Carrie (1976) and Carrie (2013)

          Essential plot rundown:  Bullied high schooler Carrie discovers she has supernatural power and fights back.  I've been waiting to see this movie for a long time because I'm a fan of Chloë Grace Moretz.  And I barely watched the original with Sissy Spacek for the first time the other week.

          I'm fairly open-minded when it comes to remakes, but I feel that the new Carrie is unnecessary.  I like remakes that change and reinterpret the original.  However, the new one does not do that.  It is essentially the same movie.  It even has a lot of the same dialogue, which I assume came from the book.  The only real difference is that the new one has less nudity and more special effects.  I feel if you're going to remake something, make it your own, don't photocopy the original.

          With that said, I liked both movies.  (But I would say that I liked the original better).  I wasn't too impressed by them, but I can see why the original is a classic.  My problem with the story is that there is no real character arcs in either film.  The characters are the same at the end of the movie as they were in the beginning.  While I was watching the '76 version, it reminded me of a joke and that we're just waiting for the punchline.  There's no real change in story, character or anything.  Carrie could just be the first act of a three act film.

          One of the reasons that I think the original is better is because of Sissy Spacek.  She was perfect for the role.  She's kind of creepy looking; she's also small and weak.  She's totally the type of person that would be bullied in high school.  And her being weak makes the climax that much better.  Chloë, on the other hand, is not that.  She's really pretty and doesn't look like an outcast.  And she's a lot stronger person that Sissy.  I've really only seen Chloë in Kick-Ass and Let Me In and she plays strong characters in both of these; so it was hard for me to imagine her taking crap from people.  Don't get me wrong, she did a good job; she was just miscast.

          And I felt that in the original, Carrie and Tommy had way better chemistry than they do in the remake.  When they were at prom, I thought Wow, he's really enjoying himself with Carrie.  What a nice guy.  I didn't get that at all in the remake.

          The climax starts off better in the original, but ends better in the 2013 remake.  It was so creepy/terrifying to see Sissy Spacek wide-eyed, closing all the doors; the split screen was effective.  But, fire hoses aren't that scary.  The remake was better because of the advanced SFX; Carrie really was able to display her telekinetic powers.

          So, overall, both are decent films, but I think I liked the original a little better.  The remake isn't bad, it just doesn't bring anything new to the table; so, to quote Col. Stars and Stripes:  "What's the point?"  Oh, I also liked the original ending better.

     But that's just my opinion...

Nobody's Business (1996)

          Essential plot rundown:  Filmmaker, Alan Berliner, tries to find out more about his family history by interviewing his father.  I had to watch this for a documentary class I'm taking.  And I don't write a lot about the movies I watch in class so I thought I'd do this one.

          I have mixed feelings about this film.  I liked some parts and disliked others.  First of all, I liked the style.  Alan takes the audio from the interview with his father and plays it with archival footage, home movies, b-roll and photographs.  Other than making for a visually interesting film, I think that the video grounded the interview in reality.  It made Alan's father, Oscar, and the people he was talking about real and not just some person from a story.  He also adds a lot of sound effects that add to the style.

          However, after a while, the style starts to get boring and repetitive.  The film is only an hour long, but he uses the same sounds and footage over and over again.  I think it would have worked a lot better if the film had only been 20 minutes long or so.

          I also felt like Alan was trying to manipulate me.  Because we actually see very little of the interview, I felt like he was editing sound bites together out of context.  Without a visual cue, audio can be edited together to make the speaker say anything the editor wants.  And I felt like this was happening.  I'm sure an audio professional could listen to it and hear if there were changes in the audio that would indicate that they were taken out of context, but I can't.  But I sensed that they were.

          And the interaction between Alan and Oscar felt off to me too.  They seemed to be getting mad at each other for no real reason other than to spice up the interview.  Alan seemed like he was provoking his father into getting excited.  I don't know, that might as well be how they really interact (and it probably is) but it seemed like to was a little staged and unnatural.

          But, overall, it's a decent documentary.  It was interesting to learn about Oscar and I could relate to him.  I liked the style but it eventually became redundant.  It's worth watching, but not a must see.

     But that's just my opinion...

Prisoners (2013)

          Essential plot rundown:  Two little girls are kidnapped, so their fathers go after the kidnapper.  When I first saw this trailer, I thought it looked amazing.  It looked like it would be emotional and hard to watch.  I was expecting a powerful film.  However, what I actually got was a little bored.  Prisoners wasn't a bad film, it just wasn't that good either.  And that is the biggest problem with the film: it had lots of potential but didn't deliver.

          Let's start with the plot.  The story itself was really good.  It tackles an interesting subject and asks some hard questions.  But, something was lost in the transition from page to film.  The script could have been a little tighter; it's a 2 and 1/2 hour long movie and there were times when I felt bored.  So quickening the pace would have helped.  Some of the dialogue was awkward and there were some small plot-hole things; but those are inconsequential.

          The biggest problem, I felt, was the lack of character development.  The girls are literally kidnapped in the first five minutes of the movie, so I never got the chance to get to know them or their family.  They were strangers to me.  It's like seeing those missing child posters and feeling bad because they are missing, but you don't get emotional over them because you don't know who they are.  If they would have pushed the kidnapping back further into the movie and given us time to get to know the characters, see the parents interact with their kids, it would have been an a lot more effective film.  But, I didn't really care about the girls nor their parents.  Intellectually I understood why Wolverine was doing what he was doing but I wasn't invested emotionally.

          And I didn't think the acting was too great either.  Hugh Jackman has the most screen time.  And while not bad, he did seem to over act at times.  I like Terrence Howard as an actor, but he doesn't do much here.  But that's because he isn't given much to do.  I wanted to see more of him.  But the worst was Jake Gyllenhaal.  I didn't like him at all.  He just seemed weird and I never knew what he was feeling.  And what was up with the old lady makeup?  They couldn't just cast an older actress?  That was kind of distracting.

          But, overall it's a decent film.  Not anything to rush out and see; but it's also not a waste of time watching.  It had a lot of potential with a strong story, but it fails to deliver.

     But that's just my opinion...

Insidious (2010) and Insidious: Chapter 2 (2013)

          Essential plot rundown: A family is being haunted.  I never saw the original before, but I kept hearing how scary it was.  So, when I saw that it was screening before the sequel, I took advantage and saw them both in the theatre.

          And I'm glad I did.  Insidious was terrifying.  It's been a while since I've seen a movie that gave me goosebumps and I had never seen a movie that made me want to cover me eyes.  It was that scary.  A lot of the scares are jump scares (which I'm not a big fan of) but the filmmakers use them effectively.  And there are some atmospheric chills as well, so that was a plus.

          And the story was good too.  I thought it was interesting how they explained the whole haunting scenario.  And it resonated with what I personally believe.  I thought the actors were believable.  Overall, it was a really well made, effective movie.

          But there are some parts when the film shows too much of the ghosts; which I always find cheapens the mood.  Showing too much takes away from our imagination, which is scarier than anything on screen.  And that was really my only complaint.

          There is also a part in the first one that may or may not have been a homage to William Castle's 13 Ghosts.  That scene dreadfully made me want to cover my face.

          Insidious: Chapter 2 virtually takes place right after the first one.  And this one was different from its predecessor.  The sequel is a natural evolution from how the first ended.  And because it continues the story instead of trying to rehash the first, it has a different feel to it.  It wasn't as scary, but it was funnier.  The story was also a little more complicated, which I think worked against it.  

          There are some flashback scenes, so they have other actors playing younger versions of some of the characters.  And they worked great.  Sometimes when they have a different actor playing a younger version of a character, it seems weird.  But the actresses chosen looked and acted like the older characters.  I totally bought that they were suppose to be the same people.

          And there are some parts when the filmmakers combine traditional cinematography with the found footage style.  I found it distracting.

          Overall, they are effective films.  The first one is truly spine tingling.  I thought I was going to die.  Insidious: Chapter 2 is a scary film, but not on the same level as the first.  But they are both worth watching.

     But that's just my opinion...

Blackfish (2013)

          Essential plot rundown:  This documentary looks at how a captive whale, Tilikum, had killed 3 people specifically and at captive orcas in general.  I never heard of this movie until Magnolia Pictures started blasting their Facebook page with it.  So naturally, I checked it out, thought it looked good, and drove a half hour to go see it.

          This is a pretty interesting documentary, but not without it's problems.  The orca footage is pretty cool.  They are such majestic creatures that it's hard not to be in awe of them, especially on the big screen.  And video of the whale attackings is horrifying.  It doesn't show anything graphic, but it is still pretty intense because you know those whales can kill those people without hesitation.  The filmmakers also do an effective job humanizing the captive animals.  It is quite sad watching a calf being separated from its mother.  And that's actually all I have to say about the good stuff.

          And now to the bad.  The biggest and most obvious is that this documentary is pretty one-sided: SeaWorld is bad.  They interview a lot of former SeaWorld trainers which is good; but they only have one person who is pro-marine parks.  It did say that SeaWord refused to be interviewed, but they could have found some more pro-SeaWord people to talk with to make for a more balanced discussion.  But you know going in that this type of movie has an agenda.

          The only other complaint was that, as times, I was a little disorientated. They start talking about one incident, then move to another one without much of an indication.  Sometimes I was confused on which whale was attacking who and I never knew when the attacks occurred.  Also, there are times where there were too many interviews and not enough killer whale footage.

          But overall, it is a pretty good documentary.  A little one-sided (ok, a lot one-sided), kind of slow in some parts, but when it gets intense, it's intense.  I'd recommend it to anyone, whether they're pro- or anti- SeaWorld.

     But that's just my opinion...

Kick Ass 2 (2013)

          Essential plot rundown:  Chris D'Amico seeks revenge for what happened to his father while Kick-Ass and Hit Girl try to balance being a superhero with their daily lives.  I really liked the first one, so obviously I had to see the sequel.

          This was a great film.  I was pretty much pleased with most everything. However, I have only seen Kick-Ass once, so I can't really compare the films in their style, seeing as they are directed by two different people.  There seemed to be some disconnects between the two films.  But, that could just be because I'm remembering the first one wrong.  And Todd, who is in the first film, is played by another actor here.  So, that threw me off.

          I thought all of the characters were interesting.  I liked the group that Kick-Ass joins with.  I thought they all gave solid performances.  And their reasons for wanting to fight crime made them all realistic and relatable.  But, by far the best was Col. Stars and Stripes, played by an almost unrecognizable Jim Carrey.  I really liked his character and what he was doing and wanted to get to know him more.  While he does have a decent amount of screen time, it wasn't enough.  I wanted to see more of him.  I was surprised to also like John Leguizamo's character.  I wasn't expecting much from him.  Though, in all fairness, I only know him from Super Mario Bros, Spawn and the trailer for The Pest.  Basically, I liked all of the characters.

          As far as the plot goes, it is good.  It was intriguing to see how both Kick-Ass and Hit Girl try to deal with being superheroes.  The only problem I had was when Hit Girl makes a promise to Marcus and then devotedly follows it.  It is in complete violation of a promise she had previously made to her father, Big Daddy.  And when Kick Ass confronts her about this decision, she says that she never breaks an oath.  But you just did by making that one to Marcus.  It seemed off to me.

          There were really only two other things that bothered me.  One was a scene where these people begin projectile vomiting and pooping themselves.  It was too over-the-top and comical; it felt out of place in the movie and didn't really add anything.  The other thing was that at the end of a very dramatic scene, someone would say something funny/stupid and would totally ruin the mood.  This happened a couple of times and was annoying.

          But the best part of Kick-Ass 2 was the emotions it evoked; and it was able to do that because of the compelling plot and relatable characters.  I cried multiple times throughout the movie.  Sometimes I could feel the passion the characters had in what they were doing and found it very motivational; and it moved me to tears.  Other times I was just afraid that someone would die or they did die that I cried because I was sad.  For me, one of the signs of a great film is its ability to elicit emotion in the audience, whether it be happiness, fear, apprehension or sorrow.  If I'm feeling something, the movie is doing it's job.  (Though, not all great films have to do this).  And Kick-Ass 2 was able to make me cry.  So props to the filmmakers.

          So, overall, Kick-Ass 2 was a great film.  I want to go see it again, now. It had relatable/likable characters with a persuasive storyline.  It would be interesting to see if they make a third, but I think they could end perfectly with the second one.

     But that's just my opinion...

     *author's edit (19 August 2013)

          I've been thinking a lot about the movie ever since I saw it.  And my thoughts keep returning to a pair of scenes involving Kick-Ass and his did.  In the first scene they get in an argument.  And as I was watching it, I totally sided with Kick-Ass.  I agreed with his motives.  I understood and rooted for him.  However, a few things happen and they later confront each other again, finishing the argument.  But this time I totally sided with his dad; I sympathized with him.  His motives for doing what he did made sense.  As I watched this argument span these two scenes, I could see a little of myself and my dad in the characters (though, not nearly as extreme).  They were very relatable.  I loved these scenes; I found them effective and moving.  Whenever I thought about them, I kept getting choked up, which is why I wanted to write about them.  They were great story telling.

Elysium (2013)

          Essential plot rundown:  A poor guy from earth must fight his way to the rich space station above to save his life.  This is from the same writer/director of District 9, which I thought was really good, so I had to go see it.  And I had nothing else going on today.

          I really liked Elysium.  However, I do have to say that it started off a little rocky, but was rolling smoothly by the time it was over.  The biggest problem for me was how some of the characters were introduced; it felt too rushed.  The audience is blatantly told that the villain is bad, instead of being shown he is bad.  And when Matt Damon's buddy is introduced, I just thought he was just some random guy.  But it turns out that he is kind of a big shot; I didn't get any of that when he was first introduced.  (And on a similar note, the story that the little girl tells Matt feels shoehorned in there and rushed.)

          But those were really they only complaints I had.  I thought Neill Blomkamp did a good job building worlds; this was a believable and realistic (as realistic as a futuristic sci-fi flick will be) environment.  I believed and felt for the poor living on desolated Earth and I believed that a space station exclusively for the rich existed.

          Speaking of believability, the SFX were amazing.  The spaceships look real, the robots looked like real characters.  Everything was seamlessly put together.  It all looked great.  (Interestingly enough, the director graduated from film school with an emphasis in animation and visual effects.)

          Actually, I did have another complaints: some of the accents.  I found Kruger's accent distracting (yes, I know he's from South Africa).  And I had a hard time understanding Spider at times.  So I was a little confused on occasion when I missed some expository dialogue.  However, I liked Jodie Foster's accents and felt it added a little to the character.

          Right before I wrote this, I was looking through the message boards on IMDB.  And most of them were political debates.  Yes, this movie does have a moral; but I when I saw it, I didn't see the 1% vs the 99% or Wall Street vs Main Street.  I saw it on a personal level.  And I personally liked it.  But there is much a heated debate on those message boards.

          Overall, I really liked it.  There were a few things that bothered me and a couple of plot-holes.  But it is entertaining and it does give you something to think about.  Also, Neill must like blowing people up because in Elysium and District 9 that happens a lot.

     But that's just my opinion...

Star Trek: The Original Cast

          So, ever since they rebooted the Star Trek franchise, I've been wanting to watch the original movies.  I'm not a trekkie, but I grew up watching The Next Generation and Voyager, but I had never seen anything with the original cast.  So during the last few weeks, I went through them and watched them all.  Here are my brief thoughts.

Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979)

          The beginning of this movie feels abrupt.  Kirk no longer is captain and all of his crew are scattered about.  I felt like that I missed something for not having watched the last few episodes of the series; but my brother told me that there is no connection.

          The first half was boring, but once they reach V'ger, it got pretty interesting.  I really liked the ending.  It was the ending that made the film for me.  It it had ended in a different way, it merely would have been a "meh" movie and not a "that was really good" movie.

The Wrath of Khan (1982)

          This one is held to be the best of the series; but I was disappointed.  I liked it, but it wasn't the best.  I did like the fact that they used one of the TV episodes as a launching pad for this movie.  But I never felt like Khan was a threat.  He's suppose to be a superior being but he spends the whole movie being outsmarted by Kirk.  Khan was lucky that he had those brain control slugs for those were the only things that gave him an upper hand.

The Search for Spock (1984)

          This was the worst of the lot.  I don't remember anything about it other than I liked seeing Bones act like Spock and Christopher LLoyd in black face is far funnier than it is menacing.

The Voyage Home (1986)

          This was probably the funniest of the series; but there was way too much tree hugging and not enough star trekking.  The plot was kind of dumb and didn't really fit in the series very well.  It started out promising with the Klingons after Kirk, but then it took a left turn.  This movie was lucky I thought it was pretty funny.

The Final Frontier (1989)

          I like movies like this one; movies that combine space and religion (e.g. Prometheus and Contact).  And while I liked the concept of the ending, it was kind of cheesy due to bad special effects.  I just really like the quest they went on, to go where no man has gone before.

The Undiscovered Country (1991)

          For overall entertainment value, I would say that this was the best one. I was invested in it, waiting to see who dunnit and how.  While it didn't deal with the same topics that I really liked from The Motion Picture and The Final Frontier, I would probably say it was my favorite.

          So, overall it is a pretty good series.  I wonder how different my experience would have been if I had seen the original series first.  But I did really like Bones.  Now I want to check out some of DeForest Kelley's other work.

     But that's just my opinion...

Man of Steel (2013)

          Essential plot rundown: Superman tries to keep his existence a secret until Gen. Zod comes looking for him.  I had never seen a Superman movie before this, but I never really have been a fan of Superman either; he's too powerful with too many powers.  But, this movie looked pretty awesome.  Unfortunately, it wasn't awesome; good, but not awesome.

          My biggest problem with the movie is its non-linear story telling for most of the movie.  The movie uses a lot of flashbacks, jumping from Clark Kent doing one job to him as a child.  Then it cuts to Krypton and then back to Clark working somewhere else. Not that that is bad in and of itself, it just doesn't work in this type of film.  The film jumped around too much which made it hard me for to connect with and care for the characters.  I didn't really feel that there was any character development.  I never felt what the characters were going through.  And because of this, I wasn't invested in the film, which made it good instead of awesome.

          Visually the film is pretty sweet.  I liked all of the production design.  The costumes looked cool, the vehicles and technology were interesting.  Everything looked great (I just didn't care for the characters).  Speaking of looks and characters, I thought Henry Cavill looked the part of Superman.  When I looked at him, I saw Superman.  But, I didn't think he acted the part very well; something was lacking.

          And the ending sequence lasted too long.  There were a lot of people fighting and things getting destroyed way before the final showdown between Superman and Zod.  So by the time they finally confronted each other, the whole novelty of watching things being annihilated was beginning to wear off.

          While I liked it, Man of Steel wasn't as good as I was expecting.  But, it did make me want to watch the original movies with Christopher Reeve, which is always a good thing for a remake/reboot to do.  But it'll have to wait while I watch the Star Trek films because Star Trek Into Darkness did the same thing.

     But that's just my opinion...

The Purge (2013)

          Essential plot rundown:  In the not too distant future, all crime is legal for 12 hours out of the year and during this time, one family gets some unexpected company.

          So the trailer for this movie looked terrifying.  I was sure it was going to be the scariest movie I've seen in a long time; but it wasn't.  It still was really good, just not that scary.  The movie starts off promising, building lots of tension.  But, once the intruders got into the house, it lost all of its intensity.  I was more nervous and scared before the intruders got in than afterwards.  It's still a good movie after they break in, just not very scary.

          And the kids were stupid.  Why would you run away and leave your parents?

          While the movie itself was pretty good, the best thing about it was the concept.  As a way to "purge" ourselves, everything is legal for 12 hours.  This idea opens up for a wide range of stories.  I think it would be interesting to see somebody seek revenge during a purge for something that happened to a loved one in the previous purge.  It would also be interesting to see people acting as vigilantes, protecting those who can't defend themselves.  There are a lot of possible stories for future movies.  I wonder if this will become a franchise.  They could even have future installments be anthologies, with 3 or 4 segments about different situations.

          Another good thing about this movie was that it really made me think.  I was putting myself in their situation trying to see what I would do.  And I couldn't come up with an answer.  A lot of times with movie you think Well, if I was so-and-so, I would just do this...  But with The Purge, I had nothing.  I couldn't think of any moral decision; I had no idea what I would do.  But, the family ends up choosing pretty well I thought.

          As I was talking about this with my friend on our way home from the theater, we got onto the topic of violence in the media.  We discussed whether consuming violent movies/games makes one more violent or if it acted as a catharsis.  Which made me see The Purge as a metaphor for cathartic violence.  In The Purge, people have 12 hours to do what they want.  By having this freedom, it decreases the amount of crime the rest of the year.  Similarly, watching a violent movie purges you of your violent tendencies, decreasing the possibility of you acting violently in real life.  But that is just how I interpreted it.

          Overall, I really liked it.  It did run out of steam by the end but it still works.  I would really like to see other movies that take place during the 12 hour purge.  Could make for a compelling franchise.

     But that's just my opinion...

Iron Man 3 (2013)

          Essential plot rundown:  Iron Man takes all of my money again.  This is the first Marvel movie to come out since The Avengers and it will be interesting to see where they take things.  And this movie review is full of spoilers.

          And considering this takes place in a post Avengers world, I didn't feel there was a strong enough connection between the two.  There are a few references to the events; but it mostly consists of Tony Stark not being able to sleep and having a panic attack whenever somebody asks him about New York.  I was expecting something stronger, something that would tie in with the plot of Iron Man 3; but no.  But, before I started writing this, I read a few reviews and they better explained the connections.  They explained that War Machine being changed to Iron Patriot was a response to Captain America and superheroes (not the government) saving the world and how his perspective of what really matters changed after what happened in The Avengers.  These things are hinted and while I didn't pick these up during the movie, now knowing them makes me like the movie a little better.

          But my two biggest complaints were about the plot.  The movie starts off with an obvious set-up for a revenge flick:  Tony Stark disses some loser, said loser becomes cool and powerful, he then seeks revenge on Tony.  Lame and unoriginal.  (Though, most movies are unoriginal; but they could've done better than  that).  It just didn't work for me.  (Now that I think about, the plot for Iron Man 2 also was a revenge one, but that worked).  I didn't feel it was a strong enough motive for the villain.

          And I didn't like what they did with the Mandarin.  I'm not comic book fan; nor did I know who the Mandarin was before this movie came out.  But I did not like how they made him a phony.  I imagine that some people would feel the same way about this as they did about Bane in TDKR.  They make him appear all awesome and badass, but it turns out he's just a drunk actor?  That's lame and really disappointing.  I could see how that could work, but not in Iron Man 3.  It is an interesting concept and would be cool to see, but don't do it in a superhero movie.  I really wanted to see Iron Man face the Mandarin.

          The rest of the things are just mild complaints.  I didn't like how they changed Pepper into the fire thing only to change her back two seconds later.  If you're going to kill her, kill her.  If you are going to changer her, change her.  But don't do a "just kidding, she's not really dead" and immediately follow it with a "just kidding again, she's not going to be a fire thing."  Just pick one and go with it.  Have Iron Patriot save her or something.

          But, one of my favorite parts of the movie involved Pepper.  That was when Tony's house gets blown up and he activates his armor.  You think it is going to him, but instead it attaches to Pepper and saves her.  I thought that moment was moving and revealing of Tony's character.  And was a cool moment.

          At first, I thought the part with all of the Iron Man suits was kind of corny.  I saw that in the trailer and was dreading it.  It was a little silly at first, but then you get caught up in the excitement of the scene and go with it.  And it was cool to see some new technology that Tony had created.

          And what is up with the extreme fire guys?  How come some die by a single gun shot, whereas others get shot multiple times without stopping?  And how is it that some of them get killed by a laser gun but others have to be blown up multiple times before they are stopped.  And is he breathing fire?

          And why didn't Tony remove the shards in his heart in the first movie, after he got out of the cave?  He had access to a hospital then

          But overall it was a really good movie.  The action was great.  The acting was good.  I really liked Ben Kingsley.  It was also really funny.  It had a kid in it that wasn't annoying.  I might have to say I may have liked this one better than the first.  It is a close call...

     But that's just my opinion...

Les Misérables (2012)

          Essential plot rundown:  Wolverine and Catwoman sing in France.  So this was based on a musical that was based on a book that was based on a Saturday morning cartoon.  I went in with high hopes for this movie, but I left disappointed and bored.

          Les Misérables probably has to be the biggest let down I've seen in a while.  It was nominated/won some things and I've only heard good things about it.  But, halfway through the movie I was bored and wondering when it was going to be over.

          I think the biggest problem was that I didn't connect with any of the characters.  I didn't feel for them or care for them.  I think that that may have been because there is no dialogue; it is all musical numbers.  And I have a hard time understand people when they sing, so I didn't know what they were singing about.  Maybe if they had speaking lines like most musicals do, I may have connected better with them.

          And speaking of the musicals, I though they were kind of meh.  None of them were memorable; none of them stood out.  The songs weren't bad, they just weren't particular good.  But I though all of the actors did a good job singing.  Crowe's singing took a little to get used to, but it was good.  And I thought the little kids did really good as well, not only with their singing but with their acting too.  I thought they both were really good all around.

          I also felt that Sacha Baron Cohen's and Helena Bonham Carter's characters were distracting.  I know they were suppose to be comic relief or whatever, but it didn't work for me.  Whenever they were on screen it took me out of the movie.  I have a hard time taking Sacha Baron Cohen seriously.  (I also didn't like him in Hugo).

          And the love story felt extremely forced.  Cosette and Marius falling in love after only seeing each other from a distance?  Give me a break.  They only talked to each other for like five minutes.  I felt Éponine's love was more genuine.

          And why didn't people move farther away?  People are always constantly moving, trying not to get caught, but they only move like four blocks away.  If they really wanted to escape why don't they move to a different country?

          But it wasn't all bad.  Like I said, I liked most of the actors.  And I thought the cinematography was really good.  I liked the close-ups with the shallow depth of field.  And I liked how things were composed.  It was a good looking film.

          But, overall, it was an ok movie.  I didn't care for what was happening on screen, but it sure did look good.  Would it be weird to say that I was more moved by Source Code than this?

     But that's just my opinion...

G.I. Joes: Retaliation (2013)

Finally, Cobra Commander looks cool.

          Essential plot rundown:  The GI Joes must stop Cobra from conquering the world in this rebootish sequel.  So this movie was suppose to come out about a year ago, but they decided to delay it to add more Magic Mike and 3D.  Who would have thought that Channing Tatum would have become such a hot item between these two movies?

          So, the question on everyone's mind is: is this better than the first?  Yes, yes it is.  It is a completely different movie.  The tone is a lot better; it is more actiony and less cartoony than its predecessor.  It felt more like a GI Joes movie.  The nature of the team itself has completely changed.  Instead of a huge international organization with a silly underground headquarters, the Joes are portrayed as a covert group, more like the SEALS or something.  There are only a handful of returning characters.  (Wait, Stormshadow is alive?)  And the only real connection, story-wise, to the first is Cobra Commander is being held captive and Zartan is the president.  Pretty much everything else has been wiped clean.

          And while that sounds all good and dandy, GI Joes: Retaliation isn't perfect.  (Surprising, I know).  One thing that seemed odd to me was that Cobra had their logo on everything!  Briefcases, motorcycles, satellites, pins, everywhere.  It just seemed a little conspicuous, considering that Cobra is a terrorist organization.

          And there was too much ninja stuff going on.  Snake-Eyes is out on his own, doing ninja stuff and everytime it would cut back to him, it took me out of the movie.  All of those scenes didn't really mesh well with the rest of the movie.  He should have just stayed with the Joes and those scenes scrapped.  And they screwed up Stormshadow.  They reveal some stuff about his backstory which weakens his character, doesn't add anything to the movie and, frankly, doesn't make any sense.  So, that was lame.

          I also wanted more.  The whole time I was thinking, I want more Bruce Willis. I want more Cobra Commander.  I want more Firefly.  I want more cool vehicles and stuff.  I really enjoyed the movie, but it left me wanting more, and not in the good way.  At the moment, I'm not excited for an another sequel; I just wanted more in this one.

          But, overall, it was a fun movie.  There was some cool stuff and ideas.  I really liked the scene where the president meets with the other world leaders.  So, yea, check it out if you want.

     But that's just my opinion...