"AMERICAN HUSTLE" - A New Film Report

By Humbler Acts

"AFTER TWO HOURS AND... "
After two hours and nine minutes of this film, I'm reminded of a joke where some fellow goes to his rabbi, and says, "Rabbi! I think my wife is trying to poison me! What should I do?" After talking it over at length, this rabbi says that he'll call the man's wife and seek to find out just what's on her mind.

"AT LAST THE GUY GETS A... "
A few days pass... At last the guy gets a call from the rabbi, who sounds exhausted. He explains that he has just been on the phone with the man's wife for two hours... "Well" asks the fellow, "What do you think I should do?" "IF I WERE YOU," says the rabbi, "I'D TAKE THAT POISON!"

"THAT'S THE TORMENT EVOKED"
That's the torment evoked in this film. Yet it shows an ensemble of good actors- Amy Adams, Christian Bale, Bradley Cooper, plus Bob DeNiro, and Jennifer Lawrence, and Jeremy Renner... surefire cast, right?

"THE ONLY THING THE FILM... "
The only thing the film needed was a decent story with real character growth. Instead it shows a full pack of desperate folk trying to entrap national pols to grab their bait and take the cash and show the public that the FBI nabs crooks. That's about as smart as it gets. The FBI started this entrapment after they'd had success recovering stolen goods. One of its catches was a couple (Christian Bale and Amy Adams); and rather than convict them, the agent, Bradley Cooper, decides he'll coerce them to help catch anyone who dares fall for his ruse.

"THIS WHOLE TALE IS ROOTED... !"
This whole tale is rooted in the famous ABSCAM scandal of the late seventies. The one decent politician whose disgrace I felt for was the then mayor of Camden, N.J. The guy was a decent human being-- and though he took money-- he took it to solidify the connections he was led to believe would bring economic stability to his region. The rest of the troupe on both sides of the law were fey characters-- soulless stick figures of the writers' fantasies... (E-mail note to film director, David O. Russell: Dave, please book your analyst a.s.a.p. See if she can help you get rid of your great need to show women walking around in broad daylight without benefit of modesty and good taste.)

"THERE ARE SO FEW WELL-WROUGHT...
There are so few well-wrought plot threads and so many outstretched ones that the story just hangs in there the same way a daredevil motorcyclist keeps his balance riding swiftly around the inside of a large circular tank... Yes, there are a couple of clever ploys that some might find worthy of reflection. As for me, they tickled only slightly once they'd sunk it.

"THERE HAS BEEN MUCH HOOPLA!"
There has been so much hoopla with this film: I'm at a loss to know the reason why. Perhaps we are intrigued with seeing live scumbags--with phony scams--roping in polsand reporting their work to U.S, taxpayers-and teaching-with some irony--"Politicians cleave to all kinds of thieving minds." Still... we need OUR minds and hearts cleaved. "AMERICAN HUSTLE failed to do that for me. Accordingly: No more than FOUR!

Humbler Acts, creator of "THE WIZARD'S OUTRAGEOUS SCHEME FOR STOPPING SMOKING", reports one film every week as relaxation from his speaking and writing on stopping smoking through dream use and Seven Forces. He's American, English-educated, residing in St Louis, MO (USA). He can be reached: humbleracts@aol.com or telephone: 314-574-7681.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Humbler_Acts

"The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug" - One More Trip to the Shire

By Zack Mandell

Ever since 2012's "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" reintroduced audiences to Middle-earth, fans of the series have eagerly awaited director Peter Jackson's next step into the world of J.R.R. Tolkien. Although the first movie in the "Hobbit" trilogy may have suffered from a few pacing problems as it introduced its incredibly large cast of principals, "The Desolation of Smaug" seems to have learned a few important lessons from its predecessor and provides a tighter and more epic story, if not a perfect one.
The second film brings audiences back to where the first film left off, with the company of adventurers having just caught sight of the Lonely Mountain. The group splits up, with the dwarves and Bilbo traveling through Mirkwood while Gandalf leaves to inform his fellow wizards about the threat posed by the Necromancer. After a run-in with giant spiders, the main company makes its way through the lands of the Wood Elves and the men of Lake-town, meeting some of the major characters of the novel before moving on to Smaug's lair.
The main cast returns, of course, with Martin Freeman taking the lead as the reluctant gourmand turned burglar turned hero, Bilbo Baggins; Ian McKellen reprising his iconic role as Gandalf; and Richard Armitage, Ken Stott, and Graham McTavish playing the leads among the dwarven adventurers. Fans of Doctor Who will be glad to see Sylvester McCoy return in his scene-stealing best as Radagast the Brown, and Orlando Bloom steps back into the elven boots of Legolas, the archer from the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy. Lee Pace gets more screen time as Thranduil, the elven king whom Thorin blames for the loss of his homeland.
Joining the cast are Benedict Cumberbatch as the dragon Smaug, the central foe of the trilogy, and Luke Evans as Bard the bowman, the one warrior who may hold the key to defeating the dragon. Mikael Persbrandt takes advantage of Peter Jackson's skill at mixing actor scales to play the gigantic shapeshifter Beorn, a man who can take the form of an enormous bear. Evangeline Lilly is the most notable addition, as her character Tauriel did not appear in the original story but was created to provide a more diverse onscreen presence and a new narrative angle for the tale. Stephen Fry turns in a memorable cameo as the Master of Lake-town, and eagle-eyed fans may catch Stephen Colbert in his walk-on role as one of the Lake-town citizens.
The most notable difference between "The Desolation of Smaug" and the first "Hobbit" film is the pacing. Jackson gets the action going much more quickly this time around, since he doesn't have to worry about introducing the enormous cast to viewers. Backed by the usual impeccable CGI work from Weta, the action sequences are fierce and fast, and the spiders of Mirkwood are creepy and skittery enough to send any arachnophobes out to the snack bar in a cold sweat. Benedict Cumberbatch's memorable turn as Smaug also benefits from digital assistance, as the filmmakers used motion-capture technology to allow the actor to imbue the sinuous dragon with his own movements in much the same way Andy Serkis lent his own physicality to the vile Gollum in earlier films. The prosthetic work is also top notch, with dwarven actors rendered almost unrecognizable but still able to emote warmly through the heavy makeup and elaborately designed beards. The best effects, however, are always the natural ones found in New Zealand: those breathtaking it-can't-be-real landscapes that Jackson always seems to find for his most majestic scenes.
Although the film moves faster than its predecessor, it does show a few thin spots that obviously came about when the two-film series expanded to a trilogy. The pacing of the earliest scenes seems a bit off, but it is easy to become too swept up in the beautiful vistas and fierce action to really notice. Conservative Tolkien fans may take issue with the addition of Tauriel to the story, but the new perspective and emotional strength she adds to the tale will be welcomed by most.
"The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug" may leave hardcore fans with a few quibbles, but for those who enjoyed the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, it's a welcome return to familiar ground. The most frustrating thing about the movie is undoubtedly the one-year wait audiences will have to endure before experiencing the climax of the tale, the great battle only hinted at in the second installment. Fortunately, this second installment has plenty to tide viewers over and keep them interested for one last trip back to the Shire
.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Zack_Mandell

"KILL YOUR DARLINGS" - A New Film Report

By Humbler Acts

"I'VE STRUGGLED WITH THIS FILM!"
I have struggled with the film "KILL YOUR DARLINGS" for the last twenty-four hours, trying to come to grips with how I might report on it. It's one of the poorest films I have ever seen; and yet what it tries to do is probably quite worth someone's while.
... "THE HORRIBLE TITLE... !"
Before I get into the personalities of the movie- the first four Beat Writers that started a movement back in the mid nineteen-forties- let me first talk about the horrible title of this movie, "KILL YOUR DARLINGS": What in the world is this trying to say? It's a preposterous thought issued by a professor who is teaching future writers in one class at Columbia; The idea is that writers are urged to kill any "darling" thoughts they may have-- BEFORE they write them into the work they hope to get published... In other words: don't trust any thoughts or feelings that come to one's mind that one holds dear-- lest one bomb with future readers. So the title comes from this harsh admonishment.
... "A PERFECT EXAMPLE... !"
Here's a perfect example of a director-writer taking something that was said one hundred years ago by another person in another place with all sorts of essays preceding and following his statement... Taking it out of all that context makes its meaning change. Whether such a thing was really said and heard by these four writers, the movie has used it as the motive for how they acted and the actual slaying done by one of these four on a fifth peripheral man who had been a "darling" to him for oh so many years.. So there's a phoniness I felt in how the film was rigged.
... "A STRONG GRAIN OF PURE SALT... !"
Think a moment about all of the great writing as well as all the ideas that have come from the minds of creative people through the ages-- that would never have seen the light of day had folks followed strictly what this title admonished-and I'm sure you'll see that it ought never be taken without a strong grain of pure salt.
... "CASTING OFF THESE 'DARLINGS'"... !
... But be that as it may, the interaction of these four men starts the film rolling: There is Allen Ginsburg (played by David Radcliffe), Lucian Carr (played by Dane DeHaan), William Burroughs (played by Ben Foster) and lastly, Jack Kerouac (by Jack Huston). They all interact and play off each other as they strive to kill all their darlings. Several of their "darlings" seem to be any of the restraints they may have picked up from their home's nurturing, younger influences, or just fear of the great unknown. Casting off these "darlings", they gradually start to experiment with drugs, sex and hitherto forbidden crass experiences. Visual proofs afflict this film. The fifth guy who is not at Columbia as a student but somehow exerts an influence on them through his gay liaison with Lucian Car is one David Kammerer (who's played by Michael C Hall).
... "START OF A NEW VISION... !"
I think what director and writer John Krokidas and writer Austin Bunn attempted to do was show us the start of a new vision these men had and how they went about developing their lives with it. But unfortunately, we have no empathy for these fellows. They say their names and we say, 'WOW, HI THERE!... SO WHAT MADE YOU SO GREAT?' Their lives are like snips of paper- hurriedly cut from books and pasted on a wall. But there's not much else to behold. And I doubt that one soul in the audience lost a moment's peace when Kammerer was stabbed to death by his fraught victim, Lucian Carr. Since then gay-hood has been relieved of its terrible scourge; and possibly these men helped hasten its needed freedom. But I don't think this film can take any credit for helping us understand that.
... A MILD AND FORLORN FOUR... !"
My ranking on "KILL YOUR DARLINGS" can only be a very mild and forlorn FOUR.

Humbler Acts, creator of "THE WIZARD'S OUTRAGEOUS SCHEME FOR STOPPING SMOKING", reports one film every week as relaxation from his speaking and writing on stopping smoking through dream use and Seven Forces. He's American, English-educated. residing in St. Louis, MO (USA). He can be reached: humbleracts@aol.com or telephone: 314-574-7681.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Humbler_Acts

12 Movies A Slave: Doing Time At Friday The 13th's Camp Crystal Lake

By Paul J Salamoff

Being a massive cinephile, I thought it might be, for lack of a better word, "fun" to watch all 12 FRIDAY THE 13th films in a row and give some brief thoughts about them. I'm including FREDDY VS. JASON and the 2009 Remake as part of the series because I'm a glutton for punishment.
Now mind you, I have seen each one of these at least a half dozen times or more, so when watching them this time, I tried my best to approach the movies as if it were my first time seeing them. These are not meant to be heavy critical analysis of the films, they are simply fast and easy impressions to give you a quick review of their merit (or lack of).
FRIDAY THE 13TH (1980)
I wouldn't call FRIDAY THE 13th a seminal film, but it certainly is one of the most influential in the 80's slasher genre. The thing that struck me most about this viewing was that the movie holds up better than I typically give it credit. It actually has a discernable plot with naturalistic characters that behave in a sensible manner. They arm and defend themselves and desperately try to survive and I found nothing egregious about how they behaved which lends some credibility to the fairly standard plotting.
Camp Crystal Lake is going to reopen after years of laying dormant due to a number of deaths that have haunted the place over the last decade. Having been dubbed "Camp Blood" by the locals, no one in the town wants to be reminded of the murders that have blighted their once peaceful hamlet.
But ignoring the warning, Steve has enlisted a throng of nubile young teenagers (including a young Kevin Bacon!) to finish it up. One by one the counselors are sliced and diced by a mystery killer in increasingly brutal and gory ways leaving just one to defend herself against the crazed lunatic. All in all, FRIDAY THE 13th is a decent film and worth seeing if you are a fan of horror and appreciate movies that have contributed to the genre over the decades. GRADE: 3.5 (out of 5)
FRIDAY THE 13TH - PART 2 (1981)
I'm a little flummoxed by how to exactly review PART 2. There really isn't a plot to discuss. For it being 86 minutes long, 6 of those minutes are a recap of footage from the first film via a nightmare that lone survivor Alice is having.
Once she is killed, the rest of the movie is just lambs to the slaughter, this time taking place at a "Camp Blood" adjacent, counselor training facility. All the characters are generic and one by one they get dispatched. This time the killer is Jason, crazed for revenge for the decapitation of his mother.
The few things that PART 2 has going for it is that the characters are still believable as actual human beings and it's well shot with some honest to goodness visual flair. Steve Miner has a good eye for iconic shots and PART 2 has many of the ones most associated with the series. It's brisk and doesn't ask much from the audience but surprisingly the gore is not as graphic as you'd expect with many of the kill moments happening off screen or beyond the frame. GRADE: 3 (out of 5)
FRIDAY THE 13TH - PART 3 3D (1982)
If PART 2 dispensed with the need for a story, PART 3 dispensed with the need for characters. They've been reduced to caricatures at this point and any semblance of caring for them has been slashed from the film.
There's not much to say plotwise. New people come to Crystal Lake. Jason kills them. The only good that came from this movie is that Jason finally gets his iconic hockey mask. Yes, FRIDAY THE 13th newbies, Jason didn't get his mask until the 3rd movie! Of course how he gets it makes absolutely no sense.
The make-up FX are quite well done here and Jason is menacing as his character continues to take shape over the course of the series. But it seems that the only reason this movie exists is apparently for the 3D gimmick, which is just that, a gimmick. GRADE: 2 (out of 5)
FRIDAY THE 13TH, PART IV: THE FINAL CHAPTER (1984)
With a more polished look and presumably a higher budget, PART IV is erroneously called "The Final Chapter." Of the early films, I enjoy this one the most for the mere fact that they pull out all the stops as far as gore and... ahem... nudity.
Once again, there's not much of a plot once the movie gets going. Line 'em up, so Jason can knock 'em down. That about sums it up. At least there was an attempt to humanize the characters; giving a few of them a backstory. Most of the drama centers around your typical teenage angst of "will I or won't I get laid before the maniac chops me into tiny bits."
Make-Up F/X gore-master Tom Savini, returns to the series to see the killer off in a blaze of glory. The F/X are particularly bloody in this entry and some of the best of the series. When Jason is finally unmasked, he truly is a vision of horror and his "death" is fitting and equally grisly. A step forward for the fading series and certainly one of the best it has to offer (which isn't saying much). GRADE: 3.5 (out of 5)
FRIDAY THE 13TH, PART V: A NEW BEGINNING (1985)
The 5th entry in the FRIDAY THE 13th series is just plain dreadful and I don't mean that in a good way. Jason is dead having been dispatched in PART IV. But Tommy Jarvis is still haunted by the events of that fateful night. People start dying at the group home he's living at and they are being dispatched by a hockey-masked killer! But Jason is dead?! Has Tommy taken up the mantle?
Whatever cleverness this premise could have had evaporates after the first 15 minutes. Tommy is logically never really a suspect and when the killer is ultimately revealed it is so laughably obvious. On top of that he has absolutely no discernable motive for why he's killing just about anyone who appears on screen. He kills more random people than those who supposedly deserve it. At least Jason had an agenda.
What's even more irritating is that most of the violence is off-screen. There are barely any of the make-up FX that are the hallmark of the series and it gets tedious watching the umpteenth person get their throat sliced or just bloodlessly stabbed. For those who like nudity, it seems like there are more naked breasts in this movie than the others combined... and that's the only reason I'm giving this film half a reel. GRADE:0.5 (out of 5)
FRIDAY THE 13TH, PART VI: JASON LIVES (1986)
By far one of the more entertaining FRIDAY THE 13th movies, PART VI is brisk and breezy and it has a sense of fun that is lacking from any of the previous entries. Directed by Tom McLoughlin (ONE DARK NIGHT), it also is one of the slickest looking of the series with some true visual flair in the overall production design and editing.
Though it contains a number of tropes from the previous entries, McLoughin has made them seem fresh and exciting. The make-up FX are top-notch and clever and unlike the other films so far, PART VI doesn't rely on cheap thrills and nudity to keep the audience engaged. It actually tries to tell a story that has a real story arc and some real stakes.
I don't want to over sell the film, it's still a FRIDAY THE 13th movie, but it's rather charming and reminds me in many ways of what Wes Craven did with the SCREAM films a decade later. There is a certain self-referential feel as well as a wink and a nod that the movie is here to entertain as well as scare. JASON LIVES is a worthy effort that injects new life into the franchise. GRADE: 3.5 (out of 5)
FRIDAY THE 13TH, PART VII: THE NEW BLOOD (1988)
THE NEW BLOOD has always had a soft spot in my heart because Jason finally became fully realized as a character thanks to a truly intense physical performance by Kane Hodder. The stuntman would become a fan favorite and reprise the role 3 more times creating a real presence and continuity for Jason, something a film series like this needed.
Unlike the previous entry, which took the series in a more self-referential direction, PART VII brought it back to its horror roots but with a new twist. Tina, the main character, has telekinetic powers (ala CARRIE), which she uses to defend herself against the masked killer.
Directed by Make-Up FX wizard John Carl Buechler, THE NEW BLOOD is well-paced and enjoyable. It also features some of the best FX in the entire series. Especially Jason. He has never looked better and this design still remains the best and most iconic. GRADE: 3.5 (out of 5)
FRIDAY THE 13TH, PART VIII: JASON TAKES MANHATTAN (1989)
WTF?! JASON TAKES MANHATTAN contains some of the sketchiest acting in the series, sub-par Make-up FX and barely any nudity. The "plot" involves a gaggle of High School seniors taking a cruise to New York City as a celebration of their recent graduation but surprise, most of them are killed by Jason in case you actually cared.
What's most egregious is that it's also the longest entry at 100min! Skip this one. I suffered through it for you. Your welcome. GRADE:0.5 REELS
JASON GOES TO HELL - THE FINAL FRIDAY (1993)
New Line Cinema took over the FRIDAY THE 13th franchise with JASON GOES TO HELL. It was met with great optimism that "The House that Freddy built" would give the series a much needed kick in the butt and really give fans what they wanted.
Unfortunately that wasn't to be. What we got was this very confused and ultimately unsatisfying entry into the series. I give it credit as being the most heavily plotted of the entire series, but the plot is so muddled and convoluted that it's a real head-scratcher. To make matters worse Jason is barely in the film.
It just gets tedious after awhile and for a movie that revels in some extreme nastiness; there are scenes that feel like they're from a 80's teen comedy. Like the poster image, JASON GOES TO HELL is a "hot mess." GRADE: 1.5 (out of 5)
JASON X (2001)
Call me crazy, but I really enjoyed watching JASON X. With its tongue firmly in its cheek, it's not only fun, but also it's well made. Directed by James Isaacs, it has great visual FX as well as some of the best Make-up FX in the entire series.
With a peppy script by Todd Farmer, the story is utterly preposterous (Jason in space!), but maintains logic within its world. I can't fault a movie that just goes for it like JASON X does. The film is very clever at times and maintains a decent pace that never lets up.
The characters are pretty much your genre stereotypes, but they somehow manage to rise above the material and make you care that at least a few of them survive. Played by Kane Hodder for a fourth time, Jason is pretty badass in both his "classic" appearance and then as the nano-upgraded "über-Jason" who could give The Terminator a run for his money. GRADE: 3.5 (out of 5)
FREDDY VS. JASON (2003)
It took a great many years to get the two titans of horror to battle one another on screen but the filmmakers finally got it together and we got FREDDY vs. JASON. For obvious reasons, I want to like this movie and it does have some good aspects. Unfortunately, the bad ones weigh it down.
My big problem with the film is the human characters. They are vapid and uninteresting and their motivations are all over the place.
I'll give the film points for its style and pacing and the fight sequences really deliver. Energetically directed by Hong Kong's Ronny Yu, the clash of the titans lives up to the expectations of the title and there is more spurting blood than you could ever want from a movie like this.
The movie is worth watching just for the sheer audacity of it and the epic battle is quite entertaining. It's just a shame that the rest of the movie couldn't have lived up to the potential. GRADE: 3 (out of 5)
FRIDAY THE 13th (2009)
What starts out with some real potential, quickly descends into nothingness, as the FRIDAY THE 13TH remake becomes another bloody smear on an already battered franchise. Mind you, I was quite excited to see this because I felt Director Marcus Nispel did a respectable job revamping THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE (2003). But alas, this greatly pales in comparison.
The opening of the film is basically a retelling of FRIDAY THE 13th Parts 1 & 2 and for the most part is rather effective. But once the opening title fades, so does any hope for a good film.
The movie looks great, shot by horror vet Daniel Pearl, but unfortunately that just further puts focus on what a missed opportunity this remake was. I honestly hoped that this would be the quintessential FRIDAY THE 13th movie and this time they'd get it right, unfortunately it's one of the worst of the series and we become Jason's true victims. GRADE: 2 (out of 5)
So there you have it. 12 Movies. 12 Reviews. I hope you enjoyed this new insight into a classic series that keeps chugging along. As of the writing of this article, a sequel to the 2009 remake is in the works and it's said to be a found-footage movie. I'm sure I'll be first in line when it comes out.

PAUL J. SALAMOFF
Writer/Producer/Comic Book Creator
http://www.thetoptenmoviesofalltime.com
Paul J. Salamoff has been working in the Entertainment Industry for over 24 years in Film, TV, Video Games and Commercials as a Writer, Producer, Executive, Comic Creator and originally as a Make-Up FX Artist.
He is the author of two non-fiction books: ON THE SET: The Hidden Rules of Movie Making Etiquette and The Complete DVD Book and the writer of the acclaimed graphic novels Discord, Tales of Discord, Logan's Run: Last Day, Logan's Run: Aftermath and Logan's Run: Rebirth as well as issues of Vincent Price Presents.
He was recently named one of The Tracking Board's Top 100 up & coming Screenwriters and has developed projects with Mosaic Media Group, Hollywood Gang, Silver Pictures, Valhalla Motion Pictures, Vertigo, Broken Road, Unstoppable Entertainment (UK) and Eclectic Pictures.
Check out more MOVIE A DAY reviews and MUST SEE MOVIE lists at: http://www.thetoptenmoviesofalltime.com

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Paul_J_Salamoff

Film Review: The Legend of Hercules

By Paras Bhanot

It may be too very simple to discount this January release merely by the titles on the marquee, because Renny Harlin's filmography as a director is spotty at best and Kellan Lutz hasn't actually verified himself as an actor, let alone as an activity celebrity. Let's just state there arrives a lot of prejudgments on the idea of the two of them bringing the article of the Mythological champion to the computer display after so many other ones have tried, which brings fears that they'd do a poorer job than those previous attempts. Thankfully, the video doesn't completely stink and proceed all campy like some of those previous videos, rather than telling a fairly straightforward source story how Hercules became the legend that he was.

But the video begins before he is born showing a standoff in Argos between King Amphitryon and the champion from the town he's invading, and after a fast assault, he's in ascribing. Decades later his unsatisfied wife ruler Alcmene turns to the Gods, expressly Hera, to save her from her sad marriage. She's granted a child born by the Gods, but that just makes Amphitryon and Hercules' comparable male sibling Iphicles more jealous and fiendish. We cut ahead a couple of decades and Hercules (Lutz) is an attractive stropping man, out cavorting with the attractive Princess of Crete, Hebe, taking off his top to ascend up the edge of a waterfall and dive off in alignment to influence her. But Iphicles, the true heir to the throne is having no one of it and he decides to take Hercules out of the picture to have the princess as his bride.

Are you following so far? It's not terribly tough or initials an article, but Hercules and a band of fighters are dispatched off to Egypt fundamentally in wants he gets slain, premier to more confrontation. At a certain issue, it gets awful, because you seem like you're observing certain thing you've already glimpsed before. There are instants taken exactly from "300," "Gladiator," "Clash of the Titans," "Troy" and a couple of other ones, whereas there are also a couple of exclusive visuals like watching Hercules staving off armies by wavering giant pillar boulders at the ends of chains or yielding a lightning sword.

The exposition and any attempts at drama are boring, particularly the instants that Lutz expends shirtless wooing his woman love, but when it cuts away to display some drama back dwelling, it's even poorer. Much of that can be accused on Scott Adkins, who presents such silly over-the-top presentation as does his child Iphicles, played by Liam Garrigan, both having come to the identical "historic evil bad friend" workshop evidently. The fact that Kellan Lutz wasn't the worst actor in this video shocked me, but he doesn't do himself any good turns when he opens his mouther to utter lines.

The poorest thing about "Legend of Hercules" though is that there's little fun to be had with the movie and it takes itself way too gravely. Maybe it should be relegated to the world of the "Rocky Horror Picture display" where people can wear costumes of their favorite characters and scream at the screen as that would be a far more joy know-how than just watching it? It's not that it appears like anyone making this video isn't trying hard enough, they just appear to be trying to make a video that didn't need to be made.

Harlin is certainly not an incompetent controller and he's found a production designer, a battle coordinator and cinematographer that do the video proud by fundamentally duplicating things we've glimpsed in other videos - during the warrior battle sequences, we even get a bit of the vintage Zack Snyder fast then slow movements, and the gladiator scenes do gaze an allotment like "Gladiator."

So the video does look good and the 3D is especially useful for making some of the action scenes pop off the computer display, not to mention the giant CG countryside's, but it's still just so filled with visual clichés, that you could display a view from "Legend of Hercules" to somebody and they would just think it's from "300" or "Immortals" or "Gladiator" or anything else.

Thanks for reading.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Paras_Bhanot

The Grim Adventures Of Superman: "Man of Steel" Is An Exciting But Joyless Action Spectacle Expert Author Paul Anthony Llossas In my review regarding Iron Man 3, I opened with the following statement: "I have come to the conclusion that serious comic book aficionados should not watch live action adaptations of their beloved characters." Man of Steel, directed by Zack Snyder (300, Watchmen, Sucker Punch), has only reinforced that assertion; and therein lies the rub. Is it a good, well made action film by today's standards? That is a resounding "yes". However, is it a good Superman film? To echo Jonathan Kent (Kevin Costner): "Maybe." The film follows Clark Kent/Kal-El of Krypton (Henry Cavill; The Tudors, Immortals) who was rocketed from the doomed planet Krypton (which has been reimagined seemingly through the eyes of Edgar Rice Burroughs and J.R.R. Tolkien) by his biological father, Jor-El (a very Gladiator-reminiscent Russell Crowe) to Earth where the orphan gains, if you'll excuse the decades-old statement, powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men. As he aimlessly travels the world in search for his place in it, a legion of exiled Kryptonians, led by the driven General Zod (Michael Shannon) have come in search for the orphan in order to restore the lost race. While the film follows much of the established foundation of the Superman legend, it makes a lot of interesting changes; some cosmetic, some fundamental, and not all for the better. Note that I said this films follows "Clark Kent", not "Superman". Produced by Christopher Nolan and screenwritten by David S. Goyer (the team that produced the Batman Begins series of films), this film follows the conceit that the film's focus is not on the costumed identity but rather the man beneath (that sentiment being epitomized in the film's title). And, like those films, MoS tries to eschew comic book conventions even as it presents them in live action (For example, the title character is only referred to as "Superman" twice, in a single scene, in an almost throwaway, inconsequential fashion). Also of note is that this film falls more in the realm of science fiction than superheroic fantasy, its imagery and beats very reminiscent of Independence Day or Michael Bay's Transformers efforts. It has often been said that the best science fiction is allegorical to real world events. If so, then Man of Steel paints a grim picture of both. The planet Krypton is doomed not by an indiscriminate chain reaction, but due to it's inhabitant's misuse of resources. The planet serves as microcosm for our current concerns regarding energy resources, global warming, and stem cell/cloning research, just to name a few. There is also an art deco montage of jingoistic expansionism that is disturbing, and this is the planet that the hero is from! The planet Earth is no better, to hear Clark's adopted father Jonathan tell it, filled with post 9-11 angst, mistrust and paranoia. And what of Clark himself? For much of the film he is a powered up "Peter Parker"; a man with profound abilities who sees himself as a freak who must keep himself hidden even as his inner nature compels him to fly (pun intended) in the face of that anonymity to save lives. It is this conflict that is one of the many that evolve in MoS. As Clark Kent (Superman), Henry Cavill fulfills the promise he showed in Immortals in filling out the Man of Steel's cape (if not his absent trunks). His Clark is a cypher for much of the film, as he should as it reflects his quest for identity. However, once the suit comes on, he unselfconsciously embodies much of Superman's traits, though not all of them as this is a still nascent, inexperienced Superman who is thrust into a literal trial by fire. However, except for one brief moment when he first takes flight, Superman takes no joy in his powers. To him, they are a burden even after he has found a way to express them. Where's the fun in being Superman? In having these gifts? This films seems to assert there is none. Special note should be made to actor Dylan Sprayberry, who portrays Clark as a teenager, for effectively bringing this point home by showing Clark's struggles as he trying to find his place while developing the powers of a demigod. The other actors acquit themselves well: Russell Crowe practically steals the show as the most proactive, kick-ass Jor-El ever brought to live action, and also given more screen time than any other and makes the most of it. By contrast, Kevin Costner as Jonathan Kent looks like he'd rather be off filming another film, though he does give two of the most poignantly touching moments in the film. Arguably, given he's raising an otherworldly being in a paranoid culture, his overprotective dourness is completely understandable. Diane Lane is a serviceable Martha Kent but she neither adds to nor detracts from the film. Lawrence Fishburne plays Perry White with all of the gravitas and none of the caricature of the hard boiled newspaper editor. While he is given very little to do in this film, he makes the most of it. Since as of this writing the sequel to MoS has already been greenlit it will be interesting to see his interaction with Clark in future outings. As second-in-command of the Kryptonian armed forces, Antje Traue, as Faora-Ul is a sexy engine of destruction. Her scenes with Christopher Meloni, who plays a colonel with a distrust of all aliens, including Clark, especially crackle and come to a satisfying conclusion. The two most notable actors are Amy Adams and Michael Shannon as Lois Lane and General Zod, respectively. Her Lois is plucky, spunky, and courageous despite being fearfully out of her depth. In many ways, she provides what little heart the film has. She has a chemistry with Cavill but not as powerful as one might expect. Shannon plays Zod less as villain and more as a genetically programed fanatic. He plays Zod with as a character literally bred with single minded determination to preserve the Kryptonian race at all costs, even if it means genocide. His "nature" runs counterpoint to Clark's "nurture", as Clark was the first (and last) Kryptonian to be conceived by natural means and, thus, a with the power of choice. Zack Snyder for once eschews his "slow mo" style of presenting action. Instead, "speed" is the name of the game here, even if it comes at the cost of character moments. The narrative flows relatively well between flashbacks and real time. However, the film's last act tries to outdo the climax of Marvel's The Avengers to the point that it becomes disaster porn to a disturbingly uncomfortable degree. By the time it's over, the victory seems pyrrhic. The percussion heavy, repetitive Hans Zimmer score only increases that sense of anxiety. It seemed as though he spent so much time trying to come out of John Williams' shadow that he developed the new theme to the exclusion of the rest of the score, which comes across as cutting room floor leavings from Inception and Backdraft. In terms of action this film delivers. While a couple of CGI scenes are obvious and a couple of moments are inconsistent, this film delivers the type of smack down one would want to see in a Superman film. There are a couple of plot holes as well, a couple of which could lead the U.S. government right to the Kent farmhouse... if Lois Lane had not already done so herself... but for the most part the action sweeps one away from any of these considerations. Perhaps I'm not the right person to write a review. I actually debated with myself as to whether or not to recuse myself from reviewing this film given, as anyone who knows me will extol, I am a Superman fan for as far as I can remember. Therefore, my observations and opinions will be called into question given my bias. Especially when taken in with one particular plot point at the movie's climax. A lot of factors went into the production of this film, not the least of which is a Court's ruling in the case of Siegel v. Warner Bros. Entertainment (wherein the heirs of Superman's co-creator Jerry Siegel are suing the entertainment giant for full rights to the character) wherein the studio had to produce a new film by 2013 or the film rights revert to the family. That, coupled with the Siegel's camp having one rights to all concepts in Action Comics #1 (i.e. the brunette Lois Lane, the strongman inspired costume, etc.), led to this new, more adult take; one meant to distance itself from the source material as judiciously as possible. As such, the film goes to great lengths to prove that this "is not your father's Superman": For example, he's presented as a shirtless sex object who is, as blatantly stated by one female character, "hot". Yet other changes take place that are inconsistent with the core character. For a character who ostensibly has a need to save people, he has no qualms about keeping battles between demigods within the confines of city limits (but then, where would the spectacle be if Superman led his adversaries into corn fields or over an isolated stretch of ocean). But one thing happens at the film's climax that does away with the notion that he is a "big blue boy scout." Let's just say the moment justifies the muted colors of the suit and the strum und drang of both the visuals and the score. Not that there isn't any precedent for this moment in the character's published history. The character did much the same in his earliest appearances and twice in relatively modern times (in one instance against the comic book iteration of Zod). The way the story develops, the ends do justify the means. It also brings home the themes of choice versus design. However, the "S" symbol is reimagined as a Kryptonian glyph signifying "hope", and even Jor-El states in a line cribbed from the comics that Kal-El: "You will give the people an ideal to strive towards. They will race behind you, they will stumble, they will fall. But in time, they will join you in the sun," which, coupled with a plot contrivance regarding the housing of genetic coding, lends an even greater messianic complex to Man of Steel (and if that isn't enough to convince you, Snyder provides two heavy handed images to bring that aspect home, including one practically cribbed from 2006's Superman Returns). Kal-El... Superman... is a beacon of hope, of aspiration, of striving to be better people with the gifts that we have either been bestowed or have developed. However, for Superman to engage in the act that takes place... it brings him, and what he represents, down... diminishes him in some way. Yes, he reacts appropriately in the aftermath, but it doesn't balance the baseness of it. Yet it was unexpected and, thus, achieved its purpose which was to let the audience know that Superman had arrived... and he meant business. However, in my opinion, it was at the character's expense. However, every generation deserves it's own iteration, and its heroes are reflective of the times in which the stories are told. Hence, for better or for worse, this iteration is a reflection of where our society now stands and the type of hero that it wants, if not needs. As a movie reviewer, I would say that Man of Steel is an ambitious, thrilling actioner deserving to be watched on the big screen, yet conversely and soullessly morose with sporadic moments of light characterization. In terms of presentation, it is epic in scale with visuals that many Superman fans (and non fans) had hoped to see realized on the big screen. It is a film that is worthy of repeated viewings for as much of its exploration of themes of choice, patriotism, identity (both national and personal) and bildungsroman as it is for entertainment value. As a Superman fan, however, it is not a movie I can recommend taking children to see and, moreover, (as pathetic as this may sound coming from an over 40-year-old male), a part of me died inside. Superman is dead. Long live Man of Steel. Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Paul_Anthony_Llossas

 

 

In my review regarding Iron Man 3, I opened with the following statement: "I have come to the conclusion that serious comic book aficionados should not watch live action adaptations of their beloved characters."
Man of Steel, directed by Zack Snyder (300, Watchmen, Sucker Punch), has only reinforced that assertion; and therein lies the rub. Is it a good, well made action film by today's standards? That is a resounding "yes". However, is it a good Superman film?

To echo Jonathan Kent (Kevin Costner): "Maybe."
The film follows Clark Kent/Kal-El of Krypton (Henry Cavill; The Tudors, Immortals) who was rocketed from the doomed planet Krypton (which has been reimagined seemingly through the eyes of Edgar Rice Burroughs and J.R.R. Tolkien) by his biological father, Jor-El (a very Gladiator-reminiscent Russell Crowe) to Earth where the orphan gains, if you'll excuse the decades-old statement, powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men. As he aimlessly travels the world in search for his place in it, a legion of exiled Kryptonians, led by the driven General Zod (Michael Shannon) have come in search for the orphan in order to restore the lost race. While the film follows much of the established foundation of the Superman legend, it makes a lot of interesting changes; some cosmetic, some fundamental, and not all for the better.

Note that I said this films follows "Clark Kent", not "Superman". Produced by Christopher Nolan and screenwritten by David S. Goyer (the team that produced the Batman Begins series of films), this film follows the conceit that the film's focus is not on the costumed identity but rather the man beneath (that sentiment being epitomized in the film's title). And, like those films, MoS tries to eschew comic book conventions even as it presents them in live action (For example, the title character is only referred to as "Superman" twice, in a single scene, in an almost throwaway, inconsequential fashion). Also of note is that this film falls more in the realm of science fiction than superheroic fantasy, its imagery and beats very reminiscent of Independence Day or Michael Bay's Transformers efforts.

It has often been said that the best science fiction is allegorical to real world events. If so, then Man of Steel paints a grim picture of both. The planet Krypton is doomed not by an indiscriminate chain reaction, but due to it's inhabitant's misuse of resources. The planet serves as microcosm for our current concerns regarding energy resources, global warming, and stem cell/cloning research, just to name a few. There is also an art deco montage of jingoistic expansionism that is disturbing, and this is the planet that the hero is from! The planet Earth is no better, to hear Clark's adopted father Jonathan tell it, filled with post 9-11 angst, mistrust and paranoia.

And what of Clark himself? For much of the film he is a powered up "Peter Parker"; a man with profound abilities who sees himself as a freak who must keep himself hidden even as his inner nature compels him to fly (pun intended) in the face of that anonymity to save lives. It is this conflict that is one of the many that evolve in MoS.

As Clark Kent (Superman), Henry Cavill fulfills the promise he showed in Immortals in filling out the Man of Steel's cape (if not his absent trunks). His Clark is a cypher for much of the film, as he should as it reflects his quest for identity. However, once the suit comes on, he unselfconsciously embodies much of Superman's traits, though not all of them as this is a still nascent, inexperienced Superman who is thrust into a literal trial by fire. However, except for one brief moment when he first takes flight, Superman takes no joy in his powers. To him, they are a burden even after he has found a way to express them. Where's the fun in being Superman? In having these gifts? This films seems to assert there is none. Special note should be made to actor Dylan Sprayberry, who portrays Clark as a teenager, for effectively bringing this point home by showing Clark's struggles as he trying to find his place while developing the powers of a demigod.

The other actors acquit themselves well: Russell Crowe practically steals the show as the most proactive, kick-ass Jor-El ever brought to live action, and also given more screen time than any other and makes the most of it. By contrast, Kevin Costner as Jonathan Kent looks like he'd rather be off filming another film, though he does give two of the most poignantly touching moments in the film. Arguably, given he's raising an otherworldly being in a paranoid culture, his overprotective dourness is completely understandable. Diane Lane is a serviceable Martha Kent but she neither adds to nor detracts from the film. Lawrence Fishburne plays Perry White with all of the gravitas and none of the caricature of the hard boiled newspaper editor. While he is given very little to do in this film, he makes the most of it. Since as of this writing the sequel to MoS has already been greenlit it will be interesting to see his interaction with Clark in future outings.

 As second-in-command of the Kryptonian armed forces, Antje Traue, as Faora-Ul is a sexy engine of destruction. Her scenes with Christopher Meloni, who plays a colonel with a distrust of all aliens, including Clark, especially crackle and come to a satisfying conclusion. The two most notable actors are Amy Adams and Michael Shannon as Lois Lane and General Zod, respectively. Her Lois is plucky, spunky, and courageous despite being fearfully out of her depth. In many ways, she provides what little heart the film has. She has a chemistry with Cavill but not as powerful as one might expect. Shannon plays Zod less as villain and more as a genetically programed fanatic. He plays Zod with as a character literally bred with single minded determination to preserve the Kryptonian race at all costs, even if it means genocide. His "nature" runs counterpoint to Clark's "nurture", as Clark was the first (and last) Kryptonian to be conceived by natural means and, thus, a with the power of choice.

Zack Snyder for once eschews his "slow mo" style of presenting action. Instead, "speed" is the name of the game here, even if it comes at the cost of character moments. The narrative flows relatively well between flashbacks and real time. However, the film's last act tries to outdo the climax of Marvel's The Avengers to the point that it becomes disaster porn to a disturbingly uncomfortable degree. By the time it's over, the victory seems pyrrhic. The percussion heavy, repetitive Hans Zimmer score only increases that sense of anxiety. It seemed as though he spent so much time trying to come out of John Williams' shadow that he developed the new theme to the exclusion of the rest of the score, which comes across as cutting room floor leavings from Inception and Backdraft.

In terms of action this film delivers. While a couple of CGI scenes are obvious and a couple of moments are inconsistent, this film delivers the type of smack down one would want to see in a Superman film. There are a couple of plot holes as well, a couple of which could lead the U.S. government right to the Kent farmhouse... if Lois Lane had not already done so herself... but for the most part the action sweeps one away from any of these considerations.

Perhaps I'm not the right person to write a review. I actually debated with myself as to whether or not to recuse myself from reviewing this film given, as anyone who knows me will extol, I am a Superman fan for as far as I can remember. Therefore, my observations and opinions will be called into question given my bias. Especially when taken in with one particular plot point at the movie's climax.

A lot of factors went into the production of this film, not the least of which is a Court's ruling in the case of Siegel v. Warner Bros. Entertainment (wherein the heirs of Superman's co-creator Jerry Siegel are suing the entertainment giant for full rights to the character) wherein the studio had to produce a new film by 2013 or the film rights revert to the family. That, coupled with the Siegel's camp having one rights to all concepts in Action Comics #1 (i.e. the brunette Lois Lane, the strongman inspired costume, etc.), led to this new, more adult take; one meant to distance itself from the source material as judiciously as possible. As such, the film goes to great lengths to prove that this "is not your father's Superman": For example, he's presented as a shirtless sex object who is, as blatantly stated by one female character, "hot". Yet other changes take place that are inconsistent with the core character. For a character who ostensibly has a need to save people, he has no qualms about keeping battles between demigods within the confines of city limits (but then, where would the spectacle be if Superman led his adversaries into corn fields or over an isolated stretch of ocean). But one thing happens at the film's climax that does away with the notion that he is a "big blue boy scout." Let's just say the moment justifies the muted colors of the suit and the strum und drang of both the visuals and the score. Not that there isn't any precedent for this moment in the character's published history. The character did much the same in his earliest appearances and twice in relatively modern times (in one instance against the comic book iteration of Zod). The way the story develops, the ends do justify the means. It also brings home the themes of choice versus design.

However, the "S" symbol is reimagined as a Kryptonian glyph signifying "hope", and even Jor-El states in a line cribbed from the comics that Kal-El: "You will give the people an ideal to strive towards. They will race behind you, they will stumble, they will fall. But in time, they will join you in the sun," which, coupled with a plot contrivance regarding the housing of genetic coding, lends an even greater messianic complex to Man of Steel (and if that isn't enough to convince you, Snyder provides two heavy handed images to bring that aspect home, including one practically cribbed from 2006's Superman Returns). Kal-El... Superman... is a beacon of hope, of aspiration, of striving to be better people with the gifts that we have either been bestowed or have developed. However, for Superman to engage in the act that takes place... it brings him, and what he represents, down... diminishes him in some way. Yes, he reacts appropriately in the aftermath, but it doesn't balance the baseness of it. Yet it was unexpected and, thus, achieved its purpose which was to let the audience know that Superman had arrived... and he meant business. However, in my opinion, it was at the character's expense. However, every generation deserves it's own iteration, and its heroes are reflective of the times in which the stories are told. Hence, for better or for worse, this iteration is a reflection of where our society now stands and the type of hero that it wants, if not needs.

As a movie reviewer, I would say that Man of Steel is an ambitious, thrilling actioner deserving to be watched on the big screen, yet conversely and soullessly morose with sporadic moments of light characterization. In terms of presentation, it is epic in scale with visuals that many Superman fans (and non fans) had hoped to see realized on the big screen. It is a film that is worthy of repeated viewings for as much of its exploration of themes of choice, patriotism, identity (both national and personal) and bildungsroman as it is for entertainment value.

As a Superman fan, however, it is not a movie I can recommend taking children to see and, moreover, (as pathetic as this may sound coming from an over 40-year-old male), a part of me died inside.
Superman is dead. Long live Man of Steel.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Paul_Anthony_Llossas