Man, it would be awkward having an alien organism enter your body through an orifice they create. Pretty sure it would end with a lack of being able to walk straight for a few days.

The Host:

Story:

An alien race invades Earth, taking over the bodies of countless humans. All hope lies with a small pocket of humanity, and a very special girl who, driven by love, attempts to do the impossible.

Review:

Stephanie Meyers has to be one of the few authors in the world who can get away with being lazy, just because her fanbase doesn't notice it. I mean, it seriously takes an observant mind to notice, but if you're a serious fan of Twilight, do the following and you'll notice.

Read the Twilight books, and then read The Host. If you see what I mean, the review will make a lot of sense.

Despite the obvious Invasion of the Bodysnatchers influence, as well as some great actors doing incredibly great work, Saoirse Ronan and John Hurt especially, the lazy plot based on the works of what has to be the least talented author to ever make the New York Times bestseller list absolutely ruins The Host's attempts to seem like a competent Science fiction film.

First and foremost, the plot. You won't notice it immediately, but if you pay close attention it is largely copied off of the plot of the entire Twilight series. I mean, you'd think that would make her that much richer, but given that vampires and werewolves have that sexy air of mystery to them, it doesn't transfer over well for humans and aliens. You don't see anyone except for Trekkies and Star Wars fans wanting to watch intimate Klingon/Twi-lek scenes, which are probably easy to find on the internet. Throughout the whole film, I felt like I was watching a lazily done adaptation of Twilight. It's that bad.

To be fair, the directing isn't that bad, and each intense sequence feels as intense as it should. The quiet moments actually are interesting to a point, and they do help you understand certain characters.

If only the actors were good enough to make you care. Two of the main characters are portrayed by guys who have the same wooden acting as Hayden Christensen when he was Anakin Skywalker, so their facial expressions are pretty much the same throughout. Much is the same with most of the other actors, who are clearly only in the film so they can make money off of it.

I also liked some of the camera work. Some scenes are picturesque in quality and others are outright beautiful.

That being said, it's basically the lazy rehash of the plot and the wooden acting done by two of the laziest acting ever that end up ruining what could have actually been a decent sci-fi film. I would probably like this film if there werw better actors and if the source material had actually had time and effort spent on it.

Overall, The Host ended up lacking in two distinctly important areas. Only two types of people would gain anything from this film: fangirls who love watching young built guys being all...uh...angsty looking, and filmmakers who want to know whose work to do adaptations of. If you're not one of those, don't watch this.

Aliens.

If it was Evangelion, every main character would have a nervous breakdown. If it was Gundam, well, same thing.

Pacific Rim:

Story:

The world has been invaded by aliens via a dimension warp hole in the ocean. In response to the invaders, the world leaders pooled resources to create a team of mechanized robots controlled by human counterparts.

Review:

Everyone loves giant robots. The Japanese especially, what with Evangelion and several different Gundam series gaining worldwide popularity. Therefore, it only makes sense that Guillermo Del Toro directs a huge monster and robot epic the likes of which have never been done before. Pacific Rim is that epic monster battle.

For those familiar with Evangelion and Gundam there are some similarities too obvious to notice, such as the human-robot connection, and for Evangelion, the violent force that opposes the aliens.

There even some similarities to Clash of the Titans, and The Avengers, as far as epic battles and the idea of people teaming up to stop collossal evils.

That is where the similarities end.

The biggest difference is that this is a live action no holds barred action fiesta with what I have to say are quite easily some of the best visual effects I have seen in ages. With a smaller difference being the lack of a lot of the angst that the Gundam franchise and Evangelion have tons of. Guillermo is at his best, creating a beautiful futuristic world that is both shattering and entrancing to look at. The creative destruction in these fights is too engrossing to ignore.

For once, one of these giant robot movies also has an equally engaging human side to it, with a story that is incredibly well connected. Though it does come off as a bit too cliched and with a tiny bit too much testosterone at points.

The soundtrack is surprisingly epic, though you'll almost never notice it with all the violent battles blaring in over the music.

A slightly bigger issue is the lack of known actors for a big budget film. There's maybe two or three actors you'll recognize, one of which worked with Guillermo on three previous films before landing his role in Pacific Rim. If you really want to know who it is, he spoke Spanish for his first film with Del Toro. Now, I know it seems shallow and obnoxious to say that, but given the amount of time spent creating this story, you want familiar faces so you don't have to figure out who the camera is focusing on, a problem which caused the audience in my theater some confusion.

All this being said, the main focus of the movie was visual effects. Something very evident from almost the get go. Not saying that the story and subplots aren't important, but as it was, most of the audience had visible issues focusing on the backstory and found it visibly easier to focus on the epic clashes.

Overall Pacific Rim is a great film, with what are by far the most amazing visuals in a Guillermo Del Toro film, and even though the story seems typical at points, it's still great. Recommended to everyone.

In space, no one can Europa you back to Earth. Ha! I made a pun.

Europa Report:

Story:

Exploration of one of Jupiter's moons turns deadly for a crew of astronauts when unexpected events occur.

Review:

Space exploration. It's something everyone has thought of, talked about, and pondered. There's a genre of film about it, and several subgenres that theorize smaller components of it. Europa Report tries to suggest what we might find in a way that's both plausible and convincing.

The found footage style documentary presentation was very helpful in making everything seem real, though having big time tv show actors kind of snapped me out of the immersive experience whenever they were shown. The filmmakers can't really be faulted for that, but it can be annoying, especially if the scene is supposed to be immersive.

The actors are definitely convincing enough, and the interviews helped make this more documentary style than found footage, which is something I found very helpful towards enjoying the film.

There is a tiny bit of a soundtrack, but it's all for the interview segments, again helping make Europa Report seem more like a documentary than a fictional film. It's not a necessary soundtrack, but it's definitely a nice touch.

The story is amazing. I found it was actually quite the entertaining thrill ride from start to finish, though the concept behind it has been thought of and created several times with different settings, it was still an amazing story.

Overall, Europa Report was an enjoyable experience, seeming very real for a fictional film. It's out in limited theatrical release on the 2nd of August, so if you're a sci-fi nerd, find a theater and check it out. If you want to find a copy of it sooner, it's on iTunes, Google's Play Store, and Video On Demand.

The prequel to Laserdisc

V/H/S/2

Story:

Two private investigators stumble upon a strange collection of V/H/S tapes while on a case.

Review:

Last year a very low budget horror anthology called V/H/S was released. It featured everything a typical 80's horror film had, except throw in a lot more sex and a lot more violence; there was also very hastily thought out stories as well as some very predictable jump scares. If anything, V/H/S was that one film you use to show people what not to do when making a film.

Right after V/H/S was released, V/H/S/2 was rushed into production with the same idea intended, but for a sequel with a (slightly) higher budget, even going so far as to include several well known directors in the collaboration.

Here's the problem with this. You finally get decent directors helping you out, yet you still have writers whose vocabulary consists of terms only slutty 14-year olds would use. For example:

"You ride your bike more than you ride me."

That was in one of the segments. Other segments feature vocabulary and syntax on the exact same level, and it always has the effect of taking away from what is already a terrible scene.

I wish I could say the writing was the only problem. Each segment is typical of the genre it tributes in the worst way. For example, one of them involves alien abductions, and as such no background is really given for any characters. That same problem is apparent in all but one segment, which I will get to later.

Despite this being a horror film with jump scare sequences, there really aren't any scary moments. One of the requirements of a good scare is a good buildup to the scare, something which none of the segments have. You simply don't get scared at any point in the entire film.

The effects are cheap and gimmicky, the creatures/monsters even more so, and you know that their budget went straight from $1000 to $1050 just because there's barely any difference in effects.

Now to talk about the one segment which was somewhat unlike the others. It's a segment called Safe Haven and it's directed and written by Timo Tjahjanto and Gareth Huw Evans. For those unfamiliar with those names, Timo Tjahjanto directed and wrote a well received short film called Dara, and it's feature length remake called Macabre a few years ago, while Gareth Huw Evans is known for martial arts action flicks like The Raid: Redemption, and Merantau Warrior. Oddly enough, when these two paired together to make a short film for this anthology, they ended up making a rather good sequence. The first person perspective kind of ruins the scares, but as far as Safe Haven's story and execution, it's very well thought out. In fact, Safe Haven is the only good to come out of either V/H/S film.

But overall, V/H/S/2 is a film to make fun of and laugh at. Clearly the only people who put effort into it were Timo Tjahjanto and Gareth Huw Evans.

I Hate Gore Verbinski and Jerry Bruckheimer.

I'm going to start this off by summarizing my review for those who don't want to read every bit of it:

I hated Disney's Lone Ranger with a passion.

End summary.

I mean, Jerry Bruckheimer and Gore Verbinski were responsible for Pirates of the Caribbean, one of Disney's most successful franchises ever. Gore Verbinski himself is one of the few most versatile directors out there, what with the first Ring film in his history as a director. What went wrong?

Before I elaborate, I'm going to start with a bit of background on the two

Gore Verbinski and Jerry Bruckheimer work as a team. Gore directs, Jerry produces, and the end result is always a ton of money for themselves as well as Disney. Disney is known by their fans for releasing family friendly films that everyone loves to watch, more recently their CGI animated films. By their haters, they're known as that greedy corporate cash cow that milks every franchise they create to death. I mean, seriously, we didn't need a sequel to Pocahontas, The Lion King, or The Little Mermaid (to name countless sequels) and they must have known the only reason the fourth Pirates film was such a big success was because everyone wanted to see Johnny Depp pretend to drunkenly stumble around as Captain Jack Sparrow.

Authors note: you have to admit they're going overboard with the Pirates series. Pun fully intended. It's time they sent that series to Davy Jones' locker. Walk the plank, GV and JB.

That being said, I'm a bit of both sides. I love a lot of their films, yet I hate how greedy they get. More often than not, the first film in a Disney owned series is the only film I like.

Don't get me wrong, I love the Toy Story series, their now Marvel comics adaptations, and the Monsters series with a passion, but some of their other franchises have just been run into the ground. Not to mention they have the originality of the average western horror film directors WHICH MEANS NONE BY THE WAY, but they still get respect for some of their films.

Not for Lone Ranger though.

Lone Ranger was basically only worth watching because of Johnny Depp. He is amazing as Tonto. He is literally the only part of the film that kept me awake. In essence, he was the only good part of Lone Ranger. His was the only humour you can laugh at, and his scenes were the only scenes worth watching. On a related note, I'm not fanboying; I usually think Johnny Depp's work is often overdone or underdone depending on the level of weird he uses for his roles. Even Helena Bonham Carter was unremarkable, and she had a perfect role.

I'm basically bluntly saying that you'd be better off paying someone to edit out parts that don't have Tonto in it.

All that said, I want to explain why my viewing was rather unenjoyable:

THE FOCUS WAS ALL ON TONTO. IF YOU ARE GOING TO MAKE A CHARACTER THE FOCUS OF THE MOVIE, SHOULDN'T HE BE THE TITLE CHARACTER? In fact, every character except for Tonto was so underdeveloped and unappealing that I had to stop myself from playing Candy Crush Saga every non-Depp part. I couldn't feel any emotion for any character except Tonto, as such I could only get pulled into the world of the Lone Ranger when Tonto was on the screen. Armie Hammer's Lone Ranger was eclipsed by Johnny Depp's Tonto, as was everyone else's character. That being said, guys with Johnny Depp fangirl girlfriends, if you want to get some awesome intimate time with your lovely lady after the show, Lone Ranger is the way to go. It's one of only two reasons anyone should watch this despicable piece of garbage that is evidently a desperate cash cow.

That's not even half of the bad either.

The use of CGI was just appalling. If I wanted to gouge my eyes out due to 3D effects, I would strap on Oculus goggles (virtual reality peripheral) and find a way to watch Tron Legacy through it. It wasn't even realistic CGI, it was that low budget 90's CGI that we thought was wonderful before we discovered it was all filmed on a green screen. I mean, at least they had the decency to film this in an actual desert BUT YOU DON'T CRAM CGI INTO EVERY SINGLE SCENE. THIS IS NOT TRANSFORMERS, GUYS! The CGI was so overused that it in fact detracts any excitement from the action scenes. It was so bluntly obvious that it's computer generated that you don't feel any adrenaline and you don't get pulled into it. Even by popcorn flick standards that's terrible.

And the story! Oh man, I mean I know this was supposed to be a traditional western, but couldn't it be something that wasn't so typical? *Insert crazy event* happens so guy wants revenge. We didn't ask for a western remake of The Crow, or a Disney version of Zorro, we want Lone Ranger! Even by the low standards the film industry has for originality, this was by far the lowest of the low.

On shorter notes, I didn't notice the soundtrack, and the plot twists are predictable from the get go. That's how forgettable and unremarkable they were. The plot twists are equal to M. Night Shyamalan. We either know it's going to happen or by the time it happens we just don't give a damn anymore.

Overall, Lone Ranger is a terrible film. I can only recommend this to Johnny Depp fangirls or their boyfriends who want to be loved that much more by their girlfriends. Johnny Depp is the only AND I MEAN ONLY GOOD THIS FILM HAS IN IT.

I'd be scared for Star Wars if it was directed by Gore Verbinski. Thankfully, J.J. Abrams is helming episode 7 of the Star Wars series. Disney was at least smart with Star Wars. And the Marvel movies too. Gore Verbinski and Jerry Bruckheimer better stay away from Marvel.

Seriously Gore and Jerry, we know you're just in it for the money now. You might as well be honest about it.

Minions minions minions minions!

Despicable Me 2:

Story:

Gru, now an owner of a bakery shop, is summoned to save the world from a new, mysterious villain.

Review:

X amount of years ago, Despicable Me came out and was awesome. Steve Carrell proved to be an amazing voice for a villain who's change of heart touched everybody who saw the film. The minions were hilarious, and three children adorable. Despicable Me had the most heartwarming ending ever.

Cue to 2013, and Despicable Me 2 is out in theaters, with trailers promising the same level of greatness that its predecessor delivered.

Question is, does it really deliver?

This is where I have to get a tiny bit technical, even though it is a family film. So I'll start with the bad:

The editing is too choppy, even by animated family film standards. You're rushed from one scene to another to another and to yet another.

Now for the good:

The overall content is as good as the first film, with as much soul and effort put into it. Steve Carrell is as awesome as Gru as he was in the previous film, and Kristen Wiig's Lucy perfectly complements Gru. The story is as funny, touching, and hilarious as before, and the soundtrack equally as filled with amusing minions as the first one. Best part is, it's just as touching a film as the first one.

Overall a great family film which delivers as much as the first film.

A movie so Wrong that it's right.

Wrong:

Story:

Dolph, an ordinary guy, goes on a strange adventure when his dog Paul goes missing.

Review:

Wrong is the type of film that needs to be created more often. It's weird, surreal, and all kinds of crazy in a 'just because' kind of way.

Like Quentin Dupieux's previous film, Rubber, this is mostly an inexplicable film that still manages to entertain in a wildly imaginative way.

The plot is by far the most creative plot I have ever seen for a film, with twists both big and small. The characters are equally confounding and inexplicable, which makes the film more entertaining. Visually and auditorially this is a pleasing film. The soundtrack is a product of pure brilliance with spontaneouity throughout all of it, supporting each scene with each ridiculous track.

All the while, it manages to be a touching story about the connection between a man and his dog.

Overall this is one of the best films I have seen this year. It's funny, touching, and crazy in all the right ways. Watch it for the sake of enjoyment, and check Rubber out as well.

Non-film related post

I was in a very heated debate with a few people recently, over who my vote should go towards. One of them thought I should vote for NDP, and the other said that the Conservatives are the best way to go.

Here's my argument to both regarding why I would vote for neither and why I won't vote for a long time:

We are still part of a population that believes First Past The Post is the best voting system. However, there are problems with that. With First Past The Post, we only get a vote per person, so if a province has a majority that favours one party, that's a big percentage of votes that go straight to that party. That wouldn't be such a problem if each province had a population count roughly equal to the other provinces. As such, whenever that big election rolls around, it's pretty much always the east coast that is the deciding factor in who wins that election, since they have the biggest population out of all the provinces. Not a big deal right? Makes elections go faster and to be honest people want change to happen faster, whether it's for the best or the worst.

Now here's where Canadians are presented with an opportunity for a better voting system. If you recall a few years ago, we had an option on our ballots for a voting system called Single Transferable Vote. Single Transferable Vote is a proportional representation system that uses ranked voting instead of singular voting. That means we get to show who we favour the most, then we get to show who we think should win if that first option doesn't work out. It's an intelligent and accurate representation of our opinions through a single piece of paper. It takes longer, yes, but it gets rid of that problem of population by province. And it also means we get more seats for more of our favoured party/parties. While it does mean we still get only a vote per person, that vote isn't favouring only one party, it's spreading our vote out in proportions.

Single Transferable Vote hasn't been used yet for a country-wide election in Canada, but if it was, don't you agree that would be a better way to represent our opinions?

For those who might argue that STV is difficult to keep track of, we have computers for that. It really isn't that difficult, even if it takes longer than the basic voting system we currently have.

As it stands, we still use First Past The Post. Until that changes, I won't be placing my vote in any ballot boxes and I won't be reading up on any of the parties trying to get votes. Call that ignorant, un-supporting, or unpatriotic, but our system is flawed, and change is long overdue.

Edit: I know this is announcing that I won't bother trying to contribute change, but in as rigged a political system as this is, I don't see the point. I would have to travel to the east coast and get as many people as possible to vote for the party I prefer if I wanted to get that party to win. As such, I guess the only party I'll prefer for a while is the one that has the most drinks and happens on the weekend. Also note that this is specifically for country-wide elections.

That teapot is shiny *dies* * teapot shoots $100 out*

The Brass Teapot:

Story:

An ordinary couple acquires a magical teapot that rewards them when they inflict pain upon each other. They discover that sometimes rewards aren't all they turn out to be.

Review:

The Brass Teapot tries to be a darkly comical film that shows how ordinary people can change for the worse when they don't realize their rewards are worse for them than the rewards seem. 

The film starts out like the characters, portraying the difficult life of two people who haven't had luck on their side for quite some time. The first half is in fact the part I like the least, with how depressing yet funny it was. The second half is when the story kind of picks up, though I won't get into that too much. I will say that it tries to have some unique dark humour.

The characters were believably normal, with Juno Temple, Michael Angarano, and Alexis Bledel all playing characters that were surprisingly stereotypical in very amusing ways. That being said, I liked the acting the most. Not the soundtrack, scenes, or anything else; I just liked the way the main characters were portrayed by the actors.

In fact, pretty much everything in the film is focused on humour. Even the dark and somewhat depressing moments try to be humorous in their own ways, due mostly to the various antics of each character.

That being said, I'll get this out of the way. The script is full of jokes and occasionally rehearsed sounding lines, the story can sometimes be hilarious and clever, and the soundtrack is too much of an attempt made to make each scene comical.

It's an overall entertaining film, yet it's not meant to be intelligent or smart in any way. In fact, the entire film is basically meant to make you laugh.

With that said, I found I wasn't laughing as often as I would have if this were a very hilarious film, though the funny moments are still giggle-inducing. This film is more akin to if an anti-stoner tried to do a stoner comedy. It doesn't really work. There are still laughs, but waiting until the second half of the movie for the good laughs is never good.

Overall The Brass Teapot is a good dark comedy, but it could have been way better with some slight changes to everything. I don't really think I can recommend it to anyone. If someone wants a light chuckle, then definitely check The Brass Teapot out.

The end is nigh! The end is nigh! Not really. Troll Mayans, freaking everybody out.

This Is The End:

Story:

Seth Rogen, Jay Baruchel, Jonah Hill, James Franco and company have to survive an apocalypse of biblical proportions.

Review:

I have not laughed so hard in months.

This Is The End is by far the funniest film I have seen in ages. An all star cast, some of what have to be the best moments in comedy, and a storyline so religiously offensive that no devoutly religious people should ever watch it.

I mean, yeah it does have a lot of weed jokes and some sexist comments, but if you watch it with an open mind you will like it. The acting is funny, the effects surprisingly big and explosive, and the story was hilarious.

I especially liked Seth Rogen's performance as well as James Franco's. Those two are by far the funniest actors in the film, with Jonah Hill and Michael Cera (to a smaller extent) doing equally amazingly.

Not only that, but the nods to the previous work of the actors were also very well done.

It oddly felt like they weren't doing much acting and were in fact just being themselves, which is another plus.

The story actually makes sense and the dire situation makes a very humourous connection to the characters.

Overall This Is The End was very entertaining. I thought it was very amusing and a very comical view of what would happen if the world ended. I recommend it to anyone who has a sense of humour and likes that type of comedy.

No brains were consumed in the writing of this review

World War Z:

Story:

With a vast zombie epidemic reigning in the end of the world, a small group travels to the most dangerous areas in an attempt to find a cure.

Review:

With epic direction by Quantum of Solace's Marc Forster, and an equally amazing score by Muse's frontman Matt Bellamy, World War Z was a defining and sometimes shocking thrill ride through the zombie apocalypse.

With that said, I don't often like zombie movies. They're too predictable and they never try to answer any questions in regards to the zombie epidemics they create, or they give us a poor answer that tries to show that humans don't know how to handle vials of obviously infectious fluids. Seriously. The Resident Evil films? Someone breaks a vial. Dawn of the Dead? No explanation. 28 Days Later? Monkeys spread the virus. Quarantine? OH GOD THIS APARTMENT IN A PUBLIC AREA IS GOING TO KILL US. Quarantine 2? AHHH ZOMBIES ON A PLANE. Their main focus is almost always LET'S KILL ZOMBIES, and not the obvious solution which is to find either a cure, an antidote, or a vaccine. People are so hopeless in these movies that they give up hope on finding their most hopeful and potent solution to problems of the brain eating and flesh consuming kind.

World War Z halfway delivers on this, trying to find answers to the question of how do we stop these soulless beings?

Finally, a zombie movie that tries to do right and give audiences as much hope as we want these characters to have.

The good parts:

Chases are intense, with guns firing and zombies rushing in huge mobs of unquenched hunger. The story delivers on its aspect of the zombie apocalypse, with each character reacting realistically (with a few exceptions) and resourcefully. Lastly the incredible score composed by Matt Bellamy that perfectly suits each situation and every moment, as well as some exceptional acting by Brad Pitt and a few others. Lastly, the somewhat surprising reaction to the zombie epidemic was a good change for the genre. Sure, there's still massive amounts of zombie deaths, but there's also a feeling of hope.

The bad parts:

The movie was too quick, making what should be a decently lengthy film a relatively short film instead, and certain character backgrounds weren't given more explanation. World War Z feels more like a TV show episode than a film, despite the one hour and 46 minute runtime.

Overall World War Z is good. Hopefully it's the start of more intelligent zombie films.

It's a bird! It's a plane! It's Henry Cavill in spandex!

Man of Steel:

Story:

To save Earth from destruction by his own people, a young man must discover his past and become a hero.

Review:

We've all seen reboots by now. Heck, there have been so many reboots of so many characters that they have become household names. Batman Begins, Spider-man, and The Incredible Hulk to name a few. Even the lesser known Ghost Rider's sequel was partially a reboot.

Man of Steel provides a somewhat refreshing change to this by doing the one thing that those films didn't:

Making a reboot after an unsuccessful reboot.

When Superman Returns came out, everyone was expecting an amazing movie. It had Brandon Routh as Superman and Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane, how could it go bad? Well, at the time, making a superhero with god-like powers a very human character was difficult. The closest we had was Iron Man, and he didn't have powers. So, to sum up a long paragraph, Bryan Singer's attempt to bring Superman back was unsuccessful, and the title hero went back to being an obscure object of geek fascination.

Cue to 2013, when something changes all that. Marvel rolls out The Avengers, an incredibly siccessful superhero team up that makes DC realize they need to step up their game. So what do DC do? They bring out a Man of Steel to begin this epic game of catch up.

What are the results?

Read below to find out.

Man of Steel is by far one of the best, most human and emotional, comic book adaptations I have seen in a while. I mean this is a movie that has more humanity in it than any of the Marvel movies out now. Irony being that Superman is actually an alien. This is suprising mostly due to the fact that Henry Cavill, the main actor, was a relative unknown before he was cast as the Man of Steel. I saw his other film, A Cold Day of Night, just a while ago and thought his acting was the worst I've seen since Anakin Skywalker. I had lost all hope in the man who was considered for the 007 reboot way back when.

But yes, Henry Cavill is in fact the perfect Superman. He can switch between being a god to being a human in no time at all, an asset which greatly assists him in Man of Steel. Having Zack Snyder directing with Christopher Nolan producing was just topping on the cake of awesome that is Man of Steel. Each scene is crisp and beautiful, every touching moment is sincere, and every fight scene is an act of wonder and suspense.

That's not to say that's all the good the movie has. The script is perfect, settings were made with authentic feel by either special effects or camera technique or both, and choreography that is fluid and real. All that topped off by an amazing story and great performances by all except Amy Adams.

Seriously, they should have kept Kate Bosworth.

Man of Steel does have notable influence. Some scenes have that Christopher Nolan touch, especially with how the beginning plays out. The second half seems almost like it was made to show how Transformers could have been better, explosions and all.

I recommend Man of Steel to those who want a superhero that is more in depth, and I eagerly await The Justice League of America. This is the amazing set up for what will hopefully be an even better superhero team up.

I can just hear Paper Planes by M.I.A. playing in the background of this movie. That would have been amazing.

Rampage:

Story:

Bill Williamson, a vengeful 23-year old sick and tired of the world, buys military grade armour and guns and begins a massive killing spree.

Review:

I don't like being surprised. I really really don't. When you have a terrible director who has directed terrible adaptations of videogames such as Alone In The Dark, House of the Dead, Bloodrayne, Farcry, and Postal, and you combine that with an original idea that is shocking and senseless, you expect it to be a terrible movie.

Well color me surprised when I discovered Rampage, while disturbing and intense, is also a very well done film.

I mean, Uwe Boll, the director and writer of Rampage, just sucks at directing. He simply does. I have no idea how to explain how terrible a director he is, but Rampage was amazing. The sound effects jar you from your seat, the major moments of insanity are outright creepy, and the one defining scene (you'll know it when you see it) is just pure brilliance. Rampage is an intense film.

And before people cry "SPOILERS!" I just want to say I'm not exactly spoiling it. What happens is shown in the trailer and explained in the official synopsis.

With all that said, I have to say I like Rampage. It is an overall disturbing story with an equally horrifying plot, the big violent moments are perfectly supplemented both visually and auditorially, and the one defining scene is probably the best scene of its kind that I have ever seen in an action-drama film like this. That being said, the amount of violence and bloodshed is ridiculous, so if you're one of those types who can't stand that kind of violence, then it's probably best not to watch it. It is a film meant to be shown as senseless, and it succeeds very well at doing so.

Well done Uwe Boll, you finally did a good job.

An hour and forty minute long Paranormal State episode. Ugh, so fake.

American Ghost Hunter:

Story:

Chad Calek brings a film crew to his childhood home in Iowa to assist his family with their paranormal experiences.

Review:

You know how you watch a scary ghost movie and think, "how did they do that?" or "wow those effects are amazing!"

No? Never did?

Well, at least American Ghost Hunter won't surprise you then. This is so heavily edited that it is obvious everything is fake. In fact, this goes to show that Ed and Lorraine Warren are the worst con artists this century has ever known. EVER. Evidently Ryan Buell was up to his old tricks when he helped with American Ghost Hunter

To get into why everything is fake, I will have to go back into what Chad and Ryan were doing before American Ghost Hunter.

They both starred in a 'reality television' show called Paranormal State with a group of other 'investigators'. This group consisted of members of the Pennsylvania State University Paranormal Research Society. This group would get messages from people all over the United States, asking for help in dealing with supernatural phenomena. The group would then go to the houses, bring a 'psychic' in to help with investigations, then do a session that they call "Dead Time," in which they are in the house by themselves and try to communicate with the source of the supernatural activity.

Over the course of the five season run, Paranormal State received a lot of complaints and criticism for how they actually did things. For example, the group would tell their psychic every detail beforehand, then make the psychic swear on camera that they never received any information before entering the house. Every bit of phenomena was heavily edited to make it look more 'real', as witnessed by people that had asked the Paranormal Research Society for help. The stars of the show would also mock and make fun of what the 'victims' were experiencing off camera. In fact, someone went so far as to make a site dedicated to showing how fake Paranormal State is:

http://paranormalstateillustrated.com/paranormal_state/HOME.html

Officially, it was one of those fake shows that hordes of mindless people would watch, thinking the events occurring in the show were real.

The reason I brought all that up is that I saw all the editing techniques from Paranormal State in American Ghost Hunter, which is something Chad and Ryan were in for every minute. Shadows moving in front of the camera? Edited. Weird noises? Cheap sound effects made after by a computer (you can tell). The whole "Iowa is cursed" bit? A hoax generated by Chad and Ryan. Lorraine Warren, an infamously known so-called paranormal investigator, guest stars in this documentary just to help cement the fact that Chad, his family, and Ryan are all a bunch of liars.

Yes, for those of you who know of Lorraine Warren, she is fake. She proved it way before this film by investigating the Amityville hauntings and proclaiming that those hauntings were real. She's a hack. Same with her husband Ed.

To add to all that, if someone is going to put effects in their documentary, AT LEAST USE THE EXPENSIVE EFFECTS. I understand this is a low budget film, but they could have at least scrounged up a bit more money to get some good effects in. I don't think anyone wants to hear the same cheap sound effects repeated over and over again, or see the cheapest visual effects put into an intense sequence.

This is unfortunate, as documentaries are based solely on telling the truth or opinionated truth. It is not a genre which a bunch of amateur hacks like Chad and Ryan should be going into just to make a movie they can fool a ton of idiots into watching. There's at least some truth in documentaries, but in American Ghost Hunter there is no truth to be found. This is basically an extended episode of Paranormal State.

Overall, I can't recommend this to anyone. Don't watch this movie, and tell your friends and family not to because this is a profound waste of space and time.

Live long and do fancy hand salutes

Star Trek: Into Darkness:

Story:

The crew of the Enterprise faces a new threat when the Federation is targeted by Khan, a dangerous individual hellbent on destroying the Federation.

Review:

Several years ago J.J. Abrams introduced us to his version of Star Trek, a faster paced adrenaline rush that introduced a new generation to a series that the older generation loved and respected. Now, the sequel is here, showing us a darker, more thrilling side to Star Trek, while keeping everything that made the first film amazing intact.

I loved Star Trek: Into Darkness. As the title suggests, it truly brings us to the dark side of the franchise with the terrifyingly malevolent Benedict Cumberbatch as Khan. His intensity is horrifyingly real and he is pure evil with his role. Chris Pine is more serious as Kirk, and Zachary Quinto is both very human and robotic as Spock when the time calls for it. Not to mention the countless other amazing performances by the other cast. The effects are surreal, the story is brilliant, and the action is intensely amplified by the equally great soundtrack. This is a film made with effort and intelligence and it shows.

Overall Star Trek: Into Darkness is an amazing film and I now have high hopes for J.J. Abrams foray into the Star Wars universe.

The redneck version of Twilight. Still a heck of a lot better.

Beautiful Creatures:

Story:

Ethan, a normal teenager living a normal life, meets Lena, an immediate outcast. Together they begin to fall in love, unaware of the chain of events they have caused.

Review:

So much to talk about and so little space to talk about it. Just kidding.

If you want to read the rest of this without the part where I trash Twilight, then skip the two bits below this and continue to the third bit.

Remember when the only mushy fantasy film series to watch was Twilight?

I don't, but we should humour the Twihards for just a second so I can make my point. So Twilight rolled through theaters as a series of terrible films that most of us only watched because every film ended in a cliffhanger. The books were written by a formerly polygamist woman who trashed Stephen King, a man who is widely known for his stories. He got his revenge, and the wench named Stephanie Meyer forever held her tongue. Apparently a Twilight sequel was in the works, until a certain other filmed based on a Stephanie Meyer novel called The Host flopped and floundered because it was an even worse version of Twilight except with aliens. This all proves Stephanie Meyer is the Nicholas Sparks of Fantasy novels. They're both terrible and should never ever write again.

So why did I just go on a rant about that? Because unfortunately enough, drivel like Twilight is what brought other movies like it into theaters. Every movie studio wants their own slice of the teen fantasy pie. Beautiful Creatures is no exception, EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT IT IS ACTUALLY GOOD.

Beautiful Creatures manages to do what Twilight could not: weave a romantic story together with both young and old characters all while keeping the integrity of everyone involved intact. The soundtrack doesn't distract you from the film, the main character is a realistic teen with a background story that a lot of teens can relate to, and his love interest is also a relatable character.

As for other awesome parts of Beautiful Creatures, the actors are really good and very genuine, the special effects are perfect if a little under used, and the plot is paced perfectly.

Hopefully Beautiful Creatures sees a sequel, unlike a certain film franchise that should stay as dead as half of its sparkly main characters are.

Hasta la vista, terrible movie!

Story:

A Columbian drug cartel leader tries to escape imprisonment by cutting through a small town, unaware that the sheriff is determined to stop him.

Review:

The Last Stand is one of those movies that you'll see testosterone pumped guys watching. It really doesn't contribute much to the action genre other than that it's a cliched action flick with three or four non-white characters. That wouldn't seem like too much of a stereotype but the two Hispanic characters are very racially stereotypical. Oh and The Last Stand is about a fictional bridge in Arizona that connects to Mexico, that is completely unsupervised. Even for an action film that is ridiculous.

Anyways, The Last Stand isn't very entertaining. All it has is a lot of bland shootouts and a few very short car chase sequences. Arnold is getting old and his age is really starting to show, the other actors were very forgettable and were honestly more wooden than Hayden Christensen was in Star Wars, and I didn't notice the soundtrack at all; yes the soundtrack is there, but it just goes by unnoticed. There is nothing about The Last Stand that is remarkable, even the main character is forgettable. By the time I was done watching it, I felt like I had just stared at a wall for an hour and a half.

This is especially odd because the director, Jee-woon Kim, is actually a fairly competent director, having previously directed A Tale of Two Sisters, The Good, The Bad, The Weird, and I Saw The Devil. I guess every director has their terrible film.

Overall, a forgettable film.

What do you get when two Japanese people are kidnapped, tortured, and killed? A ridiculous movie. Oddly enough, it's more ridiculous in a good way than a bad way.

Grotesque:

Story:

Two young Japanese people are kidnapped and tortured by a sadistic individual.

Review:

I firstly want to say I hate the people that recommended this movie to me. Grotesque is truly a film that lives up to its title. It is disgusting, disturbing, and discomforting. Ironically enough, it has a good background story and is oddly romantic.

As far as story, there's a surprising amount more than is implied from the synopsis, and it actually develops fairly well considering what this film is about. The romantic bit was well appreciated relief from the violence, and there is a part that can be viewed as comical if the person's sense of humour is dark and disgusting enough.

There is a lot and I mean A LOT of blood and gore in Grotesque, and I get the feeling this may have been made to poke fun at other torture horror films that were released before this one.

Overall this was quite a different film than I thought it was. Violent, dark, and disturbing yet also mildy romantic and mildy comical. The actors are genuine in their pained expressions and the plot is perfectly paced.

I don't know if I can recommend this to anyone. If you liked Hostel or Saw you might like Grotesque.

It was not A very Good Day To Die Hard

A Good Day To Die Hard:
Story:
John McClane goes to Russia to see his son Jack before he goes to prison. What he doesn't know is that his son is undercover attempting to exfiltrate Yuri Kamarov, a convict who has explosive secrets about a powerful figure
Review:
The first time I went to see this movie I unfortunately fell asleep in the first few minutes, too exhausted to watch anymore. I woke up at the end of the movie, having missed roughly an hour and a half of the action packed spectacle that the Die Hard series is known for.
I just recently watched this and found out it would have been better had I not watched the lastest Die Hard installment. It's an all action film with a ten minute story and a plot that is filled more with bullets than an actual plot. I am a fan of the series, and was extremely disappointed with this.
So let's get into what made this bad.
The lack of story is what bothered me. I mean, it had a basic story that established why everything was happening but that was it with the exception of three minutes later on. This is by far the one Die Hard with the least amount of story. There are more bullets per minute than story per minute. Not only that but the story is so typical it fits ANY movie in the action/spy genre. ANY. It's easy to imagine Steven Seagal doing this same film, or Jean Claude Van Damme, or Arnold Schwarzennegger except it would in fact be better with any of those actors.
That is not the only problem, since the director seemed more content making the one family bonding subplot one that is only five minutes of the film, and as such it's resolved too fast.
The action sequences are creatively entertaining and the special effects are dynamically explosive, but that isn't all that makes a Die Hard movie a Die Hard movie. It still needs a story. Every Die Hard film before that had a story that fit the McClane family's troubled connection into the story. A Good Day To Die Hard barely managed to do this, and tried to fix the barely existent story by filling it with bullets and explosions. That's not how you fix the barely existent storyline.
The actors don't help at all. With a barely coherent script that has less time than the bullets and explosions, they actually make the film flounder even more by barely acting and only having two emotions throughout the whole film (technically three for a few of them) that you can barely detect. Even Bruce Willis barely does anything except prove how old John McClane really is.
Overall not a very good action film. If anything, watch it only if you're watching one of The Expendables films first.

The most hypest of the visual films out there. Oh snap. I just got Gatsby'd. Or Baz'd. Or both.

The Great Gatsby:

Story:

A meeting with the mysterious Jay Gatsby leads Nick Carraway down a path of intrigue.

Review:

Anyone else feel echoes of Moulin Rouge when they watched The Great Gatsby?

It's like Moulin Rouge except with better actors, better story, and better visuals.

But before I go into detail about the good, I want to go into the bad.

This is a film built on what Baz Luhrman likes making films about: love. A universal theme hat is in basically every film created (or close to).

So why the problem?

They focus almost entirely on it throughout the film. To the point where I think they left content out of the book just to focus on it. Nick Carraway was the side character to Jay Gatsby and Daisy Buchanan, yet he was the most interesting character in the film and the film is told in Carraway's perspective. You could tell there was more to Nick that was never touched upon. Hell, there was more to every character that was never told.

With that said, it's time to get into the good.

The visuals are astoundingly amazing and I'm tempted to say they're perfect. The amount of careful effort that went into making each scene picturesque is astounding. Definitely an accomplishment that I hope is recognized by other viewers.

And what good is picture perfect visuals without an awesome soundtrack? Mixing modern with old, the soundtrack manages to capture the feel of the movie and actually becomes a part of The Great Gatsby at several points.

Combine those two with an awesome script, engaging plot, and beautiful story and you have an overall great movie. Highly recommended.

For a differing opinion from a fellow colleague, check out:

http://dannykaimak.com/2013/05/12/00002/