Tron Legacy (2010)

Tron Legacy (2010)
Rated: PG
Genre: Sci-Fi, Adventure, Action
Running Time: 127 Minutes
Director: Joseph Kosinski

A highly anticipated sequel to the original Tron (which was released in 1982), takes us to the digital world where its inhabitants battle for survival.

Some background of the original movie: Jeff Bridges plays and engineer/hacker, Kevin Flynn who aims to expose Ed Dillinger (David Warner) as the thief he is. Dillinger has stolen Flynn's program(s) thus advancing within his company, ENCOM, on the coattails of someone else's work. Flynn hacks into ENCOM's system and is assisted by friends (and ENCOM employees) Alan Bradley (Bruce Boxleitner) & Dr. Lora Baines (Cindy Morgan). Amidst the execution, Flynn gets transported into the digital world. In this realm, all programs take on the appearance of their user & The Master Control Program, which had previously prevented Flynn from accessing ENCOM's system, is controlled in the digital world by Sark. Sark manipulates programs who don't strictly abide by the mindset that you are to have no faith in their respective users. There is a struggle to defeat Sark & expose Dillinger, to which they are successful and, in conclusion, Flynn wins out and becomes CEO of ENCOM.

Tron Legacy continues this saga 20 years later with Flynn's son, Sam (Garrett Hedlund) who is doesn't take his inheritance (ownership of ENCOM) seriously and aims simply to periodically make fools of the board of directors. He is visited by Bradley, his fathers cohort 20 years ago, who pushes him to check out the former arcade, run by Flynn. Bradley received a page from Flynn's office at the arcade. Sam discovers a secret work area and accidentally gets transported into a digital world. There he discovers Clu; a program Flynn made to create a perfect world who has turned on Flynn. Sam also meets Quorra (Olivia Wilde) who is his path to finding his father and getting them out of there.

The visuals are absolutely stunning. If computer graphics continue down this path, there will be no need for human actors/actresses (although there still may be a desire for them)! Jeff Bridges' CGI equivalent is almost flawless. Aside from the somewhat awkward speeches which emphasize the imperfection, (and difficulty) of creating the perfect replica of human oral movement - the facial structure, the eyes, the small strand of hair that falls into his forehead - truly amazing. The neon-themed, contrasted world makes it hard to forget. Add in, as in the original, tons of spandex and you have a ocular winner!

Critics state that the movie lacks character development/connection. To some extent I agree - you desire to see Sam succeed but not enough to keep watching. What does keep your eyes glued to the screen are the vibrant, contrast-bearing, digital scenery AND (at least for me), the heartfelt desire to see Kevin Flynn through to the end (whatever that may be). Jeff Bridges has continued to impress me and even this somewhat unemotional world, has portrayed his earnestness, desire and amazement at all that has happened. Aside from the visual aspect, he makes this film. Kudos too to Olivia Wilde.

As in the original and now upgraded, you too cannot miss the Light Cycle races on a multi-layered board nor the disc battles.

It does seem though as though that the first Tron was smarter. While the original did focus on creating "digital" graphics, (likely considered current at the time) it more so was attentive to the framework and workings that make up Tron, ENCOM, The Grid etc... the world they are entrapped in and the programs that comprise the majority of said world. This is lacking in the sequel - while I was interested in the visuals, the "cool" factor of some of the situations Sam & Quorra fell into, I didn't feel the significance of what was said/done with the intention of having us distraught/disturbed.

A plus: Daft Punk completed the soundtrack. How can you beat this?! If you don't know of them btw, this French, electronica/house duo have done some amazing work and you NEED to find out more. The tracks need to grow on you a bit as they largely impress upon viewership of the film.

I give this a three out of five frames!



I battled with myself as I was tempted to give this a 2.5 rating; don't be dissuaded by this! It's not the top movie of 2010 nor a movie some will choose to purchase but CERTAINLY worth renting, watching, maybe watching twice AND if you can get on dvd inexpensively, I believe worth adding to your collection!

Trailer:



As The Fighter seems to be your next movie review choice - that shall be the next to follow!

Email me at pictureonawall@gmail.com, visit & chat on the forum at www.j1studios.com or go to J1 Studios Facebook page!

Danae signing off!

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Part I) (2010)

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part I (2010)
Rated: PG-13
Genre: Action, Adventure, Fantasy
Running Time: 146 minutes
Director: David Yates

Ahhhh, Harry Potter. Brings back memories of my nephew insisting upon replaying, just the first half and the first half ony (before getting distracted) of both Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone along with the Chamber of Secrets. A child's love for mystery and magic and also that, quite simply, they are watching a story about a child - something in an of itself, relatable! Ogers, ghouls, wizards, wands, all wrapped up in an edge-of-your-seat tale. We are now on the first half of a two-parter based off of the seventh novel in the series (whew!). Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Part I) is quite dark. As I'm told though, it has stuck closely with what was first written, with minor alterations. (possibly done to prevent the likelihood of confusing things, leaving too many details open-ended or simply for time constraints). The author of the series, J. K. Rowling, intended to have Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) grow up with its readers. As many have, fans would now be a bit older and thus not dissuaded from the intense experiences older Harry Potter goes through - they are gloomy, dark and truly terrifying. At this point in time, Lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) is gaining more and more control over all that muggles wizards have come to know. We are introduced to everyone amidst those who comprise the Order of the Phoenix (a society of those whose aim it is to prevent anything Voldemort) and cleverly plan a way to bring Harry to their designated safe spot. This group naturally contained Hermione Granger (Emma Watson) and Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint). The goal is, well to live, but to defeat Voldemort, whose minions have taken over The Ministry of Magic and are attempting to rid the world of muggles (those who have neither any magical abilities or born into the magical world). Their only hope is to obtain all of the Horcruxes - magical items used to gain immortality; this is the only way to defeat the immortal Lord Voldemort.

The relationship between the trio is quite real; a reflection of the history of highs and lows that friends experience and, especially when they all have some sort of chemistry - the drama. There are a couple characters too who don't make it very far and with this you feel that this really could be the end! (I have not read any of the novels and do not know yet what is to happen - I'm an outsider!) I would advise though for parents to be cautioned. While there have been deaths mostly either spoken about, implied, led up to and one somewhat shown in previous Potter movies, the one at the beginning of this film is hard to watch. While it does not resort to being gruesome, the knowledge that this individual was likely roughed up and is then shown as a trophy is a little disturbing. While there are most certainly scenes in the first six films that some could attach the same warning too, this was striking as it could've been taken out of the magical, youth world and plopped righted into another movie. Ok, possibly just a portion of it. My point is more the effect to the viewer! In addition, there is a scene with Ron being injured that, I believe, is not for all eyes.

Indeed though, the heights at which we become immersed in the well being of all those who are attempting to defeat evil. There are resounding themes; good over evil, the pain of discrimination, friendship, resilience; all well-balanced throughout. The graphics too are great, as expected.

The only detrimental factors in my opinion were, the length of down time in the woods (yes we have to understand that time that was spent looking for a Holcrux yet do we really have to see Hermione & Harry dancing?), the length of the movie (although it may be just me bothered by this, I'm old) and some of the dark scenes (simply as a warning to those taking children along; I personally wouldn't advise or younger than 11).

All in all, a solid film. Something about it was quite amazing and yet still something a bit forgettable. A good indicator is if whether or not I can or cannot stop thinking or talking about it. It was right there amidst the in between! It definitely does wins points for heart, love of the characters and detail!

I give this a three and a half out of four frames!



As IF you haven't seen the trailer ;)



Go see it & post your opinions on the forum!

Danae signing off!

sources: traileraddict.com; wikipedia.org

Miniviews!

As I am an individual of fleeting attention span, I've concluded that this day I will bless you with miniviews = multiple, (hopefully) meritable miniature reviews (hush, I know its cheesy but that's who I am) . This is also quite convenient for those on the go who can only read a paragraph before they focus on something.... hey look, Jimmy Fallon is on, I haven't gotten to watch him recently, speaking of which, SNL either.... oops, apologies. Have to keep it focused and concise - this 'ol brain doesn't work like it used to.

PLEASE email me to advise of approval or disappointment on this option...

The Expendables (2010)



Directed by Sylvester Stallone, starring (himself as Barney Ross), Jason Statham as Lee Christmas, Jet Li as Yin Yang, Mickey Rourke as Tool, Dolph Lundgren as Gunner Jensen, and others. Genre: action/adventure. Rated: R. Running time: 103 minutes. This unforgettable team of mercenaries for hire are commissioned to travel to South America on a highly hazardous job. They determine the situation formidable enough to turn the job down, yet in true tough-guy-with-a-heart-of-gold spiritedness, Barney can't return home knowing their contact Sandra (Giselle Itie) may not survive in this country ruled by a dictator. For anyone that grew up on Rocky, Terminator, Commando, Indiana Jones, Kickboxer, Lethal Weapon, Robocop etc... this film was tremendously anticipated. Body slamming, flesh piercing, spine shattering heaven: a face-off between Stallone and Steve Austin made me teary-eyed as I didn't dare blink. The exchange between Lee and Lundgren is not to be skipped and, preferably rewinded. The heart of the movie (true 80's action flick) is great with all the people we love to see kick butt. A couple peeves were both that I didn't get to see certain characters more, and that the dialogue leaves a bit to be desired. I am an advocate for understanding a movie as it is; you don't expect incredible revelations in a film like Bloodsport. Yet we do need a bit of balance - some character development, toss in a bit of humor, hopefully a fairly well-written story. All of these are here with the exception of the dialogue - you can't help but notice that the script wasn't written by a writer - a few of the exchanges between Stallone & Rourke, or Li & Stallone were a bit, um, coarse. Nonetheless, for all you action buffs - a thumbs up. This film receives a 3 and a half out of 5 frames!



Trailer:



Here's one on DVD:

Splice (2009)



Directed by Vincenzo Natali. Starring Adrien Brody as Clive Nicoli, Sarah Polley as Else Kast & Delphine Chaneac as Dren. Genre: Sci-fi & Drama. Rated: R. Running Time: 104 minutes. Clive & Else are two scientists working on animal genes via splicing - the unity of more than two genes. They don't have the authority yet commit to something that both hadn't been done before and wasn't, quite, ethical. Amidst pressure from Else, the pair splice a human gene into the code and before they know it, Dren is created. In time they learn just how amazing she is as she has adopted the best of each creature that forms who she is. The observation of her growth is thrilling yet they have no idea how in over their heads they truly are. The topic of human gene testing/therapy is a testy one, understandably, and while they talked a bit about the integrity of it, more reflective of the complexities were the interactions between Dren & Else and the exchange of whether or not to keep going or end the experiment, between Else and Clive. Should a being such as this be treated as human or as animal? Who decides? Is there a punishment for giving in to animalistic tendencies when formed of multiple species? The idea is gnarly, if indeed it could/would ever occur, with these questions not being answered but certainly, at least from my perspective, cautioned against! Please be prepared to be uncomfortable. I've viewed some movies that others wouldn't dare yet my jaw dropped (and a little screech uttered) at some of the places they took this story. A definite dvd recommend, and not for those easily disturbed. This movie too gets a three and a half out of five frames.



Trailer:



To reiterate - shoot me a quick email or post on the forum your thoughts on my movie ratings and anything else that comes to mind!

Danae signing off!

source: imdb.com, traileraddict.com

The Last Exorcism

The Last Exorcism (2010)

Rated: PG13

Genre: Horror, Thriller

Run Time: 100 minutes

Director: Daniel Stamm

Hopefully this is the last exorcism. I don’t think I can sit through another young girl throwing up on herself and talking in a possessed voice that clearly isn’t her own. Now I must preface this review with the explanation that I don’t get scared at scary movies anymore. I haven’t for a long time now. So each time I go in with the hopes that I will be scared or creeped out. Unfortunately this time I was not. However, there were many people in the theater who were scared and screaming. I can see where most people would be scared. So for the general movie public, I think you’ll be afraid, if not jump a few times.

So the movie, it’s interesting. The approach was different. It is documentary style where they are following a preacher, Cotton Marcus, who once did exorcisms all the time but has lost his faith and is now set to show exorcisms for the hoaxes that they are. This is supposed to be the last exorcism that he ever does. So he heads out to the backwoods in Louisiana and meets a father who is concerned that his daughter is possessed. So you see the preacher, played brilliantly I must admit by Patrick Fabian, go about his routine for rigging up a great exorcism. He assures the family the demon is gone and he and his film crew leave. But they have clearly gotten more than they have bargained for with this family.

Now I warn you that there will be spoilers after this point so if you don’t want to know what happens you should stop reading now. The weird starts with the girl, Nell, showing up in the preacher’s hotel room in the middle of the night. They take her to the hospital where she checks out fine. Once back at her house the crew gets the feeling that something isn’t right with the family and that maybe the girl needs some psychiatric help. They come back from seeing the local minister and find that the girl has cut her brother’s face wide open. They offer to stay with the girl while the dad takes him to the hospital. At this point this is where you start to see that the girl really is possessed by something. The film crew and Cotton though still want to hold on to the belief that the girl just needs a therapist. They learn that the girl is pregnant and right away think there is some creepy incest action going on. Nell starts acting strange and throwing up and disturbing pictures of how the film crew is going to die. Nell starts attacking the crew and trashes her room and it gets weird. The group is starting to think maybe she is possessed. When the dad gets back they confront him about the pregnancy and of course he insists his daughter is a virgin. They make another attempt at a real exorcism. Here comes out the “possessed voice” and weird body contortions and back bends. The actress, who played Nell, Ashley Bell, was very convincing. This exorcism ends very abruptly and they think they have gotten the demon out. It then comes out that she had sex with a boy in town and never told anyone. So the film crew has the local minister come out and they pray with the girl thinking that will help. Then the film crew packs up and leaves.

This would have been a disappointing ending so they didn’t end it there. While leaving they stop and talk to the boy who supposedly got Nell pregnant. He says it never happened and he’s gay so it would never happen. Now normal people would just keep going home but not these people. They head back thinking the girl lied to cover up for the dad and incest. When they get to the house no one is there and the house is covered in satanic cult signs and has been trashed. They hear a commotion and chanting from out in the woods and go and check it out. In a surprise twist, which honestly I didn’t see coming, the father is tied to a post blindfolded and the local minister, his wife, and the congregation are chanting and in robes and seem to be helping Nell with going through labor. When she gives birth the baby doesn’t seem to look human and then the minister throws the baby into the large bonfire they have going. The crew is saying they have to get out of there but Cotton stupidly goes out towards the crowd and tries to fight them with Jesus. That’s the only way I can explain it. The crew starts to run and unfortunately don’t make it and actually end up dying the way Nell’s pictures foretold. The movie ends with the POV of the camera guy looking at Nell’s brother who then cuts his head off with a scythe and the body falls to the ground.

From my point of view, it wasn’t great. It had promise, like most scary movies do. The acting was pretty good. I was impressed by that. And I was pleased that there was a twist I didn’t see coming. That hardly ever happens. Overall though, I was disappointed. I wasn’t scared and they cut the movie off when it was getting interesting. The general public however will be scared. So if you like to be scared go see it. There are many weird details I didn’t include in here. Overall I give this movie 3 1/2 frames. But that's just based on my personal tastes.

Feel free to discuss this movie here or over at the j1studios forum under Picture On A Wall.

Until next time kids, this has been Hava.

I Failed You!

Why the harsh title? Well, the plan was, this past weekend, to catch a somewhat newly released movie. The possibilities: Dinner for Schmucks, Despicable Me or The Other Guys). Did I complete this task? Nope! Although the couple of days were enjoyable due to lots.... and lots.. of eating, I didn't make it! Thus you don't have my (hopefully) desired opinion on any of the new releases BUT I can give you the few films I am certainly looking forward to. Take a peek at these!

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader (2010)
Directed by Michael Apted and set to be released on 12/10/10, the third installation of the C.S. Lewis books-turned-movies, looks to feed my childhood fantasy hunger. While the second movie, Price Caspian, didn't bring in the same level of revenue as the first, I doubt we will be disappointed with the pure spiritedness of this release and will hopefully bring back that feeling-like-you're-back-in-your-room-as-a-child-reading-late-at-night-under-the-covers-in-a-wonderful-other-worldly-place :)



Let Me In (2010)
Directed by Matt Reeves, this is the American remake of Let the Right One In, originally filmed as a Swedish flick. Set to be
released on 10/1/10, I am excited to see what will come of us 'mericans redoing the disturbing yet well-composed thriller/horror story. From the trailer, it seems to mostly stick with the original and if it's done right the first time - why change it (even with the story-telling of a different than usual pacing/nature)? Here's the trailer of the Swedish version (already out) and directly following is the American remake:





Red (2010)
Directed by Robert Schwentke and set to be released 10/15/10, surprise, surprise, another comic book turned movie. Hey, everyone wants to get in on this bandwagon eh? Looks amusing, we shall see......



Here's an odd situation. This is a trailer based off of a comic book that honestly, doesn't look too interesting. It seems very adult (which is fine) yet nothing intrigued me. Mentioning it only because I think I should, considering all that www.j1studios.com is about comic-wise but I'd really like to know if anyone has read this comic and/or is interested in seeing this:

The Goon (2010)

No release date yet but will be sometime this year:



Current goals so as not to let you down: See Scott Pilgrim vs. the World this weekend! It's being released this Friday, August 13, 2010. Let this gal not make any excuse, for the sake of us all.

Danae signing off!

source: www.traileraddict.com

Inception

Inception (2010)
Rated: PG-13
Genre: Action, Drama, Sci-Fi, Thriller
Running Time: 148 minutes
Director: Chris Nolan

"From the director of Dark Knight.." is an effective attention-getter in hearing the preview for this gnarly, reality-altering movie starring (among others), Leonardo DiCaprio as Cobb, Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Arthur, Ellen Page as Ariadne and Ken Watanabe as Saito. Is it even possible for us to be disappointed with a movie created the person who gave us what we needed in 2008 with Dark Knight? I say anything is possible and entered the theater hoping for the film to meet my expectations, but certainly not to exceed them.

We meet Cobb washed up on a beach with nothing to his name but a gun & a spinning top. Security guards bring him to an obviously powerful Japanese businessman who confronts him about this top and it is clear there is more to this simple item than appears. We then shift to a dream in which we meet Arthur & Saito and learn a bit about how deceiving these worlds are. What seems to be reality are truly graphic, lifelike dreams - and depending upon who the "dreamer" is, can determine how people, places and objects (these are called projections) act. In this dream state, you feel pain but "death" in this place, is you waking up. From outside the dream, a "kick" is what wakes you up. This is done by someone in reality, who is of course, awake, by utilizing the law of gravity. Simply push your "reality self" over and once you hit something, you wake up. The kick is a pivotal feature as there exists a slim possibility that you may get trapped in the dream world. Arthur & Cobb work together, in the world of a dream, and can manipulate the unknowing participant. This works best by the participant thinking that the dream is truly a reality and thus Cobb & Arthur can get them to reveal, or simply show them where, their darkest secrets may lie. The crux of this film comes from an unimaginable idea, one in which you don't work with the dreamer's ideas and projections but you implant an idea of your own, having them believe it is of their own creation. Simply put - you are completing a type of mind control. This is called inception. Cobb & Arthur are hired to complete this complicated task and construct a team whose goal is to achieve inception. Their subject: a wealthy businessman. Yet there is a reason it is said it can't be done; numerous intricacies add unpredictability and higher risks. Added to the level of difficulty is the projections dreamers can unintentionally plant within the dream; they can be useful... or harmful.

Cleverly sewn together, each scene is intriguing and thrilling. Chris Nolan wrote, produced and directed this - he is a genius! There are visual stimuli yet much more as your mind has a level of understanding since we all, at some point, have experienced dreams that seemed to be reality. Thinking you're clever you determine that its quite simple to decipher what is real and what isn't. Yet once in, it becomes less clear and more complex and once you think you have it together, you are thrown something else to decipher. I left thinking about a struggle Cobb clearly fought over. If the dream is yours; yours to manipulate, to shape, to grow, with people of whom you love - why leave? Does it really matter if one world is "reality" and the other is a dream? If in this dream, you achieve your life goals, fall in love, build an empire etc... does it honestly matter if you are in a state of slumber in current time?

P.S.: The previews show you the zero gravity struggle between an unknown man and Joseph Gordon-Levitt. This scene is fantastic - whew!

This gets a five out of five frames! Easily the best film of 2010 so far.



Check out the trailer - then tell me you're not going to see this!



Danae signing off!

source: youtube.com

Predators

Predators (2010)
Genre: Action, Adventure, Sci-Fi
Running Time: Approximately 107 minutes
Rated: R
Director: Nimrod Antal

We meet Royce (Adrian Brody) abruptly, as he is awoken, mid air, dropping quickly through the atmosphere towards land as he struggles to pull his chute. Once on solid ground, he discovers he is not the only one who was revived by this method. He meets, among others, Nikolai (Oleg Taktarov), a Russian soldier, Cuchillo (Danny Trejo), a member of the Mexican drug cartel, Isabelle (Alice Braga), an Israeli black ops sniper and Edwin (Topher Grace), a surgeon who seemingly doesn't fit in with the crowd of killers. Amongst the scuffle, they determine that they are not there to hunt each other, but to defend themselves from being hunted.

They determine that they were placed, though not known by who, on a planet being used as a game reserve. And they are the game. They conclude that they were chosen because of who they were - predators themselves. What better opponent, or challenge, then other creatures that hunt for a living? Wikipedia notes (either I missed this or they guessed) that the Predators themselves brought them there so they could hone their skills - this would make the most sense as the only other entity that would drop them there would be fellow human beings and although certainly capable, harder on the conscious.

The director, Nimrod Antal, stuck with the action movie basics: characters with drive and personality, a formidable enemy, a reason to fight and of course - lots of explosions, violence, blood and death. There were parallels with the original film. Each Predator can sense body heat, making it difficult to hide and, as Arnold S. did in the first film, we see some mud-covering to prevent discovery. In the 1987 movie, a highly spiritual Navajo warrior, Billy, stays behind as an honorable fighter, to face the creature in hand to hand combat and allowing more time for others to get away - there is a similar scene in this sequel.

The neat new surprises was that of a type of hunting hound yet seeing as it was the Predator's pet - they were much bigger and much tougher! In addition, we learn the classes between Predators and how they hunt.

Thank goodness there was no ridiculous and miraculous dodging-bullets-in-a-clearing or even needless love-making. Why there always seems to be a romance/kissing scene amidst a pressing need to escape is besides me. Somehow, despite being surrounded by enemies, many films portray the protagonist, while having only minutes to escape, finding time to look longingly into the eyes of the one whom, although they've butted heads previously, they are destined to be with. They then must lean in for a kiss that absolutely could not wait until after death wasn't knocking at the door (not a peeve of mine, no not at ALL!).

Note: Although Adrian Brody may be a surprise as the lead for this genre of film, he fits the mold for Royce the mercenary. He does a great job as an action hero (cue the strong and decisive action hero phrases where needed :))

My prediction allowed for a moderate "wow factor", respectable action scenes, a semi-believable story and lots and lots of violence. Expectations exceeded? No. Disappointed? Not at all. Job well done, Arnold would be proud.

This receives a solid three out of five frames.



Here is the trailer!!



Will you go to see this or wait for something else to come? Let me know via email or the forum at: www.j1studios.com.

Danae signing off!

Prince of Persia

Prince of Persia (2010)
Rated: PG-13
Running Time: Approximately 116 minutes
Genre: Action, Adventure, Fantasy
Director: Mike Newell

Based on the popular video game series, the movie, Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time was highly anticipated. There has certainly been an audience for the video game-turned-feature film genre, (Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun Li; Max Payne; Resident Evil; Silent Hill) yet with one too many having concluded in disappointment. I have not played any of the games, although appealing, so I had my handy sidekick relate what was consistent within the film and the game. The look of Dastan (Jake Gyllenhal) seems to mesh with the game character yet some people have a bone to pick with the choice of actor (see below). Naturally he had the ability to turn back time which didn't deviate from the game but we shouldn't expect any different. The gist of the story is this: As a child, in a shocking maneuver, Dastan gets adopted by King Sharaman of Persia and grows up as royalty. He is a unique warrior with a penchant for rushing into everything head first. Amidst the celebration of a hasty overthrow of the Holy City of Alamut, he gets framed for his father's death and has both brothers searching for him to make sure he is brought to justice. Having fled with the princess of Alamut, Tamina, he embarks on a journey to reveal the true source of his father's death and to stop the abuse of a powerful weapon, controlling time itself and threatening the past, present and future.

The basics are satisfactory - Dastan is the rogue brother who is more Achilles then Hector. He exchanges words (and dodges attempts at his life) with the princess yet we know that their stubbornness is temporary as we anticipate their destiny with one another. Dastan's tricks and sidesteps, his jumps from rooftop to rooftop, seemingly second nature as he flies over people, as if they simply weren't there, are quite amazing. You can't look away as he pulls a Mario move - hopping/climbing up walls, and then ducking punches, deflecting swords. The sequences are thrilling yet in the day and age of an action movie released 2 to 3 times a month, every sequence is expected to be crazier and more daring - with all this, it's possible that I am marred and numbed - it takes much more to impress me. I was impressed by all that transpired yet I felt the film as a whole compared more to say, The Mummy, more so than say Ironman. The Mummy was a great film with amazing effects yet destined to be a TBS or ABCFamily film premier, to run every holiday yet less dvd-worthy and more watching it on the tube-worthy. Ironman is the film you get on Blu-Ray ;)

In addition, with this having taken place in Persia, with a story about a Persian empire, I can fathom how certain groups are disappointed and confused about the choice of actor for the main character. While Jake Gyllenhaal did a commendable job, (and those in charge of wardrobe), he is clearly NOT Persian. He is a fairly well known actor and this is an influential decision when trying to bring in an audience, for a film that could push someone of Persian-descent (or even bearing more of a resemblance) would've been honorable and speak louder as an encouragement and a break from the norm with regards to our very white-centered film industry.

All in all, this gets a 3 out of 5 frames.



A la trailer:



Tell me if you want to go see this or couldn't care less if it washed away with the sands of time *giggle giggle*. Get on the J1studios.com forum, blog page or shoot me an email!

Danae signing off!

source: traileraddict.com

Ironman 2!!!!!

Ironman 2 (2010)
Rated: PG-13
Genre: Action, Adventure, Sci-Fi
Running Time: 124 minutes
Director: Jon Favreau

With the first Ironman movie's success (aka power) comes great responsibility (your welcome Peter Parkers all over the world). It is, as it should be, the second installation's responsibility to a) not suck and b) if possible, be as good as, if not better than, the first. The latter is not an easy feat yet is what we hope for; even a smidget of a Dark Knight-esque achievement - the continuation of a good story with the heart of what we enjoyed in the first film. Did Ironman 2 live up to its oh-so-high expectations? The knowledge that we will be seeing War Machine and Black Widow brings much excitement and we all wanted to confirm that this was going to be the movie of 2010. The things we loved in Ironman did roll over into the second; Tony Stark's (Robert Downey Jr.) cleverly narcissistic quips and maneuvers, Pepper's (Gwyneth Paltrow) firmness all the while still remaining compromising in her relationship with Tony Stark, the beauty in all of Ironman's advanced technology and James Rhodes' (now played by Don Cheadle) firm beliefs and bravery are just plain ol' cool. We have too the addition of Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) (even I will admit she's hot in this), Whiplash (Mickey Rourke) and Hammer, the weapon's company whose goal is to take Ironman's technology and use it for military use (what's new).

Jon Favreau (who starred in the first and second Ironman as Happy Hogan) did a great job directing the movie;. I don't need to tell you back story or even this film's basis, as most of you have seen the first one yet even if not, the basics are straight forward and very easy to google ;). In reality, your not really going to see this on the basis of this being a life-changing epic. Ironman is a Marvel superhero and we to be wow'ed, pumped up, thrilled, laugh, see lots and lots of action and for those who have read the comic book, want to see the pages come to life. The action was great - when you FINALLY get to see War Machine and Ironman fight together, you are amped and yearn for complete destruction. Yet their combined combat is too short-lived; it was quality but not quantity - I wanted to see more! This is an action movie and although I do indeed think that the story is quite important, there had to be a way to have at least 20 more minutes of action. Another bothersome note: a few parts were a bit slow: some interactions between Tony Stark and Pepper, while true to the story, didn't seem necessary or even the need to be longer than a minute or two. Some of the scene transitions were a bit rough around the edges. Yet there were some quite satisfying features: Mickey Rourke as Whiplash was convincing and I personally think he is an amazing actor. (Unfortunately the way the story was written though left me a bit dissatisfied as I believe we should've seen more of him and his past). Overall I have more positive thoughts coming from this film than not and the positives far outweigh the negatives. Tony Stark is a character I would LOVE to see again soon and done up in the same sort of manner: strong, powerful, crazy and ready to take on anyone!

All in all, this is worth getting off your couch and paying, yes I said paying, to see it. Not quite the same impact as the first but a definitive yes for your dvd/Blu-Ray collection.

I give this a 3.5 out of 5 frames!



See the trailer here:



Tell me if you agree with my conclusion or not via the J1studios.com forum, blog page or email.

Danae signing off!

source: youtube.com

How to Train Your Dragon (2010)



Rated: PG
Directors: Dean DeBlois & Chris Sanders
Genre: Animation, Adventure
Running Time: 98 minutes

Hiccup, born into a family, or rather a community, of Vikings, is the oddball. He desires to join in the mayhem of the continuous collective battle against the island's predators, Dragons, yet he doesn't quite fit the bill. Lanky and clumsy yet stubborn as the life he was born into, he uses what he has to impress his family and capture a dragon, his brain. He invents and builds contraptions in hopes of increasing the likelihood of catching one to prove himself. To everyone. He succeeds, yet not according to plan, as all that he imagined shatters upon his first encounter. Simply named Toothless, this feared and renowned Dragon teaches him about a world he thought he knew.

The usual lessons learned are there: going against the grain to do what's right, bumping heads with family yet discovering what truly matters, finding friends by breaking through presumptions etc.. They are expected and are truly good lessons to exhibit - not new but appreciated. In addition, the film is not as goofy as many Dreamworks productions before it, (Shrek, Kung Fu Panda, Madagascar), with an amusing but somewhat sedate air to enough of the film. Hiccup's awkwardness with, well everything, is endearing.

Visually, it's quite a viewing pleasure. Please, please see in 3D!! Simply admiring the texture in each Viking's leather vest or even furry beard; clear and real enough to flashback to the feeling of your fathers scratchy beard as he hugged you good night as a child. Amazing.

Loved the ending as it was not the picture perfect conclusion that is so commonplace with movies. Hiccup & Toothless' friendship is so much so codependent that it provides a true definition of what it means to rely on a friend.

I give this a four out of five frames!



Cue the trailer:



Danae signing off!

In Theaters Now....

I grudgingly admit that it has been quite some time since I've entered a real life, popcorn smelling, ludicrously priced movie theater. I've pushed my brain to its limits attempting to recall the last time I entered a cinema house. I believe it was to see The Princess and the Frog? (November of 2009!)

The first step to recovery is admission. Step two is to find out what is out there to determine if at this point, recovery is possible. The impossible is if all choices available = crap. This non-commercial watching gal then had to conduct a search of that which is currently in theaters and has come up with, although only a few, selections. The viewing experiences to come are the next steps to becoming a true POW powerhouse ;). The road consists of a continuous stream of entertainment to filter out that which is brainless, hopeless and a waste of time.

How to Train Your Dragon (2010)
Rated: PG; Running Time: 98 minutes; Genre: Animation, Comedy, Family

Fun filled story about a young Viking who dares to go against the norm and befriends a dragon. I truly look forward to seeing this and having lots of laughs. Those who brush off these types of films as childish are not only being close-minded but are beyond a doubt, missing out! Also available in 3D.



Shutter Island (2010)
Rated: R; Running Time: 138 minutes; Genre: Drama, Thriller, Crime

Yes, yes, this has been out for quite some time yet we all know that my LIFE is late so don't be surprised that I am only mentioning this now. Mixed reviews have been heard but no doubt this is interesting and I am intrigued; I would also love some opinions from those who have seen this as to if they have or have not enjoyed this movie. This has to currently be my top pick for what I want to see.




Alice in Wonderland (2010)
Rated: PG; Running Time: 109 minutes; Genre: Adventure, Fantasy

LeVonn78 will be surprised to hear this as I've refused to accompany him due to my childhood discomfort of anything associated with this story. Yet after his and quite a few (respectable) opinions, I am giving in and would like to see if instead of wanting to dash out of my seat, I will take pleasure in this viewing experience. The book always creeped me out and I saw nothing amusing, nor even fun about the story. Tim Burton and Johnny Depp's mutual love for all things odd has appealed to me before; I'm now willing to give it a shot.



I slightly aspire to see Youth in Revolt (Netflix!) - any opinions?

Note to the readers: for my protection and all those curious, if you've seen ANY of above films, post your opinion on the forum - let's discuss!!

Danae signing off!

Netflix is keeping me up!

I happily joined Netflix roughly a month ago and now have a plethora of mind numbing action, horror, drama, comedy and dare I say just a smidget of romance available to me. (I'll not dare offer that last one up as a review often). My list consists of a minimum of 75 films I've noted due to either positive reviews or some interesting context. Here are some of what have I seen so far....

25th Hour



The star is a solid actor having played in Fight Club, The Italian Job, The Illusionist, American History X (in the queue!!) and Red Dragon. Montgomery (Ed Norton) has 24 hours until he is due to serve a seven year prison term. Relayed is the turmoil he goes through in facing what is to happen to him once he's incarcerated and the road to arriving at that grim reality. His childhood buddies, Jacob (Philip Seymour Hoffman) and Frank (Barry Pepper) are part of this countdown along with his girlfriend Naturelle Riviera (Rosario Dawson). The unique relationship between friends creates anticipation as to what he has planned when they gather for their last evening out together. Montgomery's disturbingly calm reserve is not unlike him but the circumstance dares you to wonder how he plans on leaving the world as he knows it. A deceivingly exciting film. Gets a four out of five frames.



Trainspotting



Saw this on a list of films that were cult classics and decided to give it a shot.

Mark (Ewan McGregor) and all his friends have a common vice: heroin. Each with all their own passions and oddities, they go about with their theories on how typical society are as drones in their 9-to-5, two-parent, three and a half kids families, not really living a life, jut following the trend of what's expected, lifestyle. A false sense of immortality must exist as they are reckless and irresponsible. There are some amusing (and terrifying) "highs" and also an ending to entertain. Nothing is glorified and it is most definitely not a sight for everyone. Yet I found it not as depressing, thank goodness, as Requiem for a Dream. This gets a three out of five frames.



(500) days of Summer



I told you I would save you from romance cutesy mess but this is different. Anyone that knows me knows I am not your average girl. If a romantic comedy has been seen by me it must've either been highly recommended or I was drugged. This isn't a romance story (although it contains romance) nor a comedy (and yes, has some funny scenes) but it is a story about what so many relationships go through; one wants one thing out of the exchange and the other desires something quite different. Starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt who plays Tom and Zooey Deschanel who plays Summer Finn, the roles played are not what's expected. Can't give too much away as you need to see to appreciate. The joy and frustrations are what we can all relate to in some way. The composition of scenes and artistry of every transition is laudable. Highly recommend and I give this a four out of five frames.




Any film recomendations??? Let me know via email or on the blog.

Danae signing off!

MOVIE PREVIEW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have more, I have more!!!!

A couple months ago, I posted trailers of movies I was looking forward to. The only one seen was Zombieland (see my review on 10/26/09) as that’s the only one to have been released yet.

The last previews I posted were for:

• Wolfman (in theatres February 10th, 2010)
• Ninja Assassin (in theatres November 25th, 2009)
• Zombieland (released October 2nd, 2009)
• 2012 (in theatres November 13th, 2009 = today!)

Ninja Assassin and 2012 will be seen soon enough, just keep checking in for my review!!

There are indeed many more films to anticipate, at least these are some I'm anxious to see. Take a peeksie of the following trailers and tell me what you think!

Based on the action game, Prince of Persia (2009) starring Jake Gyllenhaal seems interesting. He looks enough like the character and is not too shabby to look at either ;) I usually can gauge how well I'll think a movie will be prior to release and I'd say that it looks to be a decent/neat video game-based action movie. Nothing more, nothing less! The film will be released May 28, 2010.




While I usually tend towards the non-emotional, this movie looks like a tear-jerker. Yet as a family-centered gal, the intensity of the topic and the idea that someone can communicate after death to those still "alive", is intriguing. Set to be released January 15, 2010, see The Lovely Bones (2009):



The Storm Warriors (or Storm Riders II) (2009)
Lastly, by accident I saw this title and was intrigued. In viewing the trailer, my eyes loved the flow of motion and artistry shown in the fight scenes. The original, Storm Riders, which came out in 1998, was a movie based off of a Chinese comic called Fung Wan. This is the second film yet was made to be a stand-alone. Set to be released in China on December 17, 2009, I'm uncertain when we'll see it here (but usually things are ruined once they get here so trying to see the original Chinese movie with subtitles seems to be the wisest move). Check it out:



Tell me what you think: comment on the forum, post a message or shoot me an email!

Danae signing off!

source: www.traileraddict.com