouldn't mind seeing him incorporated into a comedy sooner or later (perhaps 21 Jump Street 2?)

Cons:

• For better or worse, it's a Michael Bay movie. With that comes a usually technically-poor movie. I would say Pain and Gain is more of an technically-average Bay movie
• There are some unnecessary scenes that serve no greater purpose. In addition, some of the jokes fall flat pretty hard
• I'd like to think I'm a fit individual. But dear Lord Johnson's and even Wahlberg's physiques are emasculating. Do steroids really work that well?

Rath's Review Score: 7/10 

Oblivion

When I first saw the trailer for Oblivion I was underwhelmed. It looked real pretty but it didnt look like it would hold my attention and that it was just another Hollywood cash grab. I let it fly under my radar knowing that I would eventually see it and probably give it a middle-of-the-road score using the terms "average", "uninspired", and "forgettable" somewhere within the review. 

And then I saw that it was directed by Joseph Kosinki and it was essentially his brain child (it's based on his unpublished graphic novel that goes by the same name). My interest piqued. For those of you that don't know, Kosinki directed Tron: Legacy. That movie, in my honest opinion, is one of the most underrated movies in the last decade. I won't go too much into detail, but it is still the best looking 3D movie I have seen (tied with Avatar), had fun characters, an intriguing albeit a little far fetched plot, and one of the best original scores ever. So, I had a little bit of hope for Oblivion. It had an interesting premise, a couple big name actors, and a director who's last film I've seen into the double-digit realm of viewings. It just didn't have a very captivating trailer. 

So which is it? Average and skip-able or a surprise much like Tron: Legacy was? This should probably give you a clue:

Oblivion is currently one of my favorite movies of this year. Once again, Kosinki delivers and once again, he is grossly underrated. 

Absolutely stunning. I sincerely wish I would have seen it in IMAX.

We will get the obvious out of the way first. Oblivion is gorgeous. In fact, I would go as far as to say that it might have the Rath Award for best special effects on lock. Given the big movies that are coming later this year, that should be a statement in and of itself. But seriously guys, once I realized how good the effects were, I got really anal...I wanted to find every little detail that suggested green screen, CG human beings, etc. I couldn't find a single one. I'm actually still pretty impressed by it all. Oblivion doesn't have any big army vs. army scenes or HUGE action setpieces, but for the action that it does have and for the visuals effects it does have to use; they are absolutely flawless. Hand in hand with this is the fact that the world, at least for the tight realm of the story, is fully realized. From the trailer I was worried that this would be just another sci-fi movie that had some fancy gadgets that had no purpose and were just there to make you believe it was in the future. Oblivion's myth is fully realized and while the length of the timeline of events was somewhat unbelievable, I was sucked into the fact that this was our Earth 60 years after an alien invasion and war. 

He's gonna get on his motorcycle then make like a Tom and cruise. Haha get it? Because he's Tom Cruise.
No? You guys suck... 

God and Jamie Lannister! Or in other words:
I watch too many movies and too much TV.

There has been a lot of talk about the story for Oblivion. I thought it was superb. Of course, this review will be spoiler-free as always, but there were essentially two big twists. The first one I guessed about 15-20 minutes in and the second floored me. I've heard a lot of movie goers say that they saw everything coming and I say BS to that. Oblivion pulls out the twists successfully and even better, it tells its story in a fun manner. Rather than revealing all of its cards up front, it saves some crucial plot points until the middle and the end which may frustrate some, but I loved it. Unfortunately, I've also heard talk about the characters being insufficient and fairly one dimensional. For starters, this is a sci-fi movie with a lot of ground to cover plot-wise. If you want to know what drives a character to pour their milk in a bowl before the cereal, go watch a character drama! (May I suggest last week's fantastic film, The Place Beyond the Pines). Frankly, in a sci-fi movie I'd rather know...oh I dont know... maybe why the Empire State Building's observation deck is now at ground level?! Regardless of this, I loved the three main characters and I found their struggles and relationships to be very well done. Cruise plays Jack Harper who is a drone repair man and his partner is Victoria, played by Andrea Riseborough. The beautiful Olga Kurylenko comes in about midway through as Julia and I ended up becoming truly invested in her and Harper's relationship. I really can't give anything away, but it simply just works. Or at least it did for me. And I think that might be what I'm so impressed with. A lot of movies just have a bunch of twists for the sake of having twists. Oblivion earns its twists and fully explains them. 

Really the only big complaint I have about the film is Morgan Freeman's character. For as iconic as Morgan Freeman is, you don't just have him in your movie to deliver a couple lines. But honestly, that's about all he does. If you watch the trailer below, at least a third of his screen time is in it. It's hard to say how it could have been changed, but I really just think it should have been a different, less important actor. With Morgan Freeman, you automatically assume, "Oh, this is significant character.". In Oblivion he wasn't and it just kinda felt awkward. 

Speaking of purrrty...Olga Kurylenko

I'm really not sure why critics were somewhat disappointed with this movie. People are always complaining about a lack of original ideas in Hollywood, movies that are meant to be made into trilogies, and action-heavy films with little meaning. Now, I love most all of those types of movies, but Oblivion is none of them. It's out to tell a single story and it accomplishes that. If I'm being honest, it's pretty light on the action save for an exciting chase sequence and a few smaller scenes. But it is a sci-fi film through and through. It creates its world, it believes in its world, it sets the characters in motion, and it reveals its story little by little. 

I didn't find it "average", "uninspired", or "forgettable". 

I found it fantastic. 

Pros:

• I'm going to have to keep my eye out on Joseph Kosinki from now on. The dude makes movies that I like and I'm super impressed that Oblivion was his original idea. He's got my vote for most underrated director in Hollywood right now
• The special effects are some of the best I have EVER seen and I don't say that lightly. Granted, there are no thousand-person-army battles or Avengers-like city destructions going on at any time, but when it does use effects, I dare you to find any issue with them
• I thought the story was fantastic and by the end I was not only intellectually engaged but emotionally engaged. Its twists were well worked into the plot and explained after their reveals. I'd be willing to bet money that you dont see the second one coming
• While the acting required of Cruise and gang is certainly nothing challenging, they all give solid performances. Cruise may live his personal life in the tabloids, but he lives his characters onscreen. It's always a delight to watch him
• A fantastic Tron-like original score. It's nowhere near as much of a masterpiece as Legacy's score and I probably wont purchase it to listen to it in my free time, but it was always very fitting and it was fun to hear some of the same styles that Tron: Legacy used

Cons:

• Morgan Freeman's character is basically used to attract movie-goers. He serves little purpose and that's not OK when it's Morgan freakin' Freeman
• The movie could have benefited from an additional, prolonged action scene. The ones present are great, but I would have enjoyed to see more of those effects kicked into high gear
• I personally appreciated all of the scenes in the final cut, but there were certainly some that could have been removed
• The timeline and geographical scope of the plot seem kind of unrealistic having seen the film from start to end
• Would have been better with a smidgen of humor. But just a smidgen, not a dollop...

Rath's Review Score: 9/10

The Place Beyond the Pines

Every once in a while, a movie comes along that I just cant stop thinking about. It may not be the best movie ever made and it still might have significant flaws...but I just cant stop thinking about what it has to say about life. 

The Place Beyond the Pines is that type of movie. 

It does so much right, but also some things wrong and at the end of the day I just cant escape what it had to say about life coming full circle, fathers and their sons, the consequences for doing both the right and wrong thing, and the idea that we are products of our upbringing.

The film is an epic, plain and simple. It is here to tell a Shakespearean story and it does so with no remorse. It sounds cliched to talk about movies this way sometimes, but The Place Beyond the Pines is just so calculated and brooding. Every scene serves a higher purpose and you start to get that sense as the movie transitions from its first chapter to its second. 

Chapter 1: Ryan Gosling as the obnoxiously-tattooed, Luke

The Place Beyond the Pines is split up into three very distinct chapters. In fact, they are so distinct that Im surprised there weren't title screens indicating the shift from one to the next. With these chapter changes come some significant tonal shifts and this is the film's biggest offense. Just as we are getting into the characters and story of one character, we shift to the next one, and then to the next one. Looking back, this is really the only way that this story could have been told, but it's still jarring nonetheless. 

That baby has a very stoic look on his face. Kinda
creepy actually.

Ryan Gosling is the star of Chapter 1. He is a talented dirtbike rider with ridiculous tattoos everywhere. He quickly finds out that he has a son and wants to find ways to support him. Eventually he is so hard pressed that he begins to rob banks. As we have come to expect from Gosling, he is phenomenal. He is one of the hottest actors in Hollywood right now because he is one of the best, plain and simple. Somewhat similar to Drive, his range of emotion in this movie is wide: caring, happy, intense, angry. He does it all and he makes it immensely believable. As his voice cracks when he robs banks we get the sense that he is actually robbing these banks; he disappears into the moment and it's exciting to watch. There are a few chase sequences in this chapter and while the shaky cam makes a return, I dare say it works here for the most part. The chases are exhilarating and they seem very real. Cianfrance, the director of the film, certainly has a talent behind the camera. Also playing a significant role in this chapter is Eva Mendes as Romina, the mother of Luke's child. For some reason I kind of never attached to her character as much, but that is no fault of her own. She does great work here I just think that she was the female lead in a male-dominated film that is mostly about fathers and sons. 

Ryan Gosling + his biceps + him holding a baby =
my female readers all deciding that they are going
to see this movie ASAP.

Without spoiling anything, the story transitions into Chapter 2 that focuses on the cop-trying-to-do-the-right-thing, Avery Cross who is played equally as brilliantly by Bradley Cooper. Once again, there is a reason he is one of the hottest actors in Hollywood right now and it's because he is talented. He also has a one year old son, but his life is much more stable. He is married and has a steady job. This child's upbringing is much different than Luke's child. As the movie continues through the chapter we start to see parallels between the chapters...choices, consequences, devotion or a lack of devotion for family. It's all very poetic actually and Cianfrance adds to it by adding his own parallels such as long shots of the back of Avery walking, much like he did with Luke at the very beginning of the movie. It becomes clear that these are two very different men, but yet they are still facing the same issues and trials in life. That being said, Bradley Cooper's chapter is much less interesting (a tale about cop corruption) and if I take a step back and look at the plot as a whole, his chapter's plot is less important. The two chapters get equal screen time but the second is not deserving of it; it could have been told in probably 3/4ths to 1/2 the amount of time. 

He walks like this the whole movie. His character
suffers from a very large kink in his back.
(Kidding)

The final transition occurs 15 years after the first two and tells the story of the two sons. This chapter is easily the most powerful and I was really impressed with the choices made. Rather than being predictable and cliched and having them turn out as polar opposites, they actually end up to very similar to each other on the surface despite their vastly different upbringings (don't worry, this isn't really a spoiler just more of an observation). By the time the movie reaches its final shot we come to realize that these boys were not just a result of their father's mistakes or just their upbringing, but a combination of both. As I mentioned at the beginning, the movie comes full circle and it's really tragic. Not in the sense that it is sad, but just the fact that it is so heavy. And it's these aspects of the movie that I just cannot stop thinking about. Are we really just products of our fathers? Do we live with their mistakes and their successes? Can we break the mold if we wanted to? How does one become the man he wants to be despite his upbringing? Like I said, heavy stuff. 

For all that it has to say though, Chapter 3 is also too long and I can think of two areas where I would have ended it and I think it would have been equally as effective if not more so than the actual ending. To me, the actual ending, while still very good, seemed a bit extreme and somewhat unnecessary. 

A very powerful scene...one of those full-circle moments.

From a technical standpoint, the movie as a whole is brilliant. I was hard pressed to find poor cinematography, the script was excellent, and the performances were all top-notch. Not to mention we are graced with one of the best original scores I have heard in a while. It's one of those scores that sends chills down my spine and brings the start of tears to my eyes just because of how expertly it is crafted and used within the film. In all honesty, The Place Beyond the Pines is one of those movies that is an entirely different beast because of its score. It would have had significantly less impact without it. 

As I wrap up this review, I am still trying to understand the title of the movie, The Place Beyond the Pines. There are several important scenes that take place within the pines, but what does the title mean beyond the pines? What is the deeper meaning? 

To me, I took it as a metaphor for the effect that we will someday have on our children. Our actions and decisions have long term effects that are beyond our control, beyond our own upbringings and these not only define who we are, but who our children will be as well. And it is our duty to make sure that our children evolve to the place beyond the pines. 

Pros:

• An epic story that is split up into three mostly-fantastic chapters. The movie has a lot to say and it does so with a ton of calculated maneuvers
• It's a movie that I would hope you don't soon forget once you leave the theater. I know it's kept me thinking. It's made me appreciative of my father and my upbringing. I've gained a new sympathy for children who have not had the upbringing and father that I have had and ended up in less than desirable places because of it
• All across the board, the acting is amazing. Not one bad performance
• Technically near-flawless. The cinematography is amazing, particularly the chase scenes
• The original score and soundtrack are the best I have heard in a while. Elevates the movie from good to great

Cons:

• The tonal shifts from chapter to chapter are mild but noticeable 
• It is overly long. And in all honesty, this is really my biggest complaint. Chapter 2 could have been cut in half easily and Chapter 3 had several opportunities where it could have ended earlier and had the same effect. The movie clocks in at 2 hours and 20 minutes, but feels much longer. This is largely due to the chapter changes and it isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it's slightly frustrating when you realize how much fat around the meat there is in some areas of the film. We probably would have been looking at a 9.5/10 or a 10/10 score had the movie been about a half hour shorter

Rath's Review Score: 9/10

 

  

42

Do you like sports? 

Do you enjoy the competition and the rivalries, the awesome plays, and the teamwork exuded? 

This is probably my most obvious series of rhetorical questions that I have ever asked on my blog. Pretty much everybody loves at least some sport whether it be football, basketball, hockey, soccer, golf, tennis, or in the case of 42, baseball. 

The thing that I don't think many people understand is just how much Jackie Robinson changed not only baseball, but the American sports world in general. Baseball was arguably the biggest sport in the United States in 1947 and because of the Gandhi-like Robinson, he began a change of opinion about black people in professional sports that paved the way for some of the greatest sports stars we have ever seen. By resisting the temptation to fight violence and hatred with more violence and hatred, Jackie Robinson showed that he could play better than the white man and act more professionally. Granted, the argument could be made that eventually someone would have come along and done the same thing and we would still be where we are at today. But I call that argument invalid. Jackie Robinson WAS that person who came along and took it upon himself to go against the status quo. It's probably the most important story in American sports history and Jackie's legacy is linked to every African American player who has entertained us across various sports fields: Michael Jordan, Muhammad Ali, Tiger Woods, Barry Sanders, LeBron James, etc. etc. etc. 

So if it's the most important sports story to tell, how is the movie about it?

Rounding third base and sliding into history...

The movie, 42, certainly has its faults, but it is very good overall. I really don't think it will be a classic the way Remember the Titans or Spacejam became (I know, I know. Spacejam isnt a serious movie about race. But EVERYONE loves it!!) but it's worth a viewing in its own right mainly to just see what Jackie Robinson and all those who supported him had to go through. Which that right there might be one of the highlights of the movie. Clearly Jackie Robinson was the person who took the brunt of the jeers, violence, and ridicule. But one of my favorite aspects of the movie was how it showed just how much most of his team supported him. Many of them would defend him because they knew he was a great person and a fantastic ball player. Branch Rickey, played pretty well by Harrison Ford, was the executive who signed Robinson to the Brooklyn Dodgers and continued to show his support for him throughout the following seasons. Just someone having the guts enough to do that is impressive all things considered. I guess what I'm getting to is that Jackie Robinson didn't change history all by himself and the movie did a great job of displaying that. 

Silencing the crowd by doing the right thing...

What 42 also excels in is its acting and baseball sequences. Everyone turns in a home run performance here (pun intended), particularly Chadwick Boseman who plays Jackie Robinson. He is a great lead and has the capability to display a wide range of emotions all very believably. Harrison Ford is great as Branch Rickey, my only complaint being that it took me a good half hour to get used to his guttural, raspy voice. It's not every day you see Han Solo/Indiana Jones on screen talking like they just coughed up a lung. In addition, the baseball sequences are well shot from a cinematography standpoint and had great color to them. An odd thing to notice, but I really like how saturated the color on screen was during the game of baseball. That being said, there really is no exciting baseball to be seen in this movie save maybe one or two scenes. If you are looking for a sports-action movie, you will be disappointed. 42 is here to tell the story. And on that note I bring you to the film's biggest weakness.

"Ya see kid, there was this huge Death Star and
then Sean Connery was my dad...wait...
ah dammit! I'm mixing up my movies again!"

As I mentioned earlier, 42 has an important story to tell, and much like Lincoln, it decides to focus on just one section of the title character's life. Now I'm not saying that I want a movie that starts from the time Jackie Robinson exits the birth canal to the time that he dies, but I honestly just felt a little short changed in 42. It progresses logically, if not a little sporadically, through the baseball season of 1947 with a little bit of time being spent on preseason proceedings. It comes to the point where the Brooklyn Dodgers are playing a game that will send them to the World Series and then it just....ends. As the screen went to black I was kind of taken aback, expecting it to continue in some fashion. But I guess they just decided that the movie was done then and there. At the end there are some classic sports "Where are they now?" type of conclusions with still frames and text on screen, but that doesnt count for much. Ultimately I left a very good sports movie saying, "That's it?" which is never a good thing.

The real Brooklyn Dodgers. My hats off to
all they did to change the world of sports,
Jackie Robinson in particular.

Before I wrap this review up, I want to address a scene in the movie that I found to be very powerful. I am a firm believer that we can learn a lot of life's greatest lessons by the power of movies and I hope that some people learn a lesson from this one. In 42, there is a scene where Jackie Robinson is walking out on the field in Cincinnati and he starts to get booed. One father, who had previously been shown as nothing but loving towards his son, yells out, "N****r!! Get out of here!". His little boy sitting next to him sees Robinson on the field and all the white folk yelling similar sentiments. Then the little boy yells, "N****r!! Get out of here!". A few moments later, we see Pee Wee Reese, one of Jackie's white teammates, come and put an arm around his friend, Jackie Robinson. The little boy sees this and his face is immediately plastered with shame over what he yelled out. In this day and age, with all that is going on in the world, I hope that parents take their children to see this movie. And maybe somewhere, some little boy or girl will see the little boy on screen, and be changed. They will learn that just because their parents, family, friends, peers, religion, or elders are saying something doesn't always make it right. Like I said, it struck me as one of the more powerful scenes I've seen in recent memory and I applaud the movie for putting it in there. 

To make a long review short: go with your family or your loved ones to see 42. It's not a perfect movie by any means, but it tells an important story. And sometimes, that's as good a reason as any to see a movie.

Pros:

• Everyone does a great job acting, Chadwick Boseman in particular
• Doesn't shy away from some of the harsher things that Jackie Robsinson went through. At times it can be jarring (one scene of constant ridicule in particular), but I think it all serves a higher purpose to show just how impressive it was that Robinson didn't get violent
• Jackie Robinson didnt change the face of sports all by himself and the movie does a phenomenal job giving credit where credit is due to teammates and managers who took chances 
• When there are baseball scenes, they are done really really well
• Some very powerful scenes

Cons:

• It can be very cheesy at times, but then again, what sports movie isn't?
• Ok but seriously, the original score is BEYOND cheesy. I'm pretty sure that music was the same music I have heard in any sports movie ever
• I think it hurts the movie to focus on just one section of Jackie's life. A montage of his career would have been a great movie
• The ending is very awkwardly abrupt in my opinion. It felt like it came out of nowhere

Rath's Review Score: 7.5/10

Evil Dead

A few things before we begin. At the time of writing this review I have a poll going that I would like you to vote in. It's all about some changes that could be headed to Rath's Reviews. Right now, it looks like you guys want me to start reviewing older movies and videogames. If you are reading this and have not voted yet then VOTE! Let me know what I can do to make your experience with Rath's Reviews better! Secondly, this post features some disturbing images (PG-13ish) so dont say I didn't warn you. Turn away now if you don't like blood or demons. In other words: Mom if you are reading this, stop now. Dad, you too.

The poster to your right says that the Evil Dead will be the most terrifying film you will ever experience. It's not. But it might be one of the most disturbing. 

For those of you who are just joining me, the horror genre might be my least favorite. I find that most of them don't truly scare me and are just really demented. The only times that I have been consistently scared in a movie is during the Paranormal Activity films. Say what you want about the series, but I truly think that it is currently the scariest horror series out there. A few months ago an absolutely nuts red-band trailer came out for Evil Dead promising that it would haunt my dreams at night. I went in expecting just non-stop scares and balls-to-the-wall images that would prohibit me from even starting a REM cycle within the next 24 hours. Chock this one up to high expectations but Evil Dead did not meet them, which is perhaps why I am not a fan of the horror genre...I tend to expect too much of them because I have seen too few of them to know any better. I'll comment more on that later before I give it a rating, but let's talk about the movie itself for a little while. 

Introducing our cast (from left to right): Really Dumb, Pretty
Dumb, and Dr. F**king Stupid

A screaming guy with blood on his face and a 
chainsaw....is anyone surprised by this?

Evil Dead starts off like every other horror movie ever created: kids at a cabin in the woods. But I'll give it that since this is a remake of the horror classic and I'm sure it was one of the first to feature that setting (and no, I have not seen the original). However, this cabin in the woods story is kind of different because these kids are here to help their friend, Mia, overcome heroin addiction by stopping her cold turkey. An intervention of sorts I guess you could say. It works well because it gives reasoning for the early events going on when Mia starts going crazy obviously because of her withdrawals. But other than that, it just like every other horror movie you have ever seen as far as plot goes. Demonic possessions, "we can kill the demon if we kill the host", dying one-by-one, world's-stupidest-characters-who-find-a-book-of-witchcraft-and-decide-to-open-it-and-read-it....you get the picture here. I guess I dont have much room to complain about generic plots since the action genre is basically all about nukes and Russians these days, but still this whole setup gets tiring. Apparently the forests of the United States are riddled with demons, ghosts, devils, and really, really dumb kids. Thanks Obama! 

Such a potty mouth on this one. Seriously the things that come
out of her mouth, other than the blood-vomit and demon
branch, are just vulgar. Someone get the bar of soap!

You really don't want to know what's happening
right now. And yes, that's blood. Her blood. 

Whereas the first Evil Dead had a sense of comedy to it (or so I hear), this one is all serious, all the time. I think it actually worked for the better because I did get a much larger sense of dread in this film than I do in most horror pictures. For some inexplicable reason, I really felt like these were people fighting for their lives, other than their idiotic decisions. I think the reasoning for this is because of the way that Evil Dead was shot. It's got surprisingly good cinematography for a horror flick and it gave it a sense of "epicness" that is often missing from lesser horror pictures. And speaking of epicness...Evil Dead is gory. I think they gave away two of the more "OMG" gore parts in the red-band trailer, but regardless the gore here is still cray-cray. Once things get started, it's pretty constant and almost always shocking, particularly the very end. There were a few times where I had my hands placed right under my eyes in preparation to cover them so I didn't have to see what was coming, as well as a few turns of my head while I showed disdain/dry-heaved because of what was being shown on screen. This movie is certainly not for the faint of heart and it will make you feel like you need a shower afterwards, but the gore here is far more appreciated than it is in most other horror movies. In movies like Saw, the gore is there because it's a "torture-porn" film and that's why you are there. Here, it serves a purpose for the most part. But boy...is some of it hard to watch! 

In all reality, I shouldn't be reviewing this movie. I never saw the original and I am certainly no horror buff. I "enjoyed" myself in the theater for this one and I appreciate it for what it is. But I was never really jumping in my seat from fear; I was just very disturbed by the whole thing. Which I guess is fun? 

AHHHH!!! This demon be whack!
But I bet she can get to the center of a
Tootsie-Pop faster now!

Recently I got in a bit of an argument with someone on an entertainment site called IGN. He was commenting on another movie reviewer's score and it was a stupid comment so I thought I would call him out. I told him that he should start setting his expectations up appropriately for a movie. You don't go into a Michael Bay movie expecting character development, a Will Ferrell comedy expecting an intricate plot, or a superhero movie expecting bad special effects. I like to rate movies on what they set out to do and how well they did it from a technical, emotional, and entertainment standpoint. So for me to give Evil Dead the score I want to give it just because I am not a fan of the horror genre is inaccurate and frankly, unfair. In all honesty, if you are a fan of horror, you HAVE to see this movie as I'm sure it will be a near-classic several years from now. But this is my site after all so my opinion should have some factor into the final score, therefore I will give it a score in between what I would have given it and what a horror fan would most likely give it.

And I'll just stick to my Paranormal Activity once a year. 

Pros:

• Shot surprisingly well. I was impressed several times with the cinematography. There are several iconic images (particularly the final killing) and this is almost entirely due to the camera-work
• The original score worked really well here. It wouldn't be anything that I would download and listen to, but it also helped to add to the sense of "epicness" coming from the film
• Has a sense of dread, severity, and seriousness seeping from it. I really can't put an exact finger on why, but I felt it
• The gore, for better or worse, is insane and I nearly looked away a few times. This coupled with the super-creepy, potty mouthed demon makes for one very disturbing movie
• Having the initial setup pertain to a heroin addict helps make some of the earlier things makes sense and afterwards the movie continues on at a very brisk pace
• I'm not a fan of the horror genre, but I feel like this will be a classic in a couple years

Cons:

• Loses some of its epic qualities at times and makes it feel just like every other horror movie
• Stupid, dumb, idiotic, moronic, mentally deficient characters. This is one of my biggest pet peeves with the genre
• Generic plot, setting, and resolution. Granted it's a remake, but still
• The horror genre needs to get some new tricks up its sleeve...BADLY. For example, you know the trick where the screen is displaying a character (or their reflection in a mirror) and there is nothing there initially but then the camera pans slightly to the side and comes back and there is all the sudden a demon there? This happens at least five times in Evil Dead. It's a dead horse that is continuously beaten. Like I said, the horror genre needs some new tricks

Rath's Review Score: 7/10

Please note that this is the RED BAND trailer. Not suitable for children under 17 and certainly NSFW.

G.I. Joe Retaliation

G.I. Joe Retaliation (which will be referred to as Retaliation for the remainder of the post because that name is obnoxiously long) is a hard movie to grade. It feels like it should have separate grades for the different aspects and story lines of the film. 

On a side note...you know what's not hard to do? Vote in the user poll on the right side of your screen! Please and thank you!

I should come out and get a few things out of the way first. For starters, I never saw the original G.I. Joe but I have hardly ever heard any good things about it. It sounds like it was near the Battleship-bad territory. I probably should have watched it before this one because there were a few characters that I was unfamiliar with, especially since I didn't play with the toys when I was a kid. Also, Retaliation as a whole is preposterous. Im sure you all already knew that from the trailers, but suffice it to say that Retaliation isn't afraid to go big...like WAY big. Without spoilery specifics, it kills off main characters, goes absolutely nuts with nuclear launching, and levels one of the most international cities in the world. I was pretty surprised/impressed actually with just how much they were willing to risk in the plot. 

All that being said, the movie still seems very divided. So, I will be doing a special type of review today where I grade it on three aspects: the G.I. Joe portions of the film (which are mainly the beginning, some of the middle, and the end), the ninja portions of the film (basically throughout the middle), and the action. Let's get started...

They didn't think that Johnson's arms were big
enough for this scene so they had me stand in as a double
for him. True story!

G.I. JOES:

STUNNING

I might as well get this out of the way now...but who is Adrianne Palicki and why isn't she in more movies?! Absolutely stunning, even when she has dirt on her face and a gun in her hand...actually now that I think about it, that makes her even hotter. Anyways, she gets the G.I. Joe section a point. 

Unfortunately, there are some significant problems to this section. The plot is far better than the ninja portion, but it's still just your typical action movie (except for some of the extreme measures taken at the end). So and so has nukes...OMG we were betrayed...I want revenge...and on and on and on. I guess I should have known what to expect, but I still wish for more sometimes. Next up on the "no-no" list is that the script is pretty terrible in this part, specifically when the villains are talking together. It could not have been cheesier and there could have not been less funny insults. There is one shining moment however, and that is the banter between Duke (Tatum) and Roadblock (Johnson). It felt genuine and it was actually pretty funny. So it surprises me as to why they didn't continue it: must...stay...spoiler...free!!! And that leads me to my next point: both Channing Tatum and Bruce Willis are horribly underused. Tatum has a ton of charisma and star power; girls and guys like watching him nowadays. And as for Bruce Willis; his introduction as the original G.I. Joe reminds me of the farting noise that comes out of a deflating balloon. "That's his introduction?" I asked myself. He does participate in the action a bit more, but still I felt like his role was borderline pointless and you don't give Bruce Willis a pointless role.

All negatives aside, Dwayne Johnson does his thing here and shoots some metaphorical adrenaline into the franchise, although not nearly as well or effectively as he did in Fast Five. He is a badass, he can lead a movie well, and he has turned into a convincing actor. So I repeat, Hollywood, why the HELL is there not a God of War movie with Johnson as Kratos being planned? Do I need to make this insanely successful future-trilogy myself? 

SCORE: 6.5/10

NINJAS:

This is is easily the worst part in the movie and brings it down significantly. Keep in mind I am talking about the action as my third point, so this section is dedicated to everything else. As with the G.I. Joes part, this part features a poor script, worse actually. It's plot is absolutely unnecessary and was designed specifically for the action set pieces, there's no doubt about it. I was beginning to really dislike these sections (action aside) because they were really taking me out of the arguably better G.I. Joe story. Eventually the two stories merge before the ending, but it still felt like they went the long way about it. There is also a cameo by RZA as a kung-fu master and it is one of the worst cameos I have ever seen. His acting could have been bested by a 2-year-old and it was a far cry from his significantly better, albeit still pretty mediocre, performance in The Man With the Iron Fists. Just a really dumb casting decision.

SCORE: 2.5/10

One of the best scenes of the year so far. One of the most visually impressive in 3D. One of
the most original action set pieces I have seen in a while. I have a lot of praise for this part, clearly.

ACTION:

Retaliation is directed by Jon M. Chu, who previously directed Step Up 3D (a series of which I am a big fan of, or the dancing segments at least). So it should come as no surprise that the action in this film is inventive, rhythmic, and awesome. The running-and-gunning parts have some awesome rolls, gunshots, punches, etc and I was like a giddy kid. I love a good action scene, and even better, I love an action scene that I can follow. Retaliation accomplishes this very well for the most part. It limits the shaky cam, has long lasting still shots when it needs them, and uses slow motion appropriately and in moderation. But none of the pretty-stellar action can compare to the ninjas-fighting-on-the-side-of-a-mountain scene. Ridiculous? Oh absolutely. But awesome? Positively. I was mesmerized as these ninjas dove headfirst off these thousand foot cliffs suspended only by a few ropes. Now clearly this was all done with copious amounts of CGI and no, this is certainly no Avengers in the CGI department. There are definitely some times where it's fake-looking. But for me, it was filmed so well (especially in 3D...WOW!) that I was almost moving in my chair to anticipate dropping off the mountain and dodging ninja swords. It's excellent and was almost worth the pain of the ninja's story being designed specifically around it...almost. 

SCORE: 9/10

They are readying their weapons in case I give
them a bad score.

 

So by now, you might be pretty confused. We have a range of scores from 2.5 all the way to 9 with an average 6.5 in the middle. To be honest, I hate rating movies like this. I liked it and based on overall reviews it seems like a pretty good improvement over its disappointing predecessor. If I saw it for cheap in a bargain bin someday, or it comes on TV/Netflix, I would love to sit down and have a couple of drinks and watch it again. But I have to acknowledge that it has its glaring problems and I can't rate a movie for the action alone (even though sometimes I want to).

If you are still confused as to whether you should see it or not just ask yourself what you have to lose (other than an expensive ticket if you don't know where to go). I don't really think any guys will dislike it and it does have some eye candy for the ladies. 

If you like action like I do, I would definitely see it for the ninja-cliff scene alone. If action isn't your go-to genre, then I would salute this one onward and watch it sometime down the line. 

Pros:

• Ninjas + 3D + fighting on the side of a mountain = me sitting in my seat with a wide-open mouth
• The rest of the action is pretty fun to watch too. I was hardly ever bored when there were guns or swords or rockets on screen
• I enjoyed the cast, particularly Johnson, Tatum (for when he was around) and Palicki. Roadblock and Duke's bantering scenes together were a lot of fun
• Retaliation isn't afraid to raise stakes to absurd proportions and raise the death count. Kind of shocking in a PG-13 movie about kids playthings, but hey...it worked
• If you know going in that it is nuts, it will help you to enjoy it far more. If you dont, well then good luck understanding why ninjas who wear masks and dont talk are running around with swords in a gun fight

Cons:

• The script is trash in both portions, particularly the ninja section
• Mediocre original score
• Villains that are not really all that compelling
• Overall, the plot is generic and/or dumb. The ninja section was designed entirely around having that awesome fight scene
• RZA's cameo was painfully bad
• Tatum and Willis are almost criminally underused which was odd. Especially when Tatum and Johnson had such good chemistry together

Rath's Review Score: 6.5/10