DVD Review: Peacock

At first glance, you wonder how a film like this went straight to DVD. With a stunning cast of Cillian Murphy, Ellen Page, Susan Sarandon and Josh Lucas, how could you not find an audience in that. After viewing the film, I can sort of see why it wasn't a hit, but to not include it at any indie festivals? That's still a mystery to me.

'Peacock' is a town in Nebraska. John Skilpa (Cillian Murphy) has lived there his whole life. From the opening scene we find out that John has some *ahem* "mommy issues". He also dresses like a woman in his spare time. (John's wife "Emma") Not only does he dress like her, wig and all. He does the house hold chores as her, "she" writes John notes throughout the day and makes him breakfast at exactly 8:15am. John in real life is a nervous man, he hides candy and baseball cards under his front step so "Emma" won't see. When a train derails and ends up in his backyard while "Emma" is folding laundry, he suddenly has a lot of unwanted attention. From a concerned police officer (Josh Lucas) to the wife of the mayor (Susan Sarandon) to Maggie, a girl from John's past (Ellen Page) Suddenly it's Emma, who no one has ever seen before that takes center stage.

'Peacock' has  wonderful things about it, but it also has a lot of problems. It was obviously a low budget film, and the train sequence is a bit lame. It's an interesting plot, but sometimes slow movie. Cillian Murphy does a hell of a job as always. He plays a convincing woman. (Check him out in 'Breakfast on Pluto') Ellen Page is also great. The presence of Sarandon is also a nice touch. The ending seemed almost abrupt and open. Really, you wonder why in the hell no one points out that John and Emma look EXACTLY alike. I suppose I can let that go, Cillian's performance was worth it. Another nit-picky gripe: Brown contact lenses. Blue eyes like Cillian Murphy's should NEVER be covered with contact lenses. It fit his character, but ruined my stare factor. I'm over it.

Recommended: Yes (I recommend EVERYTHING Ellen Page, this one's a renter though)

Grade: C

Memorable Quote: "We girls have to stick together." - "Emma" - Cillian Murphy

Rainy Day Reviews: To Kill a Mockingbird

Everyone has their favorite thing to do on a rainy day. Currently, it's pouring here and work is slow. One thing I like to do on a rainy day is watch black and white movies. I really can't explain why, it just puts me in the mood for them I guess. I thought I'd review one of my favorite old films.

'To Kill A Mockingbird' is based off of Harper Lee's best selling novel. It revolves the Finch family during the depression era. It's told through the eyes of 6 year old Scout. (Mary Badham) She's a tomboy that loves tagging along with her older brother Jem (Phillip Aford) and idolizes her father Atticus. (Gregory Peck) Atticus is a very smart, gentle man. He allows his children to call him by his first name, he teaches them lessons about life. He also happens to be appointed to defend a black man falsely accused of raping a white woman. Atticus isn't racist, neither are his children. He knows he's got a tough job ahead of him and his children want to see it all play out. Besides the trial, there is also another story, the mystery of Boo Radley (Robert Duvall) Scout and Jem, along with all the other children are afraid of him, but they've never seen him. They know not to go by the Radley house. However their curiosity grows when they start finding objects in a knothole in the tree in front of the Radley House.

I'm sure the majority of you came across 'To Kill a Mockingbird' the same way I did. In school. It was a book assigned to me to read in grade 10. That same semester I also had to read 'Moby Dick' and 'The Scarlet Letter'. Guess which one didn't suck? The book really held my interest. It was a great story and you really, really wanted to know how everything turned out. When our teacher let our class vote on which movie adaptation we wanted to watch from those 3 books, Mockingbird easily won.

I was already familiar with Gregory Peck from films such as 'The Omen' and 'Roman Holiday' but this was my favorite performance of his. I was a movie buff back then too, but not nearly as serious as I am today. Mockingbird helped that. I loved Peck's performance, and he really was how I pictured Atticus in the book. Mary Bedham gave a great (and Oscar nominated) performance. She was really a joy to watch. The film was very close to the book, and that's nothing something we get to see very often. This is one of those movies that they try to remake and fail miserably. There will never be a better adaptation of 'To Kill a Mockingbird' then the 1962 classic. It really captured the feel of the book and of the depression era. It taught a valuable lesson. When you think of a strong figure in your life, whether it be a parent, relative, friend, You can't help but associate that person with Atticus Finch. Even though he was a fictional character, he holds many of the same qualities that you want in someone you look up to.

Recommended: Yes

Grade: A

Memorable Quote: "Well, I reckon because mockingbirds don't do anything but make music for us to enjoy. They don't eat people's gardens, don't nest in the corncrib, they don't do one thing but just sing their hearts out for us." - Atticus Finch (Gregory Peck)

My Top 10 Films of 2009

Ok, so this is a little 4 months overdue. I was waiting to see 'An Education' just in case, and I'm glad I did because it made my list. **Spoiler Alert** You won't find 'Avatar' on here.

10) Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince

I'm bias. You all knew that. From an book adaptation point of view, this film was horribly adapted. I've come to except this from HP's terrible screen writer Steve Kloves. He's always going to suck at adapting Harry Potter. I won't get over it, but I'll look past it. If you ignore the fact that there was an extra scene added to the film that added nothing to the story (The Burrow getting attacked), the complete ruining of Harry and Ginny's kiss, the fact that they didn't show Dumbledore's funeral and that they totally F**ked the ending when Snape reveals that he is in fact the 'Half-Blood Prince'. (they explained it in the book, unlike the film. Instead Kloves wrote in some un-need un-canon Harry/Hermione cuddling)You actually have a good film. Great special effects, great acting all around. I've loved watching the Harry Potter kids grow up. (Except for Emma Watson, she's still horrid) They're only getting better. I loved Tom Felton's (Draco Malfoy's) performance. I loved all the angst, I'm glad they didn't hold back on the "sectumsempra" scene. Michael Gambon owned as Dumbledore, and it makes me more excited for the final films. Plus more Alan Rickman in never a bad thing.

9)An Education

Great Acting, lovely setting and a good story. Sure we all figure out what is wrong before Jenny does. But watching her go along and learn from it is a good lesson.


This was the coolest stop-motion film I've seen since 'A Nightmare Before Christmas'. It's a cool story (maybe a little dark for the kiddies) they cast some great voice actors (LOVE Dakota Fanning) and it taught a good lesson. You may not think your parent's are the coolest, but it could be so much worse.


A compelling story told by a great cast, and through a great director. 'Precious' introduced us to the talented Gabby Sidibe, and showed as talent that I didn't think Monique had. If you had told me two years ago that Monique would be an Oscar winner I would've laughed at you, now I can't agree with you more. The story was hard to stomach, but in a way it was beautiful. There's so many terrible things in this world, but there's also a little bit of beauty in everything. I'm referring to the teacher in 'Precious' of course. That line "Your baby loves you..I love you" might not seem like much from the trailer, but it made you cry in the film.

6)Star Trek

I hated the Star Trek TV series, but I couldn't have loved the movie more. I was very surprised, and very pleased. That was a film that everyone could love, even if you weren't a Trekkie.


How this movie got so ignored during Awards Season is beyond me. Sam Rockwell was great. He was practically the only actor we saw in the entire film. He carried it! He was amazing, he really proved himself there. It was an interesting story with a good twist. Not to mention Kevin Spacey's voice as his computer was a plus.

4)Up in the Air

When I first heard of this film, it didn't appeal to me at all. I'm not a huge Clooney fan, I didn't have a lot of faith in Anna Kendrick after seeing the cringe-worthy 'Twilight' but Jason Reitman is a great director, so I gave it a go. I'm glad I did. George Clooney fit the role well and I couldn't love Anna Kendrick more after watching it. I feel bad that I doubted her so much based off of one performance. I really do. Even though her role really could've been done by anyone (Ellen Page, Evan Rachel Wood, Emily Browning all could've pulled it off) I'm glad it was her. She was charming. Vera Farmiga was awesome as well. Her last few films involved her children going crazy (Joshua, Orphan) it was nice to see her in this role.

3)District 9

The only thing recognizable in this film was Peter Jackson's producer credit. We didn't know who Neil Blomkamp or Sharlto Copley were. They proved that didn't matter. 'District 9' was a great Sci-Fi film (with some interesting underlying messages) Copley had never acted before, and I thought he was great. I feel the same way about him as I did Sam Rockwell in 'Moon': Where was he this awards season? This guy deserved some love!

2) Inglorious Basterds

Brad Pitt's accent alone would score this film a spot on my list. I loved it. Quentin Tarintino rarely fails me, and awhile the film was a little different than what I expected it to be. It still delivered. Loved all the stories involved, loved the acting. Christoph Waltz deserved his Oscar. Melaine Larent deserved a nomination.

1) (500) Days of Summer

The film opens with a disclaimer saying " Any resemblance to people living or dead is purely accidental ... Especially Jenny Beckman ... Bitch." This isn't a romantic comedy. It's not going to have a happy ending. Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Zooey Deschanel are top notch in playing doomed lovers Tom and Summer. The film doesn't show us their relationship in order, it jumps around showing the ups and downs. I loved it, it was clever. It had a great soundtrack, and really, really should've gotten a Best Original Screenplay nomination at the Oscars. I was surprised it didn't.

That completes my list! Honorable mention to 'Crazy Heart', 'Brothers', 'Zombieland', 'The Hurt Locker', 'Invictus' and 'Where the Wild Things Are' all great films. Sorry for ranting on Harry Potter, if you can't tell. I'm not a fan of Steve Kloves.

Thanks for reading!

Review: An Education

Now I can officially say I saw all 10 of the Best Picture nominees at this years Oscars. It took me a lot longer than I wanted to get my hands on this film, but it was definitely worth the wait.

'An Education' is a coming-of-age story set in 1960's London. We meet a bored but smart teenager named Jenny. (Carey Mulligan) Jenny's parents want her to get into Oxford, and she's all for the idea as well. She studies nonstop, but for what? Jenny likes to listen to French music and read good literature. She's very worldly for her 16 year old self. One day while walking home from school she meets an older man David (Peter Sarsgaard) who loves all the same things Jenny does, and can take her to experience them. Surprisingly her parents are alright with this. David takes her to Paris, to fancy restaurants and night clubs. She meets his posh friends, and soon begins to learn a little more about her mysterious friend.

I can see why everyone fell in love with Carey Mulligan this year. She's mesmerizing to watch. I remember her in 'Pride and Prejudice' but she wasn't really given much to do. She's 24 in real life, but is completely believable as teenage Jenny. She's beautiful and has such elegance about her. She'll have a long career. Peter Sarsgaard has always been great in everything he's done. He's no different here. You know that a 16 year old with a man twice her age is wrong, but he's charming and actually makes you believe in him at first. The supporting cast were all great as well. Alfred Molina as Jenny's fickle father was great, and we get small parts from great Brits like Emma Thompson and Sally Hawkings. Rosemund Pike (who plays David's ditzy friend) was a joy to watch as well.

They really capture the feel of 1960's London. I loved the costumes, make up , hair, all those great little things that really add to the film. The soft French music they play is fitting, and we get some good shots of London and Paris. 'An Education' is the perfect title for the film. That's what Jenny learns from the experience and we're going right along with her hoping that she comes out on top.

Recommended: Yes

Grade: A

Memorable Quote: "I propose that you put your cello inside my car and walk along side it" - David (Peter Sarsgaard)

Review: Kick Ass

Why don't more people try to become super heroes? This is the question 'Kick Ass' is asking you. Why don't more ordinary people dress up as masked vigilantes and try to stop crime. One could argue that those real heroes are the military or the police force, but hey, being eccentric is never boring.

Dave (Aaron Johnson) is your every day teenager. He's not a jock, nor a stoner. He's not a mathlete, nor a theater kid. He's just normal, as he puts it he's "non-existent". Like a lot of teenage boys, he struggles with the ladies. Particularly Katie. (Lyndsy Fonseca) After being mugged (again) he decides he's going to stop all this. He orders a scuba costume, dubs himself 'Kick Ass' and goes out to fight crime. His first encounter results in an ass kicking/hit and run. He begs the EMTs to throw aside his costume so his dad doesn't know. Instead his father assumes he's gay since he was found naked (lame joke if you ask me) He tries again and soon becomes an internet darling when someone records him fighting off a gang. He catches the eyes of a few people. A father/daughter combo Big Daddy (Nicolas Cage) and Hit Girl (Chloe Moretz) They are real super heroes, trained in fighting and are good with ammo. They are after Frank, a big time drug dealer that ruined Big Daddy's life. He has a son who pretends to be a super hero himself. Chris (Christopher Mintz-Plasse) doubles as Red Mist in order to get closer to Kick Ass.

The movie is fun, lots of gore, lots of cursing, and lots of action shots. What I really admired most about the film was the editing. The way it was shot was awesome, lots of quick cuts in the fighting scenes that make them more exciting. A fellow blogger asked a question last week on whether violence is ok in films. This is one that it is. The extreme violence is all this film has going, and it has a sense of humor about it. It's also fair, it's not just the heroes getting the bad guys, our heroes take their fair share of beatings themselves.

The acting, more or less is horrendous. It's a shame because most of the dialogue is hilarious, but it doesn't sound believeable coming from a lot of the cast. Chole Moretz is a cute kid, but I felt like she was just reading her lines from memory rather than actually putting some emotion into them. It's also unfortunate because she has some of the best lines in the movie. Nic Cage isn't in it enough for me to forgive 'Knowing', 'Next' or 'The Wicker Man'. Our Lead is the best in the film, he's completely believable in his part. The ending is pretty predictable, it gets a little cheesy, but it's also the ending you were hoping would happen. They set it up for a sequel or spin off too, but who knows if that will happen.

Recommended: Yes

Grade: B-

Memorable Quote: "You've got everything under control? You're getting a fucking bazooka, dumbass!" - Chris (Christopher Mintz-Plasse)

Review: Death at a Funeral

You almost have to question a remake of a film that's only a few years old. After seeing the film I have to say I was pleasantly surprised, and it became very obvious why they remade it. They hit a totally different demographic, and still managed to stick close to the original yet still add it's individual twists. I saw the remake first, then watched the original.

Aaron (Chris Rock) has just lost his father. All he wants to do is get through the day. He has a lot to deal with, his absent/immature younger brother Ryan (Martin Lawrence) his emotional mother (Loretta Devine) ovulating wife (Regina Hall)and crazy uncle Russell. (Danny Glover) Not to mention they deliver the wrong body in the coffin, his cousin Elaine (Zoe Saldana) has accidentally given her new boyfriend (James Marsden) an acid-laced pill that she mistakes for Valium and he is nervous about giving a eulogy when his critical family thinks Ryan (who is a famous author) should be the one to do it. There's plenty of other familiar faces in the film as well. Luke Wilson and Tracy Morgan play family friends, and Peter Dinklage plays a stranger that is ready to make this day even worse.

I was expecting a lot of cheesy comedy, especially from Tracy Morgan. I was happy to find that the film actually had some real laughs. It had a wide variety of jokes and not just the same thing over and over. James Marsden stole the show by far. In the original this part was played by the always funny Alan Tudyk, but Marsden excels. After a disappointing turn in 'The Box' Marsden comes back full force. He's spot on throughout and we even get a little listen to his awesome singing voice! Rock and Lawerence have great chemistry, as did Tracy Morgan and Columbus Short. Danny Glover gave a little gem of a performance, and the only person that really lacked was Luke Wilson.

The pacing is good and it keeps you laughing. It's not the funniest film out there, but it's one of the better ones we've seen so far this year. The ending is predictable, but it almost doesn't matter. The movie's purpose was to make you giggle, and it succeeds. Is it better than the original? It's hard to say.. I enjoyed both.

Recommended: Yes

Grade: C+

Memorable Quote: "It's on my cheek..." - Jeff (Columbus Short)

DVD Review: Brothers

'Brothers' centers around the Cahill family. Sam (Tobey Maguire) is about to be deployed to Afghanistan again. He has a family, wife Grace (Natalie Portman) and two young daughters he doesn't want to leave but understand he has to. His younger brother Tommy (Jake Gyllenhaal) has just gotten out of prison. Sam picks him up a few days before he is set to deploy and we get a quick look into the lives of these brothers. Their father Hank (Sam Sheppard) has always viewed Sam as "the hero" and Tommy as "the disappointment". He makes this very clear. Tommy is trying to adjust to live out of prison, but his family isn't making it easy.

Soon, Sam goes missing in Afghanistan and is presumed dead. We the audience know that Sam has really been captured by Terrorists, his family thinks he died. Grace has a hard time dealing with it. She can barely get out of bed, she cries all the time. Soon Tommy tries to help out with everything from re-doing her kitchen to playing with the kids. All of them has a bit of animosity towards Tommy at the beginning now find themselves greatly enjoying his company. He's good with the kids, helpful to grace, and on one particular evening Tommy and Grace kiss. It ends right there, nothing further. Then they get the unexpected call that Sam has been found alive. He comes back home to his family, thinner, scarred and extremely paranoid. He begins to accuse Grace and Tommy of having an affair, he can't communicate with his children. He's messed up from the torment he had to endure and now has to deal with his family possibly falling apart.

The best part in 'Brothers' is by far Tobey Maguire's performance. He was fantastic, he's always been a great actor but it's hard not to think of 'Spiderman' when you hear his name. Hopefully this flick will help with that. It really shows his depth as an actor. (something he's always had) Gyllenhaal and Portman put in great performances as well, as do the young children in the film. We even get a quick gem of an appearance from lovely Carey Mulligan. The film is a remake of a Danish film "Brødre". I've seen parts of it, but not enough to compare the two. The acting is definitely the best part of the film, although the ending is a bit predictable and falls a bit flat.

Recommended: Yes

Grade: B

Memorable Quote: "Your nose it like a lunar eclipse....let me touch it!" - Tommy (Jake Gyllenhaal)

Indie Gems: My Own Private Idaho

I've been on a Gus Van Sant kick lately. He's a great director, very artsy, very visual. He loves the "long shot". One of my favorite films by him is 'My Own Private Idaho'. Released in 1991, it stars then up-and-coming Keanu Reeves and the late River Phoenix.

The film centers around two friends, Mike(Phoenix) and Scott. (Reeves) They are hustlers living in Portland, OR. Although they are friends they are in many ways total opposites. Mike is gay, quiet and obsessed with finding his long lost mother. Scott is obnoxious, and lives the life of a hustler simply to embarrass his prestigious parents. Mike is in love with Scott, Scott insists he just sells him self to gay men for money. They begin to search for Mike's mother, finding themselves in Portland, Idaho and even Italy on the way.

The film is a character study and Van Sant really lets it show. He's got lots of shots focusing mainly on the actors and not at their surroundings. He really makes you feel for both Mike and Scott. It's not an overly graphic film either. A few shots of drug use and sex. (no nudity) The performances in the film are top notch, and quite underrated in my opinion. It's one of Keanu Reeve's best performances to date. Doing films like 'The Day the Earth Stood Still' and the 'Matrix' trilogy don't really do Reeves the justice he deserves. River Phoenix's performance is the best in the film, but watching it now is a little tragic. Phoenix died of a drug overdose at the height of his career. Who knows what this guy could've done? He already had an Oscar nom under his belt at age 18, and he showed great depth even as a child actor. (Stand By Me) Watching him in this film makes me want to see him more, but unfortunately that's not the case.

Recommended: Yes

Grade: B+

Memorable Quote: "Yeah. Well, I don't know, I mean, I mean for me, I could love someone even if I, you know, wasn't paid for it. I love you, and... you don't pay me." - Mike (River Phoenix)

Fun Fact: I ordered the collector's edition from Amazon and it came with an interesting little book with bits by author J.T Leroy and other film critics. Very cool.

The Other Guys Trailer

I'm seriously so excited for this. I hope it's as funny as I think it will be.


Random Ramblings: The Radio Flyer Conundrum

Recently, I was talking to someone about who I thought were the best child actors when I was also a child.  Two that really stood out to me were Elijah Wood and Joseph Mazello, and one film those two were in together was called Radio Flyer. Then I was reminded about the uniqueness of this film. Instead of reviewing the film, I wanted to have an open discussion about the ending.

It deals with a tough issue; child abuse. What I’ve noticed is the way that the film ends is interpreted many different ways, and the filmmakers never came forward to say what was right and wrong. I’m interested in hearing everyone’s opinions on it. How did you interpret the ending? Obviously spoiler alerts will follow..

For those of you who haven’t seen the film, the basic premise is this: Two young boys, Mikey (Wood) and Bobby (Mazello) move in with their single mother and her boyfriend, who refers to himself as ‘The King’. It doesn’t take long for The King to start physically abusing Bobby, and the mother turns a blind eye. The end of the film shows the boys building their Radio Flyer (named after the red wagon they have) for Bobby to fly away and be free of The King. He succeeds, and we are being told this story by the adult Mikey, who in turn is telling it to his own children. Now, I’ve read people’s opinions on the ending, and these are the most common ones I’ve found. Please excuse me if I’ve left one out.

1) Bobby was actually killed by The King, and this is just Mikey’s way of coping with it. But telling his children that his brother really did fly away in his wagon.

2) There was no younger brother, it was all in Mikey’s head. This was just a way of him coping with his own abuse. He imagined that he had a weaker younger brother that was really the brunt of all the abuse.

3)There was no older brother, same situation as the previous, only it’s the abused child pretending he has a strong older brother.

4) The kid actually did fly away in his magic wagon.

Now, I was five when this movie came out, and I remember seeing it on TV around the age of seven or eight. So at my young age, the thought of Bobby actually flying away in a wagon wasn’t too far-fetched (hell, the clown from The Poltergeist seemed pretty real to a seven year old) I thought okay, it was a fantasy film and that’s how it ended. Then re-watched it as an adult, and it got me thinking. This wasn't the film I remembered.

I see it now as reason 1. Bobby really died after a particularly intense beating from The King. (Though some think he died when he plummeted to his death in the Radio Flyer, but the beating makes more sense to me) When elder Mikey is telling this story to his children, they question his ending. He says he can change it since he’s the one telling the story, which to me meant that his children were aware their uncle was dead, but he wasn’t revealing exactly how. The “letters” that Mikey gets as an adult from his brother, that I couldn’t really explain. Maybe he writes them, maybe his mother felt guilty and wrote them. (though that’s a bit extreme to continue it into adulthood) What do you think? I’ve heard theories that when Mikey is being beat up during the game of football he is playing with the neighborhood kids is just his way of handling the beat down from The King. Good point, I can see that. Some people point out during the film that the mother really doesn’t address both boys at the same time. (which I disagree with) I think there were two boys.

I’m interested in hearing your opinions.

Thanks for reading!

ETA: Since I published this post back in 2010, This popped up about a year later. It's referenced a few times in the comments, but I figured I would edit my original post to show that I have indeed read it. 

Review: Hot Tub Time Machine

You've got to love movies that have really pronounced titles. 'Snakes on a Plane', 'Volcano', 'Fighting', 'Alien vs Predator'. They get to the point. You can find out the plot of the film just by looking at the name. Well, hopefully you can..when I went to see 'Hot Tub Time Machine' I did overhear someone ask the girl at the box office what it was about. Yikes.

Hot Tub Time Machine knows what it is. It's supposed to be stupid. They wanted to come up with one of the dumbest ideas ever and make it funny. They succeeded. What I actually admired most about the film was it actually tried to explain it's actions. It didn't have to, it could've just thrown them out there, but it's nice to see they put some thought into their story. Even though it's completely unbelievable, they still made it passable.

'Time Machine' follows 3 long time friends, and one of those friend's nephew. Adam (John Cusak) has recently split from his long time girlfriend, Jacob (Clarke Duke) is his 20 something nephew that lives in his basement and plays video games all day. Nick (Craig Robinson) was once a great musician and now works for a pet store. Lou (Rob Corddry) is their raging alcoholic "asshole" friend. After a serious situation, the friends decide to go back to an old ski resort where they partied in the 80's only to find it run down and boring. They sit in the hot tub on their patio one night, drinking beer, liquor and an "illegal Russian energy drink" only to find that the Russian drinks mixes into the hot tub and transports them back to 1986. They try to relive that day exactly as they did before so that they don't disturb anything that happens in the future.

The movie was hilarious, I expected it to be a bit funnier, but I was just fine with what I got. Craig Robinson is hilarious, he's one of my favorite comedic actors to watch. He's responsible for the majority of the funny things that happen in this film. It's nice to see John Cusak let go since he's been in a string of absolutely horrible movies for the last few years. My biggest complaint was surprisingly Rob Courdry, he was almost too much. He was over the top and frankly I didn't quite car a whole lot for his character. The film isn't trying to be a masterpiece, it makes fun of itself. There's lots of slapstick, sex jokes, booze, drugs, music (including one hilarious scene with Robinson singing a song from the future) The ending is completely obvious, but it's all in good fun. You start the film laughing and you leave happy.

Recommended: Yes

Grade: B

Memorable Quote: "It looks like Gary Coleman's forearm!" - Lou (Rob Corddry)

Review: Clash of the Titans

An interesting debate has been brought up lately. Is 3D the best way to see a movie? Well in my opinion, no. It is not. This movie is a prime example of that. 3D is not for everyone, I say save it for the IMAX crowds who don't mind shelling out an extra $3.00 per ticket to get the "3D experience". Ever since 'Avatar' made a ton of money at the box office, more and more films are being converted to 3D. It worked for 'Avatar' because it was computer generated (and the only interesting aspect of the film). It works for stop motion films like 'Coraline' to show us that we can make beautiful visuals without CGI. It works for cartoons like recently released 'How to Train your Dragon'. Kids like the "jumping out at you" schtick. But why take live action films and try to ruin them with 3D? 'Clash of the Titans' was not originally intended to be in 3D, it was all done in post production. You can tell, 3D was absolutely pointless in this film. Same with 'Alice in Wonderland', a film not originally intended to be in 3D, it didn't add much to the finished product. I can only hope this 3D fad dies down soon. I've been reading about Warner Brothers doing 'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows' in 3D. DON'T DO IT!!!! Save it for the IMAX crowd.

'Clash of the Titans' is a remake of the 1981 film of the same name. If you saw it, it's horrible, it's corny, the effects were bad, but it was 1981. Back then only Star Wars was pulling off convincing special effects. The story is the mortal son of Zeus, Perseus (Sam Worthington) is given a mission. He needs to rescue the city or Argos from Hades (Ralph Fiennes). Zeus (Liam Neeson) is waging war on the other gods for Hades murdering his family. But you quickly forget all this, because the film literally goes nowhere.

I'll be the first one to say I don't think Sam Worthington is cut out to be the "Next Great Action Star!" He's too talented for this. He's a great dramatic actor and he's quickly falling into the mold of being type-cast as the "hero guy". I didn't have high hopes for this film to start with, Liam Neeson is the reason I decided to see it, and there's not enough of him. Ralph Fiennes is creepy as Hades, but only made me angry because I want to see him return as 'Voldemort' so badly. The effects, while better than the original are still nothing special. The Kraken did look cool, a lot cooler than the one in 'Pirate of the Caribbean' but they built it up so much only for it to fall flat. There's a lot of talent in his cast, and this probably sounded great on paper, but it just doesn't transition. It's not very flashy, it's boring, it's better than the originally mainly for the cast, but that's it.

Recommended: No

Grade: C-

Memorable Quote: "Release the Kraken". - Zeus (Liam Neeson) I chose the most quoted line of the entire film, but honestly. What else stood out?