Sucktastic 4

If you think you want to see the Fantastic Four, just don't bother. The first ten to fifteen minutes are mildly entertaining and the rest is just a joke.  It could have been a good movie, if, as a friend pointed out, it wasn't for the bad script, bad acting, bad graphics, bad direction, and bad storyline. 

The acting was simply attrocious. No one had chemistry and everything was wooden. The characters were cliche at best and it felt as if they were trying too hard, and just failed. The "end battle" was anti climactic and seemed to take only a half a minute. 

The graphics were cartoonish - even by the standards of Bugs Bunny.  When Reed is clamped down in the Area 57 room, he was "stretched out" and you could clearly see when his own arm ended and the graphic stretch began.  The other dimensional world looked extremely fake and the fire on Johnny Storm was really weird looking. 

The script tried to be funny but wasn't and jumped around all over the place with boring conversation and no character development. It felt like someone was trying to outline a film and forgot to put it all in.  The line delivery was terrible as well. Ben Grimm should have been a primary character and seemed rather secondary.  I didn't feel invested in the story at all.  

My friend mentioned that it felt like a SyFy channel movie. The only difference, I added, was that SyFy didn't try to take itself so seriously.

This is further proof that Fox is only good at X-Men and needs to hand the rights to Fantastic Four back over to Marvel.  Even though Marel had a logo on there and Stan Lee was listed as a producer, it was not a true Marvel Studio or MCU film.

Congratulations, Fantastic Four, you get worst movie of the year to date!

As my friend put it on our way out of the theater, the original cast of the Fantastic Four probably got together to watch it and laugh! (And we wouldn't blame them a bit!)

Minions - Letting Down More than Villains

I'm not sure what I expected when I went to see the new Minions movie.  What I got wasn't what I signed up for.  At best, the movie was fair to okay.  I usually walk out of movies hyped about what I've just seen.  When I left the Minions movie, I wondered why they bothered to make it.  Then I realized what it was: all the really funny parts were in the trailer.  Yeah there were "cute" parts but the more it went on, the more I just wondered when it was going to get good.

The beginning was funny, but again, most of it was in the trailer and they only expanded some of the scenes rather than adding more.  A warning, if you don't like or appreciate the 1960s, or making fun of Britain or British culture, then you won't like this.

I kept wondering why the movie was such a disappointment and what I really expected.  I guess I really expected a heist movie, based on the trailer.  I expected to see a lot of scenes of them trying to get to the queen's crown in the Tower - as suggested by the trailer - and see lots of the minions at work.  That would have been funny.  But just having those three as the only minions wasn't as funny as it could have been.  Quite frankly, as I watched the little clips in the credits, I thought that train of thought would have made a better movie than what I had just seen.

It really is a shame.  I love Despicable Me one and two, and I was really looking forward to this movie, but the plot was blah and they just seemed to do the same jokes over and over (someone can count how many cups of tea each British person drinks).  It seemed that they tried to cram so many tropes into the movie, that it just became too much.  I usually like Sandra Bullock, but her character was typical and flat.  I really wasn't invested in any of the characters except Bob.

If you decide to see it, then don't bother with watching it in 3D.  There were only two moments that I can remember that were truly well-utilized by the 3D element and they didn't last more than a couple of seconds each.

While I would welcome another "Despicable Me", I think we need to dispense with the Minion movie idea.  They work well as they were intended, but not within their own movie.

Jurassic World: A Thrilling New Tail of Terror!

      

This movie has dinosaurs.  If you see it, I don't want to hear anything about it "not being believeable" that people would go to a park after all that's happened.  In fact, let's be real.  If by some miralce we found live dinosaurs today, I know quite a few people who would go who have seen the Jurassic Park movie lots of times.  So get off that train (or in this case, geosphere) and let's claw into this film!

The film isn't perfect, but dude, RESPECT!  The new Indominous Rex was the absolutely most terrifying creature to make it to the big screen!  I would defy the team up of King Kong and Godzilla to be able to take this one down without a major fight.  I don't want to give spoilers, and we can talk about the traits of this dastardly dino at a later date, but this was a film experience I will never forget.

Like I said, it wasn't perfect.  Bryce Dallas Howard's character needed to convince me a little more at the beginning and to be honest, the set up for the movie felt a little stiff.  She did really well playing along side the two younger actors and Pratt, and pulled it off in the end.  I'm also not sure why they wasted three minutes on Nick Robinson's charcter with his girlfriend, but it happened.  I oso applaud them for addressing what John Hammond did in the first movie and for actually getting setting up a working theme park this time.  It's plausible for what it is: a movie about dinosaurs living in the 21st century.

I was extremely impressed with the two young actors in this movie: Nick Robinson - who is known more for comedy - and Ty Simpkins.  Simpkins in particular had a stellar performance and the two were very believable as siblings.  The had to carry much of the movie, even more so than the brother-sister duo in the first movie.

I know what you're thinking, "what about Chris Pratt?"  I couldn't leave him out and decided to save the best for last.  I had grown to love seeing the two great actors Jeff Goldblum and Sam Neil together in the first movie and alternately the heroes of the second and third movies.  And even though I like Pratt as an actior, it would be a hard sell for anyone new coming into the series.  I hae to admit that he defied my expectations.  I was worried that I would see Peter Quill, Star Lord, fighting dinos and telling off the JW version of Kingpin, Vincent D'Onoffrio's new villanous character.  Pratt was very believable as Owen Grady and did a great job balancing his consciencious nature towards animals with his survival skills.

A new and interesting take on this was actually having someone to "train" the animals.  They talked about imprinting, about making sure that the animals knew who was the alpha and understanding where they came from.  For something that has to be pure conjecture, they made it interesting by combining what I can only describe as combining dog training concepts (the alpha, hunting in packs, and the clicker training) with bird training (many birds, especially crows, are extremely intelligent and and scavengers).  Both species have a strict social scale.  To apply this to the Indominous Rex was pretty brilliant.  I am not a scientist, so don't ask me to comment about the genetic reasoning behind everything, but I know a lot about animals and I was impressed that they actually tried this.

Interwoven with some great humor and lots of fun references and omages to the other Jurassic movies, along with some really great pokes via Jake Johnson's character Lowery, the movie had a great flow to it.  In the words of Samuel L. Jackson's character Ray Arnold from Jurassic Park, "Hold on to your butts." Once the action starts, it doesn't let up.  And just when you think it can't get any crazier, it does!  

For those giving it bad reviews, please, don't expect this to be an Oscar winner, unless it's for the visuals, or even as ground breaking as Jurassic Park.  It's not going to be,  It is, however, a highly entertaining movie that's guaranteed to thrill!  This one is worth traveling to see on the big screen.

P.S. Make a game out of counting the number of JP references throughout the film.  There are A LOT!

Civil War and Martin Freeman - Marvel on the Move

It's been no secret that Marvel has fans ultra-hyped about Captain America Civil War which is set to release May 6, 2016.  The storyline has to do with registering superheroes . . . 

. . . Hmmm, sound familiar?  That's because if you saw X-Men, that was what Xavier and his crew were fighting Magneto about (except for them it was mutant registration).  But this would affect the X-Men as well.

With Iron Man on the side of hero registration and Captain America staunchly opposed, this could get preachy political if Marvel isn't careful.

But fans are largely optimistic and expectations are high.  People expect Captain America to be better since it has historically done better than most of the standalone Marvel movies.  We will be introduced to the Black Panther, have the added Scarlet Witch and Vision as characters, and there are even talks of Spider Man making an appearance.

Not enough new faces?  That's okay.  Marvel Announced yesterday that Martin Freeman (Sherlock & The Hobbit) is joining the cast of Civil War.  They have intentionally refused to name which character he will play (taking a page from Star Wars?) and leave us all with the question: hero or villain?  Maybe it will depend on which side you choose . . .

Mr. Holmes Trailer - Good Idea? or Leave on the Streets of London?

While I absolutely love almost everything Sherlock Holmes, there have undoubtedly been many liberties taken with Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's most memorable character over the years.

That's why, when Miramax and Roadside Attraction production companies released the trailer for Mr. Holmes, I had to admit that I was skeptical.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJwgItmobFE

And for the record I still am.  Sir Ian McKellan is a fantastic actor, there's no doubt about that, and if anyone could portray an aging Holmes, I would have picked him for the job.  However, I am very skeptical about the script and the plot.

From the trailer it appears Holmes is in the beginning stages of Alzheimer's disease and is desperate to find out what happened in probably his only unsolved case.

Some of the movie looks true to form.  Doyle did have Holmes retire in Sussex and tend to bees, and Mrs. Hudson went with him as his housekeeper - he couldn't stand anyone else who did not know his habits.  However, some of this seems to be almost a Sherlock Holmes affront.  There are so many story scenarios in which you could take Sherlock Holmes.  My hope is that they take this one seriously.

Set to release on July 17th and directed by Bill Condon, I guess I will have to wait and see.  I will see it, simply for the fact that Holmes is one of my all-time favorite literary characters, but I remain skeptical.

Do you think the new Mr. Holmes movie looks good?  Let me know.

Celebration Panel Announces "Star Wars: Rogue One" Film

In case you missed it, Disney announced at the Star Wars Celebration that they will be starting a line of individual movies about Star Wars characters - taking a page from the Marvel franchise.  They announced that the first film would be entitled: Star Wars Anthology: Rogue One and showed a teaser trailer to excited audiences.

In case you're wondering where the trailers are, YouTube took them down - except for two:

The first is someone filming the trailer from their cell phone camera at the announcement
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDursxEoUvI

The second is a very creative re-rendering of the trailer with LEGOs:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7p8aPxzbzJs

So is this really a good idea?

Should we have standalone Star Wars films about the characters we don't even know yet?  Perhaps they will have cameos by our favorites?  Let me know what you think in the comments.

Set to release in December of 2016, it will be directed by Gareth Edwards who also directed last year's Godzilla.   The only confirmed cast members are Felicity Jones and Ben Mendelsohn, neither of whom are in listed as starring in Star Wars: The Force Awakens.  Sam Claflin (known for his portrayal of Finnick Odair in The Hunger Games: Catching Fire and The Hunger Games: Mocking Jay Part 1) and Riz Ahmed (Four Lions and Centurion) are rumored to be cast but there are no parts listed by anyone's name.

Do we really want a Marvel version of Star Wars?  I'm not knocking having Star Wars come to theaters again, but I do not want another craptastic set of movies that was the prequels disaster (especially Episode II).

What do you think?

Avengers: Age of Ultron

This is what going to the movies is all about!  I hate to see Joss Whedon leave the Marvel Universe, but dang!  What a way to go out!  Avengers Age of Ultron outdid itself in the world of comic books!  There was an actual, fantastic story in this, along with more in-depth looks at some of the characters we only knew a very little about from the movies up to this point (i.e. Hawkeye and Black Widow).  We had two new characters in the forms of the Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver and FINALLY we had Vision - one of my absolute favorite characters!  I laughed until I thought I would cry, I was surprised, I was angry, I was excited and I was left clamoring for more!  This is a movie that is worth every penny to see!  This is a movie I would take the whole family to (provided they are old enough for action movies and the PG-13 rating).

No movie is without fault, but lets get the few of these out of the way: Baron Strucker felt like a pointless character.  He was only there for a few minutes and while I love Thomas Kretchman as an actor, I would have loved to have seen more of him rather than just as a quick way to justify the beginning actions of the Twins.  The friends with whom I went to see the movie brought up a good point that at the end of Iron Man 3 we see Tony Stark blowing up his suits.  Now he's back and fighting with not only more awesome suits, like the Hulk Crusher, but also with robots.  What caused the change?  I try to avoid spoilers in these reviews because I want people to read them and then see the movie, so I will save my last one for later, but those are the big ones.

Ultimately, the movie is one of the best in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.  The writing alone could have made the movie stand on it's own.  Personally, and I know that I will get flack for this statement from some of my friends, but I feel that the movie should at least be nominated for best original screenplay.  I came away considering how we deal with heroes in our perception today.  The characters felt more humanized and the beginning of the rift between the characters that will set up for Captain America: Civil War has begun.  Not to mention the fact that Whedon has the ability to take what appeared to be a meaningless conversation at the beginning of the film and turn it into one that is of utmost importance in calling the whole group to unite later.

I was worried about their portrayal of Vision, but not only was Paul Bettany the perfect voice of JARVIS, he did an outstanding job with the role.  He really was the Vision of the comics!  With such an outstanding cast, no one got lost among performances.  You could really see how well everyone had taken  to their roles now that they were used to acting in an ensemble cast.  The chemistry was really there!

When I left the theater, I could have turned right back around and watched it again.  It was that good!  Travel however far you need to in order to see this movie!  It's epic!

Daredevil Netflix

With the increase in binge watching series with the advent of Netflix and Hulu (pleading guilty on both counts) the tense watching of serial television week after week is heading out the window.  Even shows that do air every week are often put aside until they come on Netflix so that people can watch the show all at once.  This has caused networks to re-examine the way that they make shows and if "Daredevil" is the result then we have a winner.

Marvel has teamed up with Netflix to provide the first of several series that will hopefully continue and provide new ways to access and view the Marvel Universe.

When I heard that they had cast Charlie Cox in the title role, I wasn't sure what kind of show this was going to be.  But Cox is surprisingly good.  He carries off the roles of caring friend, vigilante, and attorney very well.  Another great casting choice was that of Elden Henson as Foggy Nelson.  My first view of him was as a guest on the TV show "Psych" as a murderer with a dry sense of humor.  With an even better sense of humor and great lines, Henson is a great Nelson.  Overall, the series is great with generally fantastic writing.

It's not perfect though.  The only major downside of the series is Kingpin. Vincent D'Onofrio looks like the evil villain, but there's quite a bit lacking - and it's not all his fault.  It sometimes feels as if there is a separate writer for him.  He may have a good line or two, but the character is much too emotional for what he should be.  I'm not sure what they are trying to do, but they need to fix it.

Still, I would recommend it and to you overall and happy binge watching.  This one is tough not to fit in one sitting! #Daredevil, #daredevilnetflix

Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel

Sequels are always question marks, even when you have a stellar cast such as the one in The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel.  Most of the time, the fault of unsuccessful sequels lies with a combination of too little story and too much computer graphics.

While I wouldn't say that this sequel knocked it out of the park, I will say that I was actually really impressed with the storyline of this tale. As always, the combination of Dev Patel's Sonny and Maggie Smith's Mrs. Donnelly is hysterical.  Combined with wit and wisdom and a running commentary on old age, this one is worth seeing with a friend.  There are some slow parts that could have been trimmed, but by and large the film was a testament to good story-telling

If you liked the first one, you'll love the second one.  It's really a funny, thought-provoking film.  Worth the price of admission?  For the most part, yes.  Make sure you like this kind of film before going, but I was glad I saw it in theatres.

Insurgent

Believe it or not, I liked the movie better than I liked the book.  This is not something that I say often.  The movie actually did a much better job of trimming the points of the book down to the essentials. While Hunger Games could get away with being in Katniss' head, it didn't work so well with Tris in the Divergent books.  Here, the director and screen writers made some excellent choices on what to keep and what to ditch.

Kate Winslet was convincingly evil as Jeanine and Woodley and James return as Tris and Four with chemistry. Nothing unexpected or drastic about the portrayal, but a good action film.

There were tons of digital effects.  Once in a while they were borderline overboard, but most of them were great.  If you liked the books in the series, or if you liked the first movie, this one's not going to disappoint.  It wouldn't get an Oscar nomination from me, but it's a fun movie.

Focus - Keep Guessing

The entire time I watched the movie, I thought I had it all figured out.  Every time I thought that, the next thought that came to mind was: "That wasn't what I expected."  Which is not a bad thing.

I have to give them two thumbs up for being very creative with the twist on the grifter tale.  I kept trying to stay ahead of the story, wondering what was con and what was not.  The fact that there were a lot of fun surprises was great.  I will admit that there were a couple of slow scenes in the movie, but the twists made them worth it.

Margot Robbie and Will Smith were cute in the film, but the striking chemistry wasn't there.  Part of that could be the fact that you never knew who was conning when.  It was nice to see Gerald McRaney back on the screen, if in one of his traditional roles.

I did enjoy the film, but I'm not sure that I would pay to see it in theatres.  It depends on how much you like Smith (which I usually do) and how much you like grifter movies.  This one is good, but just didn't pack the wow factor I thought it would.  It's worth a Red Box Rental for sure.

Cinderella - Twist on a Tale?

I have to be honest.  I'm a sucker for fairy tales.
 
I went to this movie hoping that it would be fun.  I hoped that they wouldn't spoil it with some off-the-wall new-fangled twist.  I hoped that they would have the magic still there.

You know what?

They did it!

I have to say that I was pleasantly surprised by the take on the storyline, the fact that all of your traditional Disney characters were there - including Gus the mouse and Lucifer the cat.  Cate Blanchet was a fantastic evil stepmother!

The casting was really well-done as were the costumes, sets, music, lighting, and effects.  I would see it again and would highly recommend seeing it.

What really impressed me was the character-building that Disney emphasized.  At first, I thought that I was going to hate the phrase "Be Kind and Have Courage."  But the way they took it and changed it to reflect that both were needed - Cinderella needing to stand up to her stepmother, yet be kind enough to forgive her - gave me some restored faith in the value of  Disney as children's entertainment.

To prove this point?  When I walked out of the theater, a little girl of about 7 years held the door open for me to go out.  I said "Thank you," and went to hold it so that she could catch up to her waiting mother.  "I have it, " she responded, allowing me to continue out.  Again I said "Thank you" and she gave me the biggest, cutest little smile and said "You're Welcome."  I don't know whether it was the parents or inspiration by the movie to "Be Kind" but either way.  That's a great way to finish a night at the cinemas.

Super, Sucks, or Surprise . . February 24th releases

Focus

This one has the potential to be a fun grifter movie.  It's good to see Will Smith (Hitch) in a new role where his comedic and dramatic talents can be put back to use.  In this film, Smith plays a veteran grifter who is training a new recruit Margot Robbie (The Wolf of Wall Street).  Against his better judgement, and perhaps at the peril of the con, Smith begins to fall for his trainee.  This will most likely be a lighthearted comedy/action/romance.  It could be a non-entity, but I doubt it.  It should be a fun flick to see.

Potential? . . . Super!

Map to the Stars

Starring Julianne Moore, Mia Wasikowska, Robert Pattinson, and John Cusack, this movie's casting made it interesting to me.  However, what could have been an interesting look into the life of a struggling has-been movie actress flops into a horror-style film based on what audiences see in the trailer.  Wasikowska has some grief with Julianne Moore's character and is trying to get to her, beyond that, it just gets weird.

Potential? . . . Sucks!






'71

Starring Jack O'Connel (Unbroken), this movie is about the Protestant/Catholic wars in Ireland, specifically Belfast, in the 1970s.  In this action/thriller, one of the men in the British military unit assigned to stop riots is accidentally left behind.  His mission is to survive the night with both Catholic and Protestant Irish out to stop them.  This movie looks intense, but good.  I hope it's as worth the price of admission as it looks.

Potential? . . . Super!




  The Salvation

Mads Mikkelsen stars as a man in the 1870's American West trying to hunt down his family's murder. When he kills the murderer, the man's brother, a gang leader, comes looking for him in town.  Rather than defending him, the townspeople betray him to the gang leader.  Also starring Eva Green, this movie looks to have a lot of potential.  In fact, it looks like they're trying to bring back the traditional western.  Hopefully they won't get bogged down in special effects for this kind of movie and that they have developed a storyline that isn't too wrote.  I guess we'll see soon!




Potential? . . . Surprise!

  Everly

I like Salma Hayek as an actress, but this movie looks like another cheesy shoot-as-many-bullets-in-an-hour-as-you-can action flick.  Apparently, Hayek's ex - a mob boss - is after her, and sends people to get her while she's in her apartment.  Lots of shooting ensues.  If it's your kind of movie, have fun, but this is not one I'm going to see.

Potential? . . . Sucks!

The Kingsman = Kingsmuck

  You would think that with a cast as stellar as the one in this film it would be a complete knock out!  I really, really wanted to like this movie.  Seriously.  I was hoping that it would have the ingenuity for its genre that Shaun of the Dead had on the zombie movie genre.  The more I watched, the more I realized I just wanted not to cringe so much at the poorly edited stupidity.

The only word people seemed to know was the F-bomb, scenes that could have been poignant were stretched out by so much redundant violence that you just wanted to roll your eyes and say, "when is this part over? I get it.".  I appreciated the fact that this riffed on every kind of spy movie and novel out there.  There were various and sundry recognizable references.  I also appreciated the fact that in riffing on one aspect of society, no aspect was safe: politics, race, or religion.  If you're going to slam it, slam it all, but it needs to have a point, not senselessly hitting, slamming, shooting, and blowing up people's heads to music.  The way they filmed the scenes had so much graphic overlay and editing that it looked incredibly fake a lot of the time, almost like someone had a video game they wanted to make and created a movie just to make those effects.  The ending was horrible.  I'm going to leave it at that.

I had labeled it surprise . . . and it did . . . it sucked.  If I could re-edit it I would buy it, but as is, it's not worth it.  It really is a shame.  Colin Firth had a likeable character, Mark Strong was playing a refreshingly different role as the Quartermaster and was fantastic.  Michael Caine played a traditionally stuck up member of the old vanguard who is in charge - the sort of "M" character.  Mark Hamill, who I was extremely excited to see in a film again, didn't really hold up against the likes of playing opposite Jackson and Firth.  Samuel L. Jackson's  character Valentine's riff on stereotypical villain roles and black male villains as being portrayed as gangsters who are both smart and stupid at the same time was poignant, together with the fact that his character believed that because he didn't have his hand on an actual weapon, he wasn't responsible for the violence created by his own device.  Those kinds of references made the film more watchable, but not worth wasting time and money.  I am so disappointed in this movie.

Super, Sucks, or Surprise . . . February 20th releases

What a start we've had to an insanely epic line-up for 2015!  With all of the superhero movies coming out, the new Star Wars movie, the new Mission Impossible movie, and Jurassic World, this is the year for big-budget sequels!  So where is the room for originals or indies?  There are a few, but overall, it's going to be interesting to see how they fair in this monster line-up.  Here's a look at the February 20th edition, with the addition of Kingsman, of Super, Sucks, or Surprise...


  Kingsman: The Secret Service

This movie looks funny and very interesting.  Colin Firth's (The King's Speech) character reminds me of a combination of James Bond and John Steed from the original Avengers. The cast of characters looks intriguing as it includes, in addition to Firth, Samuel L. Jackson (The Avengers), Mark Strong (Sherlock Holmes), Mark Hamill (Star Wars: Episodes IV, V, &VI), Michael Caine (The Prestige), Jack Davenport (Pirates of the Caribbean) and newcomer Taron Edgerton (Legends).  It has the potential to be lots of fun with an entertaining twist on traditional British spy plots.  It also has the potential to be just another cheeky plot.

                                      Potential? . . . Surprise!



 Hot Tub Time Machine 2

There's only one question: WHY?  The first one was pointless.  If at all possible, this one is less than pointless.  The title should be Hot Tub Time Machine 2: Soaking More Stupid.  Enough said. I will not be going to see this movie if you handed me the tickets and paid my gas to go.

Potential? . . . Sucks!





The D.U.F.F.

A teen flick about social hierarchy in schools, this movie is about the "Designated Ugly Fat Friend" or DUFF who tries to create a social revolution in her school.  Not new material, but this is the first time someone has actually entitled a movie so brazenly.  What bothers me most about this particular movie is that the role of the actress playing the "DUFF", Mae Whitman (The Perks of Being a Wildflower) is not even close to being fat.  If they try to imply that kids can be mean just because you're not the skinniest person in the room, then that's one thing, but if it comes off implying that she's fat because she's not as skinny as the super-model skinny teens they've hired to play the popular girls, then we have a problem.  We'll have to wait and see.
   
                                      Potential? . . . Surprise!



McFarland, USA

I am impressed with the movies that Kevin Costner (Dances with Wolves) has been involved in recently.  This movie, too, looks to be an inspiring one.  Working with a group of hard-working Hispanic youths from the high school where he has just been hired as the P.E. teacher, Costner sees that the families all work very hard and as a result, a group of young men in his class show the potential to be competitive cross-country runners. With the Nki Caro, director of North Country and Whale Rider, directing this, it could be a classic.

Potential? . . . Super!

That's about gist of this week's releases.  The remaining two films: Gloria, about a rock star Gloria Trevi, and Wild Tales, a foreign film about six stories of revenge, look like horrible films and BOTH rate the EPIC Suck! level - particularly the one about Trevi.

Taken 3

  The big debate that everyone has been asking about Taken 3 is what is there left to take?  They took his daughter in the first one. They took both him and his wife in the second one.  What now?  Why even make this movie?  My response: it's a fun movie.  People can't go in expecting this to win best original screenplay, or even get an Oscar nod.  Let's face it, if the first one didn't, the third one certainly won't.  That being said, it really had a great cast with with the addition of Forest Whitaker to the already talented Liam Neeson and Maggie Grace.

In this film, Brian Mill's wife is "taken" from him permanently - by being killed and then his daughter is taken again.  Overall the film was fun and entertaining, although there was one point where I felt that the director just wanted to film henchman Malakov in his briefs.  I would recommend that you watch it, knowing that it's not meant to be a philosophical conundrum.  Forest Whitaker's performance as the police detective is interesting and Liam Neeson continues to step up to the plate with his action sequences.  Add to all of that a great twist at the end and you've got a good formula for cinema entertainment.

Into the Woods

Finally glad to be back watching movies!  And wow what a wonderful one to start back with!  I was skeptical going into these woods with a cast that is not known for it's singing abilities with the exception of Anna Kendrick (I don't count Meryl Streep's singing performance in Mama Mia! as a good singing performance).  As we've seen in the past, with Les Miserables, it can make for great acting but much lower-quality vocal abilities (ala Russell Crowe as Javert).  Similar to reading a book before watching a movie, watching a quality vocal performance before seeing its movie counterpart can destroy the movie experience.
Happily, this was not the case with Into the Woods.

I was very impressed with the costuming, singing, and acting from all members of the cast.  Meryl Streep is definitely deserving of her Oscar nomination for best supporting actress for this role.  Emily Blunt is a surprisingly good singer, and Chris Pine was both devilishly handsome and just an outright devil in the role of Cinderella's Prince.  Together with Billy Magnussen, the song "Agony" was as funny as ever!

The younger actors, Daniel Huttleston's "Jack" from Jack and the Bean Stalk and Lilla Crawford's "Little Red Riding Hood" were refreshingly brilliant.  Holding their own with seasoned actors, these youth added to the story with their intensity and innocence that lent to their characters' ignorances - ignorances which contributed to the problems that the storyline portrays.

Kendrick's singing was great, her acting was somewhat overshadowed by Blunt, Corden, Streep, Pine, Huttleston, and Crawford.  The stepmother and step-sisters were a bit cliche in the casting - particularly since Lucy Punch was reprising her role as the more evil of the two step-sisters. I will give Christine Baranski credit for being a more evil step-mother since she performs the role as intended by both Sondheim and the Brothers Grimm.

With the casting, the cinematography, music, and costumes, this really was a wonderful film.  I would highly recommend seeing it! (Regardless of whether or not you've seen the stage version).